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.

Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge

Options
12467…10

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Mr Simpson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭Mr Simpson


    Joko wrote: »
    Spamming a thread with photos is annoying for users on mobiles.

    Actually annoying for everyone.

    Eh not really, some people may be interested to see how a project is progressing, and may not be passing it on a daily basis, somebody providing photos every now and then is great.


  • Options
    #93
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    hardly spamming with perfectly relevant photos.


  • Options
    #94
    Typewriter
    Registered Users Posts: 577 ✭✭✭Typewriter


    Joko wrote: »
    Spamming a thread with photos is annoying for users on mobiles.

    Actually annoying for everyone.

    tumblr_l70hggd8QS1qzzos4o1_500.jpg

    "Sit down! Sit down, you’re ruining it for everyone!"

    :cool:


  • Options
    #95
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Joko wrote: »
    Spamming a thread with photos is annoying for users on mobiles.

    Actually annoying for everyone.

    Use the mobile version of the site, which does not load images in-line.


  • Options
    #96
    BowWow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,760 ✭✭✭BowWow


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0427/metro-and-dart-preparatory-works-on-hold.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    monument wrote: »
    Starting at Heuston going east the classical spacing is: 516m > 240m > 308m > 320m > 276m > 303m > 260m > 249m > (and the apparent error of the Loopline at) 12m. For the record starting at Islandbridge, it's 273m > 815m > 516m etc.

    Now Beckett seems to confirm roughly the old spacing. It's 440m from the last bridge (Sean O'Casey) and the 900m or so left between Beckett and the Eastlink and allows for another bridge to be put in half way and still keep to that that roule of having around 450m between bridges.

    The placment of the Talbot Memorial Bridge broke this rule. It has only 176m between it and Loopline. The Sean O'Casey Bridge placment also broke this rule at only around 230m from Talbot.

    Same goes for the Millennium Bridge -- at only 126m from the Ha'penny and only 168m from Grattan.

    The Frank Sherwin Bridge also breaks the spacing at only about 50m from the now tram and ped only bridge, the Sean Heuston.

    So, the Loopline Bridge, Frank Sherwin Bridge, Talbot Memorial Bridge, Sean O'Casey Bridge, and the Millennium Bridge all broke the apprent rule. It's not just Joyce or the Marlborough Street Bridge.

    I held my whist for a while but the idiocy of some ``classical'' spacing rule unexplained by the complainer has got to me.

    I don't think the railway bridge at Heuston is listed, nor the defunct railway bridge near westlink.

    Or even the two bridges at west link with their ``classical meter and a half spacing''



    Anyway how is this bridge gonna be built? are sections gonna be cantilevered/arched from the structures in the Liffey?

    At least there is work afoot on Hawkins st to get the bridge to align with the street, unlike the Millennium, Seán O' Casey, or Beckett bridges.


  • Options
    #98
    youcancallmeal
    Registered Users Posts: 7,985 ✭✭✭youcancallmeal


    BowWow wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0427/metro-and-dart-preparatory-works-on-hold.html

    There was some fella from the corpo on the news tonight trying to emphasise the new bridge is still 'badly' needed due to the bus congestion on Eden quay. Absolute nonsense, the old system worked fine!


  • Options
    #99
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    BowWow wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0427/metro-and-dart-preparatory-works-on-hold.html

    Hmm, it seems incredibly short sighted to build LUAS BXD without preparatory works for DART and Metro, or to use one of the alternative LUAS BXD routes instead, even if the DU and MN don't start in the next 10 years, they will very likely start at some time in the future as they are good and needed projects.

    Also 19 million to retrofit all red line trams to not use overhead cables seems very reasonable to avoid wires in the city center, I thought it would be much more, I really hope ABP force them to do this.


  • Options
    #100
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Wireless trams means exclusivity of vendor unless it involves energy storage (batteries/supercapacitors), has implications for future tenders if a ground power system (APS) chosen.


  • Options
    #101
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Carawaystick wrote: »

    I don't think the railway bridge at Heuston is listed, nor the defunct railway bridge near westlink.

    Not a railway bridge. Private foot/cart/electrical cables bridge.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    robd
    Registered Users Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    bk wrote: »
    Also 19 million to retrofit all red line trams to not use overhead cables seems very reasonable to avoid wires in the city center, I thought it would be much more, I really hope ABP force them to do this.

    In the presentation given to IEI, already linked to this thread or Luas thread in this forum, a number of other reasons are given.
    • Unreliability.
    • Unsuitability to climate (doesn't like damp or snow).
    • Unsuitability of route due to mixed traffic (only suitable for short distance on segregated route where time is a constant).

    The reality that the Luas as is is an efficient and reliable system. Should be kept as is.


  • Options
    #103
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    robd wrote: »
    The reality that the Luas as is is an efficient and reliable system. Should be kept as is.

    Fair enough, then one of the alternative routes that completely avoided the fronts of our most historic buildings should be chosen.

    Any way I never did think it made sense to split the lines, what a waste.

    I won't be so sure that ABP won't force this issue, just like they have forced some sense with the childrens hospital.


  • Options
    #104
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Here's a post by transport planner Jarret Walker on the efficacy of a split line, like BX. http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/one-way-splits-as-symbolic-transit.html

    Maybe not such a big deal here given that the distance between OCS and Marlborough is less than 150m (less than 2 mins' walk). Interesting nonetheless, and certainly applicable to many bus routes and their respective stops around the city centre.


  • Options
    #105
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Aard wrote: »
    Here's a post by transport planner Jarret Walker on the efficacy of a split line, like BX. http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/one-way-splits-as-symbolic-transit.html

    Maybe not such a big deal here given that the distance between OCS and Marlborough is less than 150m (less than 2 mins' walk). Interesting nonetheless, and certainly applicable to many bus routes and their respective stops around the city centre.

    The split I find baffling since
    - we don't need a split due to constraints
    - its more expensive
    - its more disruptive
    - we already have a wide road & bridge available (O'Connell St)

    I really wonder about this country sometimes, and the mental abilities of those who rubber stamp these things. if you need more capacity, just build another bridge and divert buses to it. BXD is so inefficient and clunky..


  • Options
    #106
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    MYOB wrote: »
    Not a railway bridge. Private foot/cart/electrical cables bridge.

    I'm on about the bridge from platform10 to the Phoenix park


  • Options
    #107
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    I'm on about the bridge from platform10 to the Phoenix park

    Thats:

    a: not defunct
    b: nowhere near the Westlink
    c: you already mentioned it ("the railway bridge at Heuston is listed")


  • Options
    #108
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    bk wrote: »
    Fair enough, then one of the alternative routes that completely avoided the fronts of our most historic buildings should be chosen.

    Any way I never did think it made sense to split the lines, what a waste.

    I won't be so sure that ABP won't force this issue, just like they have forced some sense with the childrens hospital.

    These historic buildings have had tram lines and electrical infrastructure in front of them before. The visual impact of the cabling is mimimal. If done properly it adds to the streetscape. We're in a city we expect to see the infrastructure of a city about us.

    Unfortunately, the city planners and ABP seem to think we live in a village and hence we have these half arsed buildings thrown up that add nothing to the streetscape.

    If they want to improve college green - cut down the trees so you have a better sense of a public space and put in the tramline to get people there. You'd have a fine public space then.


  • Options
    #109
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I wonder if another reason for building this bridge is so that the council can do something about O'Connell Street bridge without causing substantial distruption to traffic in the city centre. I remember a piece in the IT a few years back saying that O'CS bridge is badly in need of repair and unfit for its current purpose.


  • Options
    #110
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Joko wrote: »
    What bus routes are planned to use this bridge? The plans only have south bound bus lanes.

    It offers the option of a direct turn back for buses which currently come from the north quays onto O'Connell Bridge -- that bridge has no right turns onto the south quays, but the new bridge allows right turns.

    It also offers a more direct turn back for Eden Quay contra-flow bus lane, importantly away from the mass of pedestrians and traffic on O'Connell Bridge.

    How well these work depend on the road layout and set up leading up to and away from the new bridge.

    AngryLips wrote: »
    I wonder if another reason for this building this bridge is so that the council can do something about O'Connell Street bridge without causing substantial distruption to traffic in the city centre. I remember a piece in the IT a few years back saying that O'CS bridge is badly in need of repair and unfit for its current purpose.

    If BXD does not go ahead, it would be interesting looking at the bridge and Marlborough Street as a high quality QBC or a BRT route.

    With or without Luas, if O'CS Bridge was put out of action the new bridge would only be able to handle buses / cyclists / peds at most. But then again BXD will likely force a large drop in cross river private traffic on O'CS Bridge.


  • Options
    #111
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    BrianD wrote: »
    These historic buildings have had tram lines and electrical infrastructure in front of them before. The visual impact of the cabling is mimimal. If done properly it adds to the streetscape. We're in a city we expect to see the infrastructure of a city about us.

    Just because it once had them, doesn't mean we should have them again.

    We once had slums and tenements too, do you think it would be ok if they returned too?

    We now have the technology to avoid this sort of eye sore and create a much more attractive city center, so why not make use of it?

    We should be striving to remove street clutter from our streets (bus stops, advertising, etc.) not adding even more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    bk wrote: »
    We now have the technology to avoid this sort of eye sore and create a much more attractive city center, so why not make use of it?

    Personally, I think a programme to reduce and rationalise the amount of street furniture/signage/clutter would be more effective and cost less.


  • Options
    #113
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Personally, I think a programme to reduce and rationalise the amount of street furniture/signage/clutter would be more effective and cost less.

    Personally I think both should be done. No point in reducing street furniture to only replace it with more poles and overhead wires.


  • Options
    #114
    MrDerp
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭MrDerp


    bk wrote: »
    Personally I think both should be done. No point in reducing street furniture to only replace it with more poles and overhead wires.

    I lived in Vancouver for a summer, which has an extensive network of electric trolley-buses running from overhead power lines. These run right through both downtown and suburban Vancouver. You'd have to be looking for them to notice them.

    I was in Antwerp twice this year. They have trams running everywhere from overhead lines. Again, you simply don't notice them, but you do notice any fine buildings. There's trams running across main squares without detracting from the visual surroundings.

    I don't believe that the human eye actually processes something as relatively insignificant as a 100mm cable. Instead the residents enjoy a quick reliable tram system (3 day pass for 5.50 btw) that covers the downtown area perfectly, admittedly supported by a tunnel which 4 main artery routes follow.

    I have to say Antwerp was a real eye-opener in terms of public transport. Simple cheap cars hauling people around at short intervals at low cost. Easy changeovers and one backbone tunnel to do the donkey work.

    If you gave me carte blanche I'd run wires everywhere, buy cheap cars, and send the red line luas through one side of the port tunnel, leaving the other bore to 2-way HGV traffic.


  • Options
    #115
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    bk wrote: »
    Just because it once had them, doesn't mean we should have them again.

    We once had slums and tenements too, do you think it would be ok if they returned too?

    We now have the technology to avoid this sort of eye sore and create a much more attractive city center, so why not make use of it?

    We should be striving to remove street clutter from our streets (bus stops, advertising, etc.) not adding even more.

    I think that's an unreasonable comparison. We're talking about modern transport infrastructure and not neglected properties.

    Transport infrastructure is to be welcomed in an urban environment. It adds to it and makes an attractive urban environment. It seems that some people would prefer to have thatched cottages in our urban landscape.

    Personally, I think the visual effect of overhead tram power lines are minimal. In other cities such as Amsterdam, Vienna and Melbourne, trams are city icons.

    I would agree with you regarding the visual clutter of multiple bus stops and other street furniture - it is fair to say we've a lot crap furniture on our streets - but I don't think tram infrastructure belongs in this category.


  • Options
    #116
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users Posts: 7,829 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    Has anyone got recent photos of the current state of progress?

    The only photos online here(/ skyscraper city!) or on flickr are from the beginning of works in April/ May.


  • Options
    #117
    Mr Simpson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭Mr Simpson


    It really hasn't moved on too much, its still just the steel which has been sunk into the river bed.


  • Options
    #118
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users Posts: 7,829 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    mmcn90 wrote: »
    It really hasn't moved on too much, its still just the steel which has been sunk into the river bed.
    fair enough so!
    Understandable why nobody has bothered photographing it if theres little visible above water.


  • Options
    #119
    admiralofthefleet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,515 ✭✭✭✭admiralofthefleet


    munchkin_utd wrote: »
    fair enough so!
    Understandable why nobody has bothered photographing it if theres little visible above water.

    it looked like a platform was placed over the steel beams today


  • Options
    #120
    Mr Simpson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭Mr Simpson


    Here's a pic update from Saoro on Skyscraper City


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,243 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    2 August 2012.


Advertisement