Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

lucernarian · 24-02-2018 5:12pm

bk wrote: »

Yes, this suddenly all makes a lot more sense. 2 billion for DART upgrades seemed excessive for just new trains and electrification. But a major new station interchange at Whitworth Road and Docklands and it suddenly starts to make sense.

Folks come from Hazelhatch would then have lots of options depending on where they are going:

- Change to Luas at Hueston for Red Line Stops
- Change to Metro at Whitworth to head North to the Airport or South to OCS, Tara St, SSG
- Stay on to the Docklands area and all the business/offices around there (I suspect the actual destination for a lot of people coming in on this line for work).

I realise there sounds to be a lot of overlap there. But I suspect there would be significant differences in Journey times.

For instance if you were heading to the IFSC, then I'd expect Hueston -> Whitworth Road -> Docklands would be much faster then Hueston -> Red Luas to Docklands.

Perhaps harder to tell if Hueston -> Whitworth Road -> Metro -> OCS would be faster then the Red Line Luas, but if you were heading to SSG/Grafton Street then it may well be.

Lots of interesting connection options.

The passengers coming on the Maynooth line are far more important, both because of existing jammed trains and development potential in its own right.

Either way, a "Heuston" stop for the Newbridge-GCD route seems not so likely as things stand and the Docklands/Drumcondra rail lines are too close together for a normal station box. And the single bore tunneling mooted earlier, would make a tie-in at Charlemont even more infeasible.

spacetweek · 24-02-2018 8:50pm

normanoffside wrote: »

So you are suggesting a new platform?

I see Platform 10 is just over 500m from the back of the station and about 700m to the Luas.
It's a long walk but I guess it's feasible?

That’s nothing a travelator wouldn’t solve.

bk · 24-02-2018 9:21pm

spacetweek wrote: »

That’s nothing a travelator wouldn’t solve.

Yes, lots of people walk those sort of distances with heavy bags at Dublin Airport.

lucernarian wrote: »

Either way, a "Heuston" stop for the Newbridge-GCD route seems not so likely as things stand and the Docklands/Drumcondra rail lines are too close together for a normal station box. And the single bore tunneling mooted earlier, would make a tie-in at Charlemont even more infeasible.

Actually it looks like there is space for a 90m station box at the Tennis courts by Whitworth road with a bit of CPO of a house or two. Or alternatively at David Road, with a bit of CPO of houses.

Also lots of space in that field behind St Vincents School, next to both tracks.

Consonata · 24-02-2018 10:05pm

Telchak wrote: »

Made a Google map of the proposed 2040 network, for all those people who seem confused about the Luas upgrade part of the project (click through for a better look)

That map is crying out for Metro West. Its disappointing to see that its been left to the dust since that was one of the more promising projects for Dublin in my opinion. That and Metro North. The massive gap at Harolds cross really isn't acceptable, and isn't likely to be serviced till 2060 at this rate.

Stephen15 · 24-02-2018 10:39pm

donvito99 wrote: »

This is where automated trains come into their own. With no need for a driver to change ends, a kildare line - Heuston without a 700m walk - PPT - docklands becomes viable.

Automated trains are ok on point to point systems such certain metros, light rail systems such as the DLR and people movers but on heavy rail systems with complex signalling and points systems I couldn't see them working.

Lord Glentoran · 24-02-2018 10:50pm

Consonata wrote: »

That map is crying out for Metro West. Its disappointing to see that its been left to the dust since that was one of the more promising projects for Dublin in my opinion. That and Metro North. The massive gap at Harolds cross really isn't acceptable, and isn't likely to be serviced till 2060 at this rate.

There is a reason for the gap at Harolds Cross, and it relates to planning decisions.

The original 1970s Dublin Rapid Transit proposals planned for a busway from Tallaght via Kimmage to Mount Argus, with buslanes covering the rest of the journey into the proposed Central Station. That busway was made impossible at some point in the eighties by planning permission being given by Dublin Corporation to develop housing in front of Mount Argus and, I think, by planning decisions in Kimmage as well.

At the very least it was a stunning lack of imagination and forward planning for the sake of short term profit taking.

Consonata · 24-02-2018 10:54pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

There is a reason for the gap at Harolds Cross, and it relates to planning decisions.

The original 1970s Dublin Rapid Transit proposals planned for a busway from Tallaght via Kimmage to Mount Argus, with buslanes covering the rest of the journey into the proposed Central Station. That busway was made impossible at some point in the eighties by planning permission being given by Dublin Corporation to develop housing in front of Mount Argus and, I think, by planning decisions in Kimmage as well.

At the very least it was a stunning lack of imagination and forward planning for the sake of short term profit taking.

Ideally there should be an orbital route going from the Dart along the bottom of UCD, connecting with Metro Link and connecting up with the Red line somewhere, perhaps Tallaght to give that area some semblence of coverage. Its really surprising that the idea has never been courted considering how poorly its serviced bus-wise and how much residential areas are there.

orangerhyme · 25-02-2018 7:57am

Consonata wrote: »

Ideally there should be an orbital route going from the Dart along the bottom of UCD, connecting with Metro Link and connecting up with the Red line somewhere, perhaps Tallaght to give that area some semblence of coverage. Its really surprising that the idea has never been courted considering how poorly its serviced bus-wise and how much residential areas are there.

The plan with BusConnects is to have high frequency bus routed feeding into luas, Metro etc

strassenwo!f · 25-02-2018 8:59am

I can't seem to find any definitive mention of the proposed length of the vehicles on this route, and there hasn't (as far as I can see) been much (if any) discussion of this on the board in the days since this plan came out.

It was rumoured earlier - before the plan came out - that the vehicles would be shorter than on the metro plan which had been approved some years ago.

This is obviously a critical issue in terms of capacity.

Van.Bosch · 25-02-2018 12:40pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I can't seem to find any definitive mention of the proposed length of the vehicles on this route, and there hasn't (as far as I can see) been much (if any) discussion of this on the board in the days since this plan came out.

It was rumoured earlier - before the plan came out - that the vehicles would be shorter than on the metro plan which had been approved some years ago.

This is obviously a critical issue in terms of capacity.

The plan hasn’t come out though, just a leaked route. We will have to wait until the official project is published before we see details like that.

We can then discuss it for a few years before metro link gets rebranded and launched for a 8th time, maybe as Dublin metro!

Consonata · 25-02-2018 12:55pm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The plan hasn’t come out though, just a leaked route. We will have to wait until the official project is published before we see details like that.

We can then discuss it for a few years before metro link gets rebranded and launched for a 8th time, maybe as Dublin metro!

Any ETA on the final plan?

strassenwo!f · 25-02-2018 1:48pm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

The plan hasn’t come out though, just a leaked route. We will have to wait until the official project is published before we see details like that.

We can then discuss it for a few years before metro link gets rebranded and launched for a 8th time, maybe as Dublin metro!

You are probably right.

I'm still trying to puzzle out the logic of this plan, particularly on the southside of the city. With 90 metre vehicles it could make some sense to build a connection to the Harcourt Street line, as that would almost double the capacity at the same throughput of vehicles.

Upgrading from the current maximum length of 55 metres to a metro vehicle length of 60 metres, at the same throughput, doesn't seem to offer much more capacity.

On the other hand, building towards the south-west of the city, where it has been established that there is no potential LUAS corridor, would increase the capacity directly from a 0 (zero) metre tram to a sixty metre tram, or even, because it would be a totally new build, to a 90 metre tram. 60 metres or 90 metres, that's a huge increase in provision of rapid public transport, in an area which currently has none.

The potential throughput on the southside section of this proposed metro is thus very relevant.

If it's going to stay the same, at around 4 minutes between vehicles, with 60 metre trams, then the cost of the upgrade is simply unjustifiable. Full stop.

If it's going to stay the same, at around 4 minutes between vehicles, with 90 metre trams, there may be an arguable case for this connection and upgrade, but it is not obvious that it would achieve the improvement in rapid rail access and uptake that a line towards the south-west would or could.

And if the throughput is to be increased, to, say every two minutes, we can hopefully lay to rest any pretence that the south-west of the city might one day be served by a branch off this line, as has been mentioned in the last few pages of this thread.

donvito99 · 25-02-2018 1:52pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Upgrading from the current maximum length of 55 metres to a metro vehicle length of 60 metres, at the same throughput, doesn't seem to offer much more capacity.

On the other hand, building towards the south-west of the city, where it has been established that there is no potential LUAS corridor, would increase the capacity directly from a 0 (zero) metre tram to a sixty metre tram, or even, because it would be a totally new build, to a 90 metre tram. 60 metres or 90 metres, that's a huge increase in provision of rapid public transport, in an area which currently has none.

The potential throughput on the southside section of this proposed metro is thus very relevant.

How far is this south western alignment going on the €500m that the Green Line upgrade will cost? Terenure?

donvito99 · 25-02-2018 1:54pm

The attached link may be interesting to some, details the features of Barcelona's line 9, the single bore arrangement and its advantages particularly in terms of platform length and the relatively small footprint of stations compared with traditional methods.

http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/10/barcelonas-line-9-inspiring-montreals-pink-line/

Telchak · 25-02-2018 2:05pm

Do those tunnels single bore tunnels have the space for pantograph and overhead wires, that I'm assuming have to be at the same height as the current Luas ones?

donvito99 · 25-02-2018 2:12pm

Telchak wrote: »

Do those tunnels single bore tunnels have the space for pantograph and overhead wires, that I'm assuming have to be at the same height as the current Luas ones?

Not sure of the height but it is OHLE powered

Also note the use of an overhead power to provide electricity. This is unusual for a metro, especially one which is so space-constrained: metros generally use a third rail on the ground to provide power to the trains, and overhead wires are used for more spacious main line tracks.

strassenwo!f · 25-02-2018 2:14pm

donvito99 wrote: »

How far is this south western alignment going on the €500m that the Green Line upgrade will cost? Terenure?

I don't yet have such figures to hand.

If you were initially going with a south-west alignment through Rathmines, Rathgar, Terenure, Templeogue, etc., - which would not be my preference - it would hopefully be Terenure, but perhaps only Rathgar (as, for much of that, you'd still be tunnelling under very busy, difficult, parts of the city)

Then you wait for some more cash and press on, delivering rapid rail to other new areas of the city, which, I repeat, it has been determined cannot be served by the LUAS.

Sam Russell · 25-02-2018 2:43pm

Charlemont to Tallaght is about 6 or 7 km. That Barcelona Line 9 design could do the whole tunnel in about 2 years.

A 12 metre tunnel - how does that compare to the Port Tunnel?

The Barca tunnel is 48 km long - we are talking about less than half that if we do Airport to Charlemont and then out to Tallaght.

Even if we just did the tunnel from Charlemont to Tallaght and finished it a few years later - sounds do-able since we have to do quite a bit more even after the tunnel is finished.

marno21 · 25-02-2018 2:55pm

If it's not in this document: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Transport_Strategy_for_the_Greater_Dublin_Area_2016-2035.pdf

Then it won't happen before 2035. When the NTA published this, it effectively became policy and what's in the document is to be prioritised. This has come to pass when you see what was included in the GDA in the Capital Plan.

ted1 · 25-02-2018 3:54pm

Telchak wrote: »

Do those tunnels single bore tunnels have the space for pantograph and overhead wires, that I'm assuming have to be at the same height as the current Luas ones?

I would have thought they have electrified tracks

orangerhyme · 25-02-2018 4:34pm

donvito99 wrote: »

The attached link may be interesting to some, details the features of Barcelona's line 9, the single bore arrangement and its advantages particularly in terms of platform length and the relatively small footprint of stations compared with traditional methods.

http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/10/barcelonas-line-9-inspiring-montreals-pink-line/

That's really interesting, thanks.

7bn for 48km, so how much for 17km, considering Dublin would be less complex?
Maybe 2 to 3 bn

ricimaki · 25-02-2018 5:10pm

ted1 wrote: »

I would have thought they have electrified tracks

What's done in Barcelona, and could well be used here is a solid metal bar instead of a hanging catenary wire above the tracks. You can see it in this video

Another benefit to the 12m tunnel in Barcelona is that it allows quadruple track in some sections where the stations are built outside of the bore. It could allow express trains to skip some stops. Not really necessary for the relatively short route in Dublin, but could be useful elsewhere

donvito99 · 25-02-2018 5:21pm

Does anyone know how resilient the trackbed on the existing Charlemont - Sandyford alignment is? i.e. how heavy a metro could be accommodated by it. Longer platforms is more easily done in single bore, so it would seem that the only factors stopping a much longer/heavier train is the loading gauge and what the max. load bearing limit of the Green line is.

Sam Russell · 25-02-2018 6:03pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Does anyone know how resilient the trackbed on the existing Charlemont - Sandyford alignment is? i.e. how heavy a metro could be accommodated by it. Longer platforms is more easily done in single bore, so it would seem that the only factors stopping a much longer/heavier train is the loading gauge and what the max. load bearing limit of the Green line is.

Is it not the same bed as carried the old Harcourt Street line - that is heavy heavy locomotives?

Grandeeod · 25-02-2018 6:30pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Does anyone know how resilient the trackbed on the existing Charlemont - Sandyford alignment is? i.e. how heavy a metro could be accommodated by it. Longer platforms is more easily done in single bore, so it would seem that the only factors stopping a much longer/heavier train is the loading gauge and what the max. load bearing limit of the Green line is.

I would be stunned if it couldn't carry a heavier load as it used to be a real railway.:D

Sam Russell · 25-02-2018 6:42pm

Perhaps the Dundrum Viaduct might be a worry but I doubt it.

bk · 26-02-2018 3:11pm

One issue with the above Barcelona tunnel is that it requires far more spoil (earth and rock) to be removed then a traditional tunnel, this greatly increases costs.

BTW You can put Metro trains side by side in a single tunnel bore. Plenty of examples of that and in fact the above Barcelona Metro line has many KM's of side by side trains in a single tunnel. They are only using the top/bottom approach in the core city center and more traditional methods in the Suburbs.

marno21 · 26-02-2018 3:28pm

If the Charlemont-Sandyford section was built with Metro in mind I'd be very very surprised if the Dundrum bridge couldn't handle Metros

cgcsb · 26-02-2018 3:47pm

orangerhyme wrote: »

yeah but theyre be a metro station a few hundred meters either side.

Its just the Luas from OCS to STG causes so much hassle for 1km of track that will have a Metro covering the same route.

Im just thinking about once the metro is built in 10 years to be optimistic, even with the best of intentions as regards improving public transport, that part of the city center will still be vital for cars and buses, and the Luas will still be a pain in the hole crossing OCB and college green.

There won't be any cars in that part of the City 10 months from now, never mind 10 years form now.

Sam Russell · 26-02-2018 4:29pm

bk wrote: »

One issue with the above Barcelona tunnel is that it requires far more spoil (earth and rock) to be removed then a traditional tunnel, this greatly increases costs.

BTW You can put Metro trains side by side in a single tunnel bore. Plenty of examples of that and in fact the above Barcelona Metro line has many KM's of side by side trains in a single tunnel. They are only using the top/bottom approach in the core city center and more traditional methods in the Suburbs.

The Barca tunnel is 44 km underground while the Dublin tunnel is - what - 8 km.

The twin tunnel will also produce spoil, but more at the stations, because the Barca design has the station within the tunnel. So not a big problem. If the single tunnel works, the reduced cost might be worth it.

The Port tunnel was built in two years so the Mtrolink tunnel could be less than that.

Be great when they start.

marno21 · 26-02-2018 4:32pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Barca tunnel is 44 km underground while the Dublin tunnel is - what - 8 km.

The twin tunnel will also produce spoil, but more at the stations, because the Barca design has the station within the tunnel. So not a big problem. If the single tunnel works, the reduced cost might be worth it.

The Port tunnel was built in two years so the Mtrolink tunnel could be less than that.

Be great when they start.

Metrolink tunnel is proposed to be 13km in length.

Sam Russell · 26-02-2018 5:05pm

marno21 wrote: »

Metrolink tunnel is proposed to be 13km in length.

That is the Airport to SSG so must be a curvy route. It is still a third of the Barca tunnel. The Port Tunnel was 5.7 km by two. Cost €1 bn iirc.

bk · 26-02-2018 7:55pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is the Airport to SSG so must be a curvy route. It is still a third of the Barca tunnel. The Port Tunnel was 5.7 km by two. Cost €1 bn iirc.

The full length of the Barcelona Tunnel isn't this over/under design, only the core city center section is, the outer sections are side by side in a single bore. The fact that they have two different approaches in this manner, makes me think the over/under design is a lot more expensive and only used because of lack of space in the city center.

It sort of makes sense, think about it, they probably have to put a massive amounts of effort into making sure that the floor between the levels will be able to take a heavy Metro, every 2 minutes, 24/7 for the next 100 years!

A wall separating two lines in a single bore by comparison should be a lot easier/cheaper.

It is a very cool design, but I suspect more complicated then we need. It looks like each of our planned stop locations has space for a regular station box. Certainly OCS and SSG E both have plenty of space for it, being wide streets. Only Tara looks a bit tight.

I suspect we will either go with single bore side by side or dual bore, both with regular station boxes.

Sam Russell · 26-02-2018 8:28pm

The single bore, side by side arrangement means a lot of the spoil can go back in to form the base below the track bed. The up-down arrangement means that stations are on the one side and within the tunnel - neat.

Maybe the Barca crew will try and get the tender.

ricimaki · 26-02-2018 9:00pm

Having a look at the planning applications map in Dublin, I found this right beside Tara. This is the building.

I couldn't see any other items relating to Metro North

salmocab · 26-02-2018 10:43pm

Lots of talk here about single bore or twin bore, surely a single bore with trains stacked would mean one much bigger tunnel as a tunnel that’s twice the height needed means 4 times the volume taken out so allowing for 2 tunnels that means twice the amount really. Also in the port tunnel there are a few places where you can switch tunnels in an emergency so I would assume that’s a factor too.

Sam Russell · 26-02-2018 10:48pm

salmocab wrote: »

Lots of talk here about single bore or twin bore, surely a single bore with trains stacked would mean one much bigger tunnel as a tunnel that’s twice the height needed means 4 times the volume taken out so allowing for 2 tunnels that means twice the amount really. Also in the port tunnel there are a few places where you can switch tunnels in an emergency so I would assume that’s a factor too.

Read about it here.

One 12 metre tunnel vs two 8 metre tunnels. Cross section = 113 sq metres vs 100 sq metres - not such a difference. One TBM instead of two - saving there. Safety is thought of and good solutions put forward.

I'd go with the Barca solution.

bk · 26-02-2018 11:00pm

So in Barcelona you have:

- Single Bore, lines side by side, 9m
- Single Bore, lines stacked, 12m

London Underground:
- Twin bore, 4.5m per tunnel.

I don't think you would go with stacked unless you have space issues with the station boxes, which I just don't think we have.

cgcsb · 27-02-2018 11:22am

Shurimgreat wrote: »

New York, London, Paris are multi-dimensional lines.
LUAS/Metro North is a SINGLE Line. That means EVERYONE gets off at the one stop.

what does the above even mean?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Then there is the question of space. LUAS lines will have to do a "U Turn" at Sandyford as will Metros. So two separate turning points for both. Plus platforms both ways for both. Meaning 4 platforms.

Underground works because you can put platforms and even lines at different heights. When you attempt transit stations above ground like that proposed at Sandyford you run into a myriad of problems.

As for magical fantasy land, its you who are living in it. Much like the average Dublin planner, you really haven't thought the whole thing through, the little details such as how Sandyford would work.

I despair at planners in this country. They take simple problems and turn them into the mother of all problems with the average commuter suffering.

trams don't do u turns. They have a drivers cab at both ends, the driver just gets in the other end and goes the other way.

cgcsb · 27-02-2018 11:25am

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So they will be tearing up the Green Luas line extension to the Northside they spent hundreds of millions on in recent years?
What a complete waste of money so.

I think we can all agree the whole thing is an absolute shambles.

have you read this thread? that is the opposite of what is proposed.

cgcsb · 27-02-2018 11:34am

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There are other stops and you know it. Broombridge, Cabra, Phibsborough, Grangegorman, Broadstone, and possibly Parnel as well as the 3 I mentioned.

Commuters from south of Sandyford to these locations will need 3 trams, a bit of walking as well as waiting/queuing for all 3 trams. A miserable commuting experience I would say.

2 trams, one change will be needed as has been explained here multiple times, change at Charlemont for the south side stops(if you really need to, but most likely you wont because all south side luas stops will be spitting distance from a metro station) and change at O'Connell For the northside, infact you'd get to the northside quicker than the current luas service.

no.8 · 27-02-2018 12:00pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

thats true about the luggage, if they was an underground pedestrian tunnel with travelator , it might be ok, but without it, on surface! forget it!

I wonder roughly what the cost for each 90m below ground station will be (I am strongly assuming they are going with 90m)

Only 90m! That really doesn't leave much room for expansion does it

cgcsb · 27-02-2018 12:05pm

Consonata wrote: »

That map is crying out for Metro West. Its disappointing to see that its been left to the dust since that was one of the more promising projects for Dublin in my opinion. That and Metro North. The massive gap at Harolds cross really isn't acceptable, and isn't likely to be serviced till 2060 at this rate.

Indeed a densely populated wedge of the City around Harold's X gets nothing as of yet and little or no scope for better bus services. I expect Bus Connects will do something for the area, a few gardens CPOed and more bus lanes put in. Also there is a massive gap between the metro line and the northern DART line. I wouldn't worry though, once the travelling public have high frequency DARTs and metros criss-crossing the City the cries for an Artane-Harold's X metro line will be so deafening not even the dimmist of politician will ignore it. We may even see the Finglas-Charlemont line extended to UCD in time.

bk · 27-02-2018 12:25pm

no.8 wrote: »

Only 90m! That really doesn't leave much room for expansion does it

Well just 5 years ago they were proposing just 60m trains in order to save costs!

So most of us are hoping we are back to the original 90m.

90m is pretty standard for most big Metros, for instance I think most trains in Barcelona are 86m.

London Underground ranges from 66m up to 133m, but the average is around 110m, but then we have nothing like the population of London. 90m is probably a good length for us.

Yes, DART's are much longer, but Metro makes up with it with high frequency. A 90m Metro every 2 minutes is going to give you far more capacity then a 180m DART every 20 minutes or even 10 minutes. Plus people tend to prefer such high frequency, less time waiting at the station normally.

LXFlyer · 27-02-2018 12:30pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Indeed a densely populated wedge of the City around Harold's X gets nothing as of yet and little or no scope for better bus services. I expect Bus Connects will do something for the area, a few gardens CPOed and more bus lanes put in. Also there is a massive gap between the metro line and the northern DART line. I wouldn't worry though, once the travelling public have high frequency DARTs and metros criss-crossing the City the cries for an Artane-Harold's X metro line will be so deafening not even the dimmist of politician will ignore it. We may even see the Finglas-Charlemont line extended to UCD in time.

It will take a bit more than CPOing a few gardens - the Templeogue and Rathfarnham QBCs have the slowest average bus speeds in the city and without demolishing the various villages en route and massive CPO activity and, importantly, active enforcement of the priority measures, then not much will change. I remain to be convinced that the plans under BusConnects will see the light of day once the householders along the various corridors realise what’s involved - especially if a general election starts looming on the horizon.

It will only be solved by a long underground metro line that serves the Harold’s X, Terenure, Rathfarnham, Templeogue and Knocklyon areas, probably surfacing beyond Templeogue and ending in Tallaght but that’s something that our politicians probably don’t want to hear.

cgcsb · 27-02-2018 12:33pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

It will take a bit more than CPOing a few gardens - the Templeogue and Rathfarnham QBCs have the slowest average bus speeds in the city and without demolishing the various villages en route and massive CPO activity and, importantly, active enforcement of the priority measures, then not much will change.

It will only be solved by a long underground metro, something that our politicians probably don’t want to hear.

indeed but I expect there will be some measures brought in to improve buses in the area, but all tinkering around the edges stuff. Metro is needed. I expect that bus connects will include camera enforcements at key locations.

LXFlyer · 27-02-2018 12:40pm

cgcsb wrote: »

indeed but I expect there will be some measures brought in to improve buses in the area, but all tinkering around the edges stuff. Metro is needed. I expect that bus connects will include camera enforcements at key locations.

Quite - as you say all it will be is tinkering.

That whole area has some of the busiest bus routes in the city with little or no effectove priority in both directions (9, 14, 15 group, 16).

Sam Russell · 27-02-2018 2:04pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

Quite - as you say all it will be is tinkering.

That whole area has some of the busiest bus routes in the city with little or no effectove priority in both directions (9, 14, 15 group, 16).

What is needed is in-bus cameras that are sufficient for AGS prosecutions for errant motorists. Driver presses button, image goes to AGS, fixed penalty in the post, job done.

Also, traffic lights should always favour buses, if possible.

LXFlyer · 27-02-2018 2:07pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is needed is in-bus cameras that are sufficient for AGS prosecutions for errant motorists. Driver presses button, image goes to AGS, fixed penalty in the post, job done.

Also, traffic lights should always favour buses, if possible.

I think a bus driver should be focussing on driving his bus safely rather than pressing a button to take photos. Let’s be realistic about this. Any cameras have to be part of an automated process and not be a distraction from the bus driver driving safely.

The fundamental problem is the lack of roadspace and the large number of pinch points along the route.

tom1ie · 27-02-2018 2:13pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is needed is in-bus cameras that are sufficient for AGS prosecutions for errant motorists. Driver presses button, image goes to AGS, fixed penalty in the post, job done.

Also, traffic lights should always favour buses, if possible.

I posted a question about this before on boards, but I never got an answer, do dB busses have transponders fitted to give them priority at traffic lights?
I realize this creates its own problems in cc but in suburbia it would work well.
Surely it wouldn’t cost too much to get this infrastructure retrofitted to busses and traffic lights?

Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

Comments