Luas Cross City (Line BX/D) [now open]

MJohnston wrote: »

You already have two platforms in an L shape arrangement - OCS Lower and Abbey Street. This arrangement has the added benefit of not blocking OCS for anything that isn't a tram.

the fact remains , north bound passenger face a 200 metres walk from the GPO stop to abbey, thats not good planning

BoatMad wrote: »

the fact remains , north bound passenger face a 200 metres walk from the GPO stop to abbey, thats not good planning

Where are you getting 200m from? I just looked at Google maps. It's about 100m, less if you stay at the back of each tram (which shortens your walk significantly).

MJohnston wrote: »

There's not much point in lying when accurate information is easily accessible on the internet:



I invite you, get your crayons out and show us where you'd place this hypothetical interchange of yours.

has the BXD lines run up and down O connell street , then a junction could have been created at OCS/Abbey on the opposing corners, allowing North Green line easy access to West Red, and a walk across OCS to the opposite Abbey corner to connect to East going Red, this could have been facilitated by removing the existing Abbey platform and moving it west to the Abbey OCS corner , Neither tram would foul the other

Again on the opposite side an OCS platform adjacent to Abbey with abbey platform on the opposite side etc

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you wanted us to think it was 220m!

no measured it with google maps , got 120 , typed 220 mea culpa

MJohnston wrote: »

Still dunno where you got 120m from, it's not even close.

Anyway, is this what you're talking about above:

yes, the actual platforms could in fact end right at the junction corners , meaning passengers alighting from OCS would merely have to walk to the end of the platform and cross abbey , or cross OCS to the opposing abbey platform , the maximum walk being the width of OCS

BoatMad wrote: »

yes, the actual platforms could in fact end right at the junction corners , meaning passengers alighting from OCS would merely have to walk to the end of the platform and cross abbey , or cross OCS to the opposing abbey platform , the maximum walk being the width of OCS

No they couldn't, OCS is a massive pedestrian thoroughfare and the space for crossings would absolutely have to be maintained.

As for the rest, we've already had multiple debates on this thread about why having a loop rather than both lines on OCS was both necessary and can be beneficial.

There really seems to be very little gained by this idea of yours!

MJohnston wrote: »

No they couldn't, OCS is a massive pedestrian thoroughfare and the space for crossings would absolutely have to be maintained.

As for the rest, we've already had multiple debates on this thread about why having a loop rather than both lines on OCS was both necessary and can be beneficial.

There really seems to be very little gained by this idea of yours!

Ill not reopen that but the reasons for Marlborough were not primary tram centric

BoatMad wrote: »

all thats needed is to retain the conventional OCS footpath distance , thats fine

what it saves is a drag from the GPO stop in the pissing rain to half way down abbey , thats what it saves

30 extra seconds in the rain (and that's at a slower average walking pace)? I think you're radically overstating the problem here. Especially when compared to the reasons behind not running both south and north lines on OCS.

Ill not reopen that but the reasons for Marlborough were not primary tram centric

No, but what is that supposed to mean?

BoatMad wrote: »

That the decision to route separately up OCS and down Marlborough , was taken for non-tram reasons

I'm asking - what's wrong with doing that?

and based on a misguide imho, view. It should have either double tracked OCS or Marlbourgh , simpler, allows for proper interconnection platform and simpler for punters to understand etc

As said, this has been gone over multiple times, and the bus concerns were legitimate and worthy of consideration.

Just passed a snarl-up at the Parnell Monument. Southbound tram held up due to cars driving down Parnell Sq failing to clear tracks. No fault of the tram driver. Just ignorant motorists doing what they do best.

The whinging has hit a new low. :rolleyes:

Chivito550 wrote: »

The general population could do with the 45 seconds of exercise given the obesity crisis here!

I've rarely walked on travelators. For airports yes, undergrounds almost never.

you have-not tried the one at Bank in London then !

BoatMad wrote: »

and not relevant to a discussion to double track marlborough for example , which could have been dedicated to LUAS

you need to ride trams elsewhere to see what can be done

And double-tracking Marlborough would still ignore the benefits that the loop brings.

You ought to ride transit systems elsewhere to see how little of a problem a 99m interchange walk is.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just out of interest do the tram tracks there have a yellow box painted over it? I know it is common sense not to block tram tracks but for some drivers unless there is a yellow box then it is fair game.

Yes, they do.

MJohnston wrote: »

I dunno, I don't think "shock and awe" tactics work with traffic enforcement long term (as soon as they stop, people go back to their bad behaviours) - we need to start consistently enforcing these things all over the place.

And if there aren't enough Garda for this, we need to start farming it out to private companies, or introduce automated enforcement cameras.

also designing sensible and practical traffic management schemes in the first place, that people can buy into is a good idea as well