Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Luas Development

1…6781012

Comments

  • #272
    weehamster
    Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭weehamster


    And what about the Green Line eventually heading to Finglas. Should this area be left out in the cold.
    Finglas was marked for the original metro proposal by the platform for change. They were then left out altogether in the T21 plan and the metro was shifted to Ballymun instead.


  • #273
    KC61
    Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Its not about green line or red line passengers wanting to transfer. Its about a green line passenger that wants to go north of the liffey. How about a red line passenger that wants to go southside? Spending close to 800 million on two tram lines that aren't linked and terminate in seperate parts of the city is an international joke. There is no excusing it. Its not acceptable. And once again we talk about shuttle buses as if they are the solution to badly planned public transport projects. A real sticky plaster approach.

    You can salivate at the thoughts of a DART tunnel and Metro all you want, but the chances are that due to a real lack of finance, Dublin will be left with a disjointed mess and cobweb covered posters for Transport 21. If you are going to do something, you do it right first time out. Then move on to the next project. When the money runs out then at the very least you have projects that were built to the highest and most effective standards.

    In Ireland we planned public transport in the same manner that developers borrowed from banks and banks loaned to developers - carelessly, wrecklessly and in the naieve belief that the money was going to flow forever. The mismanagement of public transport implementation is an utterly shameful act.

    I agree with the basic point that you make which is that they should have been joined in the first place, but political interference put pay to that.

    However, if the question is what should happen now, I would suggest that if Metro North does get the go-ahead that the LUAS extension should be canned.

    Given the state of our finances, building both is a nonsense.


  • #274
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    mackerski wrote: »
    Such interchanges will be catered for by the metro.

    Really? Oh my god, I didn't know that. Yippee! Metro north is the panacea.:rolleyes:


  • #275
    mackerski
    Registered Users Posts: 2,276 ✭✭✭mackerski


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Really? Oh my god, I didn't know that. Yippee! Metro north is the panacea.:rolleyes:

    I couldn't care less whether you knew it or not. You're claiming that having disconnected tram lines is unacceptable, and your reasoning seems to be be that connecting the lines would be useful for facilitating particular passenger movements that will also be well served by metro. And up to this point you're correct.

    But I claim that it would be stupid to have two costly rail links serving this same tiny piece of city-centre routing - and you will benefit a sod of a lot more passengers by building the metro instead of the tram link.


  • #276
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    You just cant deny though that it was ludicrous to build them seperately. The original plan was to have them connect and IIRC go to the Airport. The latter part will be served by MN now, but why they couldnt have just built the linkup from day one is staggering. How stupid could they have been? Didnt anyone ever say "Hang on it'll be a lot easier and a lot more useful if we link them from day 1"


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    You just cant deny though that it was ludicrous to build them seperately. The original plan was to have them connect and IIRC go to the Airport. The latter part will be served by MN now, but why they couldnt have just built the linkup from day one is staggering. How stupid could they have been? Didnt anyone ever say "Hang on it'll be a lot easier and a lot more useful if we link them from day 1"

    Because we are allergic to building two things here: skyscrapers and underground rail lines. Unprecedented economic prosperity for 15+ years and not an inch of either. Of course MN/Green Line should be one line. But then again, all the luas sections inside the canals should've been tunnelled. We went for the cheap solution and now that is showing itself for what it is. Unwieldy and practically unfixable. So the cycle of "building around the problem" continues ad infinitum...


  • #278
    KC61
    Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    You just cant deny though that it was ludicrous to build them seperately. The original plan was to have them connect and IIRC go to the Airport. The latter part will be served by MN now, but why they couldnt have just built the linkup from day one is staggering. How stupid could they have been? Didnt anyone ever say "Hang on it'll be a lot easier and a lot more useful if we link them from day 1"

    Well the Minister for Transport who made that decision is the same TD who by intervening with the Chairman of CIE and prevented a late evening service to Mullingar by insisting that the 1734 Bray-Longford continue to Longford despite only a handful of people using it.

    While she made some good decisions, those two certainly were not!!!


  • #279
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    You just cant deny though that it was ludicrous to build them seperately. The original plan was to have them connect and IIRC go to the Airport. The latter part will be served by MN now, but why they couldnt have just built the linkup from day one is staggering. How stupid could they have been? Didnt anyone ever say "Hang on it'll be a lot easier and a lot more useful if we link them from day 1"

    And the point I made earlier means that if MN isn't built due to recession then we get nothing. We are currently relying on a multi billion euro project (in a dire straits economic situation) to plug a gap that could have been plugged years ago for a fraction of the cost.


  • #280
    sliabh
    Registered Users Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭sliabh


    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    You just cant deny though that it was ludicrous to build them seperately. The original plan was to have them connect and IIRC go to the Airport. The latter part will be served by MN now, but why they couldnt have just built the linkup from day one is staggering. How stupid could they have been? Didnt anyone ever say "Hang on it'll be a lot easier and a lot more useful if we link them from day 1"

    Nearly right. Under the original plan the Green line was to be the Southern leg of the metro. It is/was to go underground after crossing the Grand Canal and then continue north (as what will now be the Metro) to the airport and Swords.

    Mary O'Rourke was the Minister of Transport at the time and she didn't have the bottle to push for the money for northern section to be built. But the Green line was built to be easily upgraded to metro when the time came. The track gauge is wider, the electrical infrastructure can support the higher loads for metro carriages, etc.

    There never was any plan or intention to connect the Red and Green lines for this reason. The Red line is a traditional tram system, whereas the Green line is a metro in waiting.

    What we really need to be talking about then is the project that will come when the metro north is done - linking it to an upgraded Green line.


  • #281
    highdef
    Registered Users Posts: 6,136 ✭✭✭highdef


    The track gauge is the same as the red line @ 4' 8 1/2" - The same as the UK and a lot other countries but different to all other rail in Ireland at 5' 3" - The same as the US and a few other countries - hence the reason why we have a fleet of American/Canadian locomotives


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    KC61
    Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    sliabh wrote: »
    There never was any plan or intention to connect the Red and Green lines for this reason. The Red line is a traditional tram system, whereas the Green line is a metro in waiting.


    Not quite right. The original plan was to link the two lines - I have the full EIS here to prove it!!!!

    Mary O'Rourke canned the city centre section after Dublin City Business Groups started crying foul in much the same way as they did when the bus gate was proposed.

    Her compromise was to insist that the Green Line be built to Metro standards.


  • #283
    sliabh
    Registered Users Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭sliabh


    highdef wrote: »
    The track gauge is the same as the red line @ 4' 8 1/2" - The same as the UK and a lot other countries but different to all other rail in Ireland at 5' 3" - The same as the US and a few other countries - hence the reason why we have a fleet of American/Canadian locomotives
    Woops, sorry, I meant the distance between track centres. I can never remember what that is called.


  • #284
    armada104
    Closed Accounts Posts: 139 ✭✭armada104


    highdef wrote: »
    ...Ireland at 5' 3" - The same as the US and a few other countries - hence the reason why we have a fleet of American/Canadian locomotives

    According to Wikipedia, it's pretty rarely used, and not in the US.


  • #285
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    sliabh wrote: »
    Nearly right. Under the original plan the Green line was to be the Southern leg of the metro. It is/was to go underground after crossing the Grand Canal and then continue north (as what will now be the Metro) to the airport and Swords.

    Mary O'Rourke was the Minister of Transport at the time and she didn't have the bottle to push for the money for northern section to be built. But the Green line was built to be easily upgraded to metro when the time came. The track gauge is wider, the electrical infrastructure can support the higher loads for metro carriages, etc.

    There never was any plan or intention to connect the Red and Green lines for this reason. The Red line is a traditional tram system, whereas the Green line is a metro in waiting.

    What we really need to be talking about then is the project that will come when the metro north is done - linking it to an upgraded Green line.

    While that is kind of what happened, it was nothing more than a red herring after the project was needlessly delayed and it added additional costs to the construction of the green line.

    There is nothing easy about upgrading an operating green line to a metro and tunneling under the city. Just take a look at the area. Furthermore it was essentially the same Government that reworked the MN project to start at Stephens Green, while abandoning its original notion of upgrading the Green line to metro status. Why do that?

    I put it to you that they never had any intention of upgrading the green line and the modifications made to it were purely to justify the Governments dithering over the entire luas project. It was presented as a nice cosy plan of upgrading to metro at a later date, when the engineering reality would be one of horrendous disturbance, line closure and a complete redesign/rebuild of the lines approach to the canal to facilitate going underground. That was never going to happen.

    Furthermore the original plan for both luas lines had them connected overground. This plan was in receipt of EU structural funds and ready to go to tender. It was the incoming FF lead Government in 1997 that halted progress by commissioning a report to decide if the connection between the two lines should be overground or underground. It is widely known that in opposition FF TDs were lobbied by city centre business interests to fight against an overground connection on the basis of disruption caused by construction. One particularly vociferous speech by Bertie Ahern in Dail Eireann had him promising not to dig up the city centre if FF were in Government. (interestingly that Dail debate is no longer available at the link I had saved and searches so far have proved unsuccessful)

    Eventually the Commissioned report recommended an underground link between the two luas lines. At the same time (2000) the Government were adopting a plan to build a metro in Dublin by 2006:D. So the decision was taken to build the green line to metro standard with a view to converting it at a later date. Theres that red herring again. Cop out anyone?;) Now its 2009. Still no metro and no link up of the luas lines. Metro North has been reinvented and the planned luas link up is different to that originally proposed. Thats what happens when politicians plan transport and thats why so many gullible people get sucked into a disneyland world of promises and plans. Reality is different and its history that will teach you all about reality.


  • #286
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    highdef wrote: »
    The track gauge is the same as the red line @ 4' 8 1/2" - The same as the UK and a lot other countries but different to all other rail in Ireland at 5' 3" - The same as the US and a few other countries - hence the reason why we have a fleet of American/Canadian locomotives

    US uses 4'8 1/2 also. Us, Brazil and bits of Australia are the only ones that use 5'3". The GM EMD locos are just down to them being able to supply them rather than making them as a matter of course.


  • #287
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Whatever chance there was for converting the Green line to a Metro I would have thought the wandering deviation from Sandyford to Carrickmines will have put paid to that. As for linking the two Luas lines - why bother? It would be much more useful to extend the Green line to Conolly via Pearse but Garrett FitzGerald would probably say that the trams wouldn't be able to negotiate the corners at Lincoln Place or Westland Row. :D


  • #288
    Geogregor
    Registered Users Posts: 397 ✭✭Geogregor


    I really hope Dublin will get metro line. But even if, it is going to be years before it is finished (my guess 10 or more). Especially now, when Irish budget has such problems.

    And metro is not going to be perfect connection between red and green LUAS anyway. Anyone going from western Dublin to southern port of the city will have to change from street level tram to underground and after few hundred meters again from underground to street level tram. Hardly convenient solution.

    On the other hand building green-red connector is small engineering project. Just a bit of track on street level. It can be done in one, maximum two years, if contractors push hard
    I still think it should be done ASAP, before ale the dreams about future perfect solutions.


  • #289
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    sliabh wrote: »
    Nearly right. Under the original plan the Green line was to be the Southern leg of the metro. It is/was to go underground after crossing the Grand Canal and then continue north (as what will now be the Metro) to the airport and Swords.

    Mary O'Rourke was the Minister of Transport at the time and she didn't have the bottle to push for the money for northern section to be built. But the Green line was built to be easily upgraded to metro when the time came. The track gauge is wider, the electrical infrastructure can support the higher loads for metro carriages, etc.

    There never was any plan or intention to connect the Red and Green lines for this reason. The Red line is a traditional tram system, whereas the Green line is a metro in waiting.

    What we really need to be talking about then is the project that will come when the metro north is done - linking it to an upgraded Green line.

    Sorry ... this is simply untrue. The green line is not easily upgradable to a metro nor is the electrical infrastructure capable of supporting higher loads. The only thing that they did was space the tracks apart to so called "metro standard".

    As it happens the proposed Metro North and West are effectively using tram vehicles (it is not a Metro as you would see in other countries which would have more in common with the DART) so the current green line infrastructure would suffice.

    My understanding is that the Green/Red lines were to be the start of a tram system for Dublin. There was never a real discussion of a "metro"for the green line. In fact, at one stage there was a discussion of having a "guided bus way" on the line.

    The intention was to connect both the red and green lines but this was prevented by a very strong lobby by city centre businesses who were more interested in the short term. Most of them would have a tram passing by their businesses now if they had of supported the project. As I recall, one of the arguements put forward for the union of lines was not passenger interests but that two maintinance depots would have to be built if they didn't.

    The green line can not be upgraded to metro and integrated into the "metro north" (for metro read tram line). It would need to be rebuilt from scratch.


  • #290
    philiy
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭philiy


    Some of the statments being made here are crazy. First off, a Metro system is a system that has a headway of 2 mins or less, it has nothing to do with being underground or the type of vehicle being used, Metro upgradable means that it is possible to ungrade the line to have trams run every 2 mins.
    The green line can not be upgraded to metro and integrated into the "metro north" (for metro read tram line). It would need to be rebuilt from scratch.

    This is an unbelievabley stupid statment, MN runs on the same voltage (750VDC) and will have the same guage as Luas. To run a metro system on the green or even red line would require an ungrade to the power. More trams on the line requires more power. It would be as simple as ungrading the green line power system to facilitate the increased number of trams running. It would cost money put its very easy to do.


  • #291
    Tableman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭Tableman


    Any idea when the Luas extension to Citywest will be up & running?


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,239 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Probably not until the end of 2010.


  • #293
    Tableman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭Tableman


    Probably not until the end of 2010.

    Thats what I thought. I recall seeing signs out there last year saying that t would be ready August 09, then that changed to early 2010


  • #294
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    Same as the Green Line to Cherrywood. "Luas arriving 2009" billboards in Cherrywood crudely painted out to read "Luas arriving in 20.." So 2010 might be a stretch!


  • #295
    IIMII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭IIMII


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    "Luas arriving in 20.."
    .. years


  • #296
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    philiy wrote: »


    This is an unbelievabley stupid statment, MN runs on the same voltage (750VDC) and will have the same guage as Luas. To run a metro system on the green or even red line would require an ungrade to the power. More trams on the line requires more power. It would be as simple as ungrading the green line power system to facilitate the increased number of trams running. It would cost money put its very easy to do.

    Unbelievable true statement as far as I'm concerned. There is no way that the green line as it stands can be upgraded to what would be generally regarded as a metro. Somehow or other this spacing between the tracks has given rise to the myth that a magical conversion is possible. One has to also ask if the population density along the line would justify a metro line. It is possible to increase the density in the Sandyford areas etc but north of Dundrum you start running into areas of 2 story housing areas where I really can't see the potential for increasing the population density. So a tram/light rail is suitable for this route.

    Plus a metro upgrade, to me, would involve higher capacity vehicles, larger stations. I just don't see how this would happen on the green line hence why I state you would need to start from scratch.

    The design of the green line extension has really rubber stamped that the fact that the "metro" upgrade is a myth.


  • #297
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    BrianD wrote: »
    but north of Dundrum you start running into
    a city called Dublin.....


  • #298
    crocro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 301 ✭✭crocro


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Same as the Green Line to Cherrywood. "Luas arriving 2009" billboards in Cherrywood crudely painted out to read "Luas arriving in 20.." So 2010 might be a stretch!
    I'm pretty sure those billboards were put up by developers outside their 400k 1-bed apartment blocks.
    BrianD wrote: »
    One has to also ask if the population density along the line would justify a metro line. It is possible to increase the density in the Sandyford areas etc but north of Dundrum you start running into areas of 2 story housing areas where I really can't see the potential for increasing the population density. So a tram/light rail is suitable for this route.
    north of dundrum is windy arbour which is adjacent to an 18-hole golf course and a high security mental hospital on extensive grounds. Then there's milltown with many apartment buildings already such as mount st annes and plenty of idle fields around the river. Cowper is next to Gonzaga college and its 4 rugby pitches used for god knows what. North side of cowper road is covered in trees on a field.
    Plus a metro upgrade, to me, would involve higher capacity vehicles, larger stations. I just don't see how this would happen on the green line hence why I state you would need to start from scratch.
    lengthen stations as done with the DART.

    I'd imagine that grade separating beechwood, stillorgan and the crossings south of sandyford is more of a problem that zoning or cpo'ing enough land to get the density. Obviously you need grade separation for 2 minute headways.


  • #299
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    How would you get a "metro" to maneuver the from the Sandyford depot up to Central Park? There is a 90 degree turn in the middle of a road junction (because they built an apartment block at the junction just before they decided to extend the line).


  • #300
    KC61
    Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    If there was to be a Metro upgrade it would only be to Sandyford - the line south of there is built as to tram spec.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    That might make sense. Certainly could do with extra capacity on the current Green Line. Don't see a lot of traffic originating in Cherrywood for a while given the economy; but there should be enough demand for trams from Carrickmines, Boghall Rd, Sandyford (south) and Central Park.


Advertisement