Luas link-up - Where would the buses go?

trellheim · 09-11-2007 11:00am

According to a 2005 study [ Seen in "Chaos at the Crossroads" ]

17% of public transport is on the LUAS .... thus the minority claim.

50%+ on the buses.

to take a leaf out of Propellerhead's post. Why not actually prioritise buses at Westmoreland St/O'Connell Bridge ?

Then we can compare apples with oranges.

A similar argument might apply to the Hatch St/Harcourt St crossing

let's have a mini-trial to prioritise one over the other; oh,wait it's already there.

Calina · 09-11-2007 11:06am

Propellerhead wrote: »

God forbid that we do anything interesting and radical in Dublin, eh? Some vested interests may not like it. :rolleyes:

being radical for the sake of being radical is likewise not very practical.

Slice · 09-11-2007 11:28am

One way to connect the green and red line, while integrating with DART, without duplicating with Metro North would be to bring the Green line east towards Pearse and bring it over the about-to-be-built Maken Street Bridge and connect it with the Red line extension to the Point. The Maken Street Bridge was designed with provisions for a luas line anyway. If the requirement to bring the Green line north to Broadstone is there then it can share red line track towards O'Connell Street and spur off towards broadstone. This would meet all requirements, plus making full use of a bridge that's already planned, while at the same time providing better integration and opening up a greater part of the city to Luas.

strassenwolf · 09-11-2007 12:15pm

Right, lads, here's a suggestion about the LUAS link-up. It is certainly different to the other options that I've seen, so I'm giving it its own thread.:D

Apparently, a crazy one, but I'd love to hear your views.

A short, ca. 300 metre north-south tunnel under Christchurch Cathedral, i.e., between Patrick Street/Nicholas Street and Winetavern Street.

There are steep gradients on both of these streets, so trams would probably not be able to negotiate them. But by going through the hill you would negate these gradients.

So we bring the trams around Cuffe Street, Kevin Street (upper and lower), and around into Patrick Street. Through the hill onto Winetavern Street, over the bridge into Chancery Place - connection with the red line around the corner on Chancery Street - and up towards Broadstone along Greek Street, etc.

This offers connection with the red line. The tunnel through the hill at Christchurch could sit nicely on top of the proposed interconnector, allowing a link here.

Obviously the tunnel would increase costs. But we're only talking about 300 metres. Surely no great need for expensive tunnel boring machines.

Things might be a little tight at the junction of Wexford Street and Kevin Street, but it should still be doable. Apart from that, it's pretty much nice wide streets all the way.:D

Calina · 09-11-2007 1:28pm

(threads merged)

Propellerhead · 09-11-2007 1:50pm

Calina wrote: »

being radical for the sake of being radical is likewise not very practical.

Having a virtually all bus based transport system was very practical - it was also useless.

trellheim · 09-11-2007 2:07pm

Having a virtually all bus based transport system was very practical - it was also useless.

practical + useless.... [ intrigued ] isn't that an oxymoron ?

practical = real world application [ i.e. has a use ]

useless = no use...

You need to explain that last.

Propellerhead · 09-11-2007 3:26pm

To spell it out for those who don't remember the 1970s and early 1980s buses were slow, uncomfortable and relatively cheap to the exchequer. They therefore were of utility to those who did not want the State to invest in public transport.

They also facilitated urban sprawl, as an infrequent A, B or C variant on the original route could be created to service new estates, which were all built as four houses to the acre until the 1990s.

Garret FitzGerald justified the scrapping/long fingering of the second and later phases of DART (Tallaght, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown and the Airport) precisely on the basis that the areas now the subject of Tribunals were not built densely enough to justify proper transport to them.

On that basis, a bus based transport system was "practical", especially to those who paid for them but didn't have to use them. It was only a bit of cute hoor politics at the time of the three General Elections in 1981-2 that lead to the creation of the Maynooth commuter service and even more cuteness in 1979 lead to the electrification of the coastal railway that was more than life expired at the time. If the Doheny and Nesbitt School of Economics had its way we would not have had either service today. The Times and Indo archives are useful for examining this.

As for usefulness, even in the mid to late 1970s it was quicker to walk from the South Circular Road into town than to sit on a 19 or a 22 for half an hour between Kelly's Corner and Dame Street.

On that basis they were "useless".

Glad to have been of assistance.

Calina · 09-11-2007 3:46pm

Propellerhead wrote: »

Having a virtually all bus based transport system was very practical - it was also useless.

You're playing with reality. In truth, it was unimaginative. But so too is the idea of being radical for the sake of being radical.

In most cities with a functioning transport system, modes are integrated with the implications for the end users upper most in the minds of the designers. This is tragically not the case here.

No one in recent years said that an all-bus system was practical. What you have described is something which was politically expedient. There is a major difference between political expediency and practicality. If I am not mistaken - and I am too young - probably the most recent time an all-bus system was seen as practical was when the trams were taken out of service in the last century.

Most of what passes for transport planning in this country worries me because it is apparently more ideologically driven - viz the PDs' hamstringing of additional funding for DB because private is best, and the issues surrounding the routing of the 41X via Dublin Port Tunnel - and not practically driven.

I don't see the point in building a white elephant metro station as a tourist attraction. I want pragmatic considerations of what people in this city need outside antibus, anticar, anti-CIE, anti RPA considerations. Too much patch defending is going on.

Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear to me I am not going to get it.

Propellerhead · 09-11-2007 4:30pm

Calina wrote: »

You're playing with reality. In truth, it was unimaginative. But so too is the idea of being radical for the sake of being radical.

In most cities with a functioning transport system, modes are integrated with the implications for the end users upper most in the minds of the designers. This is tragically not the case here.

No one in recent years said that an all-bus system was practical. What you have described is something which was politically expedient. There is a major difference between political expediency and practicality. If I am not mistaken - and I am too young - probably the most recent time an all-bus system was seen as practical was when the trams were taken out of service in the last century.

Most of what passes for transport planning in this country worries me because it is apparently more ideologically driven - viz the PDs' hamstringing of additional funding for DB because private is best, and the issues surrounding the routing of the 41X via Dublin Port Tunnel - and not practically driven.

I don't see the point in building a white elephant metro station as a tourist attraction. I want pragmatic considerations of what people in this city need outside antibus, anticar, anti-CIE, anti RPA considerations. Too much patch defending is going on.

Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear to me I am not going to get it.

I've no patch to defend, I'm just a user of public transport. I am amazed about the White Elephant suggestion, I am sorely tempted to dig up an article on Wikipedia about fallacious argumentation. Where did I suggest doing anything as a tourist attraction? I am reminded of a piece by Niamh Connolly in the SBP written sometime in 2002 or 2003 where she claimed that one of reasons driving forward Luas was that un-named persons considered trams to be "quaint".

In any case, I can't "give" you the public transport or the sort of "debate" you want, I'm just someone with an opinion, same as everyone else here. I doubt that I will ever be convinced that bus based transport is a good thing, seeing as I grew up with the damn lousy thing. I'm sure that others will never be convinced about the effectiveness of Luas or whatever.

Calina · 09-11-2007 4:44pm

Mea culpa on the metro station - that was MetroBest in a different thread.

My other points still stand. The confrontational system of doing things (eg buses bad metro good or buses bad, luas good or luas bad, buses good) misses the point. Integration and considering the system as a whole rather than as its constituent parts would be more likely to be productive in the long term.

Your patch, incidentally, appears to be "buses were useless in the past, ergo they will not be useful in the future".

We are all public transport users anyway. I don't like the bus system for several reasons - I don't like the double deckers and I don't like the fact that there are far too many stops, I don't like the stage system. I don't like the fact that the Luas system was hamstrung before it ever got into operation and that this is used as ammunition against it.

I also don't like that residential planning appears to have been done with zero consideration for public transport issues - even where the building of new stations was mandatory for certain planning applications.

That being said, I absolutely agree that we need to look at what is necessary in terms of moving people around the place rather than what's expedient. In many respects, I suspect that you and I more or less agree in terms of our view of how things are done here.

Propellerhead · 09-11-2007 5:01pm

Calina wrote: »

Mea culpa on the metro station - that was MetroBest in a different thread.

My other points still stand. The confrontational system of doing things (eg buses bad metro good or buses bad, luas good or luas bad, buses good) misses the point. Integration and considering the system as a whole rather than as its constituent parts would be more likely to be productive in the long term.

Your patch, incidentally, appears to be "buses were useless in the past, ergo they will not be useful in the future".

We are all public transport users anyway. I don't like the bus system for several reasons - I don't like the double deckers and I don't like the fact that there are far too many stops, I don't like the stage system. I don't like the fact that the Luas system was hamstrung before it ever got into operation and that this is used as ammunition against it.

I also don't like that residential planning appears to have been done with zero consideration for public transport issues - even where the building of new stations was mandatory for certain planning applications.

That being said, I absolutely agree that we need to look at what is necessary in terms of moving people around the place rather than what's expedient. In many respects, I suspect that you and I more or less agree in terms of our view of how things are done here.

I fully agree. There's a role for everything in Dublin - while personally I use buses as transport of last resort, if some of the aspects of Dublin buses that have become fossilised get overhauled, specifically the fare stage system, inadequate numbers of doors and few genuine "QBCs" then buses do have a vital role to play.

Each bit of the system should have its specific role and integrate with all others.

trellheim · 09-11-2007 6:49pm

Yep. but we reiterate : noone arguing against integration

BX as currently planned not the way to do it.

zanardi · 10-11-2007 1:25pm

If Garrett hadn't used his IT column in the late 90's to argue against the Luas crossing the Liffey today I'm convinced that we would have a properly connected light rail system. But Mary ran scared and bluffed her way out with the Metro solution.

Luckily our usually spineless Government didn't bow to his opinions on the Red Cow interchange or we'd still be waiting for the 'on stilts' option.

Imagine being a tourist in Dublin today, staying near a Red line stop and running to catch a Green line tram to get back to their hotel - it makes me want to puke.

trellheim · 10-11-2007 6:00pm

they'd be getting the wrong tram line is that what you're saying ?

i.e. staying on Red Line and hotel on green line ? :eek:

A similar argument applies to a bus.

Even if we speeded up Luas to 60tph we would still not be able to beat the buses for numbers of passengers travelled since not everyone lives along the LUAS but most do live near a bus route

zanardi · 10-11-2007 9:08pm

Usually in a foreign country the mass transport system is your friend, once you see a station, you can make your way to any other station.

The only exceptions that I know are Dublin and Tokyo. Tokyo at least has two overlapping systems, Dublin not so much overlapping, more underlapping with Tumbleweed blowing between stations.

armada104 · 11-11-2007 12:29am

trellheim wrote: »

1. Even if the RPA builds the "preferred" line you will still need to change to go Green-Red or vice versa so that doesn't matter at all. There is no concept of Cherrywood-direct-Citywest to take an extreme case.

Zoney the argument was the opposite. Metro North will duplicate BX so why build it overground at all to get the same integration ?

Here is my argument succinctly : it makes no sense to link the LUAS lines via the surface in the city centre. The disruption to "non-tram" public transport to allow the minority be linked up is not worth it.

See, this is what annoys me. Metro North does not duplicate BX. Of course Luas should have been underground in the city centre, and of course the green line should be part of the metro. But it's just not. For whatever reason - political interference, lack of money, general Irish bull**** - it's just not.

I rarely use Luas, I sit on buses for an hour and a half every morning. And yet even I can recognise that in the great scheme of things, and if we are to have the integrated mass transit system we're aiming for, these two lines have to meet. They just have to.

And of course I appreciate that bus users - the majority - should get priority. But I started this thread to discuss alternative bus routes and alternative BX routes. And it's turned into a bus vs Luas argument. At this stage I'm surprised noone's dragged the ubiquitous RPA vs CIE "debate" into the whole thing.

One or two posters have posted interesting suggestions as to the rerouting of line BX and save for a couple of dismissive posts they have been largely ignored. In many ways this thread is a microcosm of the governance of public transport in this country. This is why nothing gets done. Why can noone see things both ways?

1. Bus transport forms the vast majority of public transport in this city at the moment, will do for the forseeable future and will always play a vital role.

2. Having two tram lines in to the city centre that don't meet is *ridiculous* and can't continue.

3. The current proposal for BX is a bit shíte, but there must be ways around it.

This whole arguent has been played out so many times and it's just boring at this stage.

trellheim · 11-11-2007 2:29pm

and if we are to have the integrated mass transit system we're aiming for, these two lines have to meet. They just have to.

Not at any cost. Too much pain for not enough gain.

Building it as BX is currently planned is worse than staying as we are; therefore do not build BX as currently planned.

Slice · 12-11-2007 10:11am

What is the rationale for connecting the two lines without actually connecting them at all insofar as passengers would still need to change between the two lines at O'Connell Street? Wouldn't it make more sense to feed the green line into the red line and perhaps having the two share track with the green line terminating at Heuston or having the green line terminating at Connolly while the red line bypasses Connolly and go onwards towards the docklands?

ardmacha · 12-11-2007 6:54pm

If Garrett hadn't used his IT column in the late 90's to argue against the Luas crossing the Liffey today

Was he wrong? His comments have proved correct.

gjim · 13-11-2007 12:10am

It looks like BX as a stand alone project is dead. Really we should be discussing the extension of the Green line to Liffey Junction. Thus although the middle section of the Green line will overlap with the Metro North, this doesn't seem like a major flaw to me. As someone else said, whether we like it or not, unfortunately Metro North and the Green Luas are going to be different modes. Also in terms of the fraction of the overall length of Metro North and the extended Green Luas which will overlap, we're looking at less than 5% of the distances. And this overlap will span one of the busiest corridoors for the movement of people in the city so it's not like one or other will be under-utilised between Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street. There are huge synergies to be gained in terms of the utility of the Luas system by allowing easy movement from one line to the other which will happen automatically with the extension to Liffey Junction.

The RPA should also give consideration to mimising the impact on buses but unfortunately the cockamaymee "preferred" route is almost the most disruptive possible and provides great ammunition against extending the Grean Luas north. However I also think some people are overstating the disruption to buses caused by ANY link up. If the straightforward option A were implemented, the only pinch point I can see is the section along Nassau Street/end of Grafton Street. Dawson Street, College Green, Westmoreland Street, O'Connell Bridge and Street have plenty of width to support both transport modes. A pair of Luas lines occupies about 1.5 traffic lanes. The only other point of contention is the flow of buses along the quays.

Ideally, if the RPA was thinking strategically, they should be planning to have metro North extend south westish - in the direction of Harolds Cross and beyond. Thus the Green Luas and metro North would form a diagonal cross intersecting in the centre of the city. Each "piece" would be far more digestable and would make sense - build BX (properly not the stupid "preferred route"), build Metro North, build D (extension to Liffey Junction), build X (metro extension to Tallaght). This could be fairly easily sold to the public as each bit would be viewed as being strategic and people would recognise the value of the end goal. Their current d*cking about inspires no confidence.

Slice · 13-11-2007 10:00am

Ideally, if the RPA was thinking strategically, they should be planning to have metro North extend south westish - in the direction of Harolds Cross and beyond.

I think the plan to extend the Green line to Bray will mean that, whether we like it or not, the Green line will need to be converted to Metro and connected with Metro north. As a tram line there is no way the green line would be able to cope with usage serving such an extended catchment area

Zoney · 13-11-2007 12:05pm

trellheim wrote: »

Not at any cost. Too much pain for not enough gain.

Building it as BX is currently planned is worse than staying as we are; therefore do not build BX as currently planned.

That's what people said about the Luas and it's the kind of attitude that had us sitting waiting for it for years and it eventually costing *more* cause of the delays and mind-changing etc. It should never have been split into two separate systems.

It's absurd that the lines are not linked. There is no way that BX as currently planned, even if flawed, is worse than staying as we are - staying as we are involves idiotic Luas maps with a pictogram of a man walking in the central area.

trellheim · 13-11-2007 12:26pm

You got numbers to back that up ?
regarding negative or positive impact on public transport through the capital by the linking of the lines?

by the post it sounds like you think it'll be positive to run it along the streets and affect the buses.

Any motive or just "It Stands To Reason" ?

BrianD · 13-11-2007 12:43pm

Slice wrote: »

I think the plan to extend the Green line to Bray will mean that, whether we like it or not, the Green line will need to be converted to Metro and connected with Metro north. As a tram line there is no way the green line would be able to cope with usage serving such an extended catchment area

Whether we like it or not, it is now impossible to convert the Green line to a Metro. The extension to Cherrywood has copperfastened this. The only way there will ever be another metro line to Bray ( it is already served by a metro line) is to build an entirely new one underground.

Furthermore, like it or not bus transport has to have a huge priority. Thanks to corruption and a lack of general planning, we live in a sprawling city. We can never adequately serve this by light or heavy rail so bus will form a huge part of any integrated transport system. It may not all have to go through the city centre but at the moment it does.

Personally, I don't tink the red and green lines should be linked for the sake of it. It would be welcome but not essential. It would be very superficial to demand a link up and then not examine how other modes of transport within the city fail to link or connect with each other. i would put the need for integrated ticketing far ahead of any Luas link up.

ardmacha · 13-11-2007 1:07pm

It should never have been split into two separate systems.

The Green line should never have run on the street at all.

Luas link-up - Where would the buses go?

Comments