Tram systems 'too costly and underused'

tricky D

Are you sure that wasn't for one particular property, not an average over all properies? Linkies?

Alas, no links yet as it was on the TV one evenin over the long weekend. Came across it by accident so will have to figure out which prog, tho it was something like 'The Week in Politics'.

The fella there said 320 properties @ average 1.2m per property, though this was for compensation in particular not just land acquisition which hadn't hit 100m for 210 properties in the most recent webpages (end 03) which I could dig up. Don't know what kind of breakdown is in the compensation but possibly costs like disruption, loss of business, access, legal and insurance.

Still it does sound very high, will check further
\r

Slice

There is no problem with track spacing on the Luas, even if they decide to ditch the metro this wouldn't present a problem for interchangability of the tram network. The only problem for interchangability at the moment is that the two lines don't connect - a decision motivated by the fact that shutting down Dawson Street, College Green, Westmoreland Street, O'Connell Bridge and O'Connell Street was at the time a politically sensative issue. That said, taking the Sandyford line underground towards St Stephens Green would have actually reduced capacity per hour - which kinda says quite alot about plans for a metro.

What I want to know is what will the two lines be called? To be honest I prefer the Tallaght Line and the Sandyford Line to 'Line A' and 'Line B' or the Red Line and Blue Line - those names tell me nothing about where they go and are quite confusing.

Victor

Originally posted by Slice
That said, taking the Sandyford line underground towards St Stephens Green would have actually reduced capacity per hour - which kinda says quite alot about plans for a metro.

Actually taking it underground would have increased capacity, because it wouldn't interact with other traffic. Why do you think it would reduce capacity? (It would marginally reduce aaccessibility, but this would have been more than offset by service improvement).

Victor

http://www.sbpost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-297898614-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FNews.asp

Rail agency rejects report
02/05/04 00:00
By Ian Kehoe

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) has said that a British report criticising the viability of tram and light rail networks is "not relevant to the Irish situation or to the Luas".

The report, compiled by the British National Audit Office, said vast sums of public money had been wasted on trams which had cost too much to develop and were running half empty. It added that light rail had not proven to be a viable form of public transport in Britain.

Seven light rail networks have been built in Britain since 1980 at a total cost of €3.2 billion, of which €1.7 billion has come from the taxpayer.

Tom Manning, public relations manager with the RPA, the Luas operators, said that the Luas bore no resemblance to the model of light rail system in operation in Britain. He said the Luas had been modelled on continental trams, which were "extremely successful".

"We studied the report in great detail and we would agreewithalotofwhatissaid. But we have an entirely different model here and we have learned from the mistakes in Britain," he said.

Slice

The tunnel that was planned to St Stephens Green would have only been able to accomodate trams the size of those on the Tallaght line - I think it may have something to do with the curvature and gradient of the tunnel.

Victor

Originally posted by Slice
I think it may have something to do with the curvature

The centre sections have less "curvature" than the longer end sections. In any case the tunnel would be almost straight.

Originally posted by Slice
gradient

You just up the engine size or remove the (unpowered) centre sections.