[Article] U-turn on the Luas as lines get connected

narommy

That would be a good idea. Accomodating trucks would be a problem tho.

The problem with any inner city infastructure in this country is that the gov is responsible for moving telcom and other ducts. Another thing is that they don't seem to control where they go in the first place.

My suggestion would be to scrape of the top 750mm and pour the concrete bed and place the tracks. To get around the problem of ducts etc. Place several pipes along each side of the tracks and crossovers at 50m intervals. If some body has a problem with their ducts then they have to use the new ones

What would be wrong with this rather that clearing the swepth path?If anybody knowledgable in construction could comment on this i would be really greatful

GreeBo

narommy wrote:

Joking aside I don't think that the red and green lines will actually meet. I am presuming that you will have to change trams at O' Connell St. The junction would take up alot of space if they did.

In an ideal world they eould tho

I dont really think them meeting adds any value. They are two distinct lines, yeah they should have a joint station but meeting doesnt make any sense (to me) does the red train continue on the green line?

Should it be called the Brown Line?

enterprise

My propsal:

St. Stephens Green (stop) - Dawson Street (stop) - Nassua Street - College Green - Westmorland Street (Stop) - O'Connell Street (stop - Green) where there would be a triangular junction connecting with the red line.

This is bascially what was propsed first by CIE before Mary got her way.

Traffic alts:
Dawson Street: One car traffic lane turn right onto Nassua Street, Tram / Bus lane.

Nassua Street - Grafton Street: Tram / Buses only.

The above two areas are the pinch points of the proposal - there is enough room in Westmorland street - O'Connell Bridge / Street to fit the tracks.

Service to be operated:

Green Line:

Alternate trams operate Sandyford - Connolly and Sandyford - Heuston and vice-versa.

Red Line: Tallaght - Connolly.
The Connolly - Heuston "shorts" would be withdrawn - the paths for these services would be used by the green line trams to / from Sandyford / Connolly - Heuston.

This has the benefit of keeping the two tram fleets apart (if the 30mtrs aren't extended to 40 mtrs) while connecting the two lines.

Suggestions?

BrianD

I wouldn't see the green line trams going onto the red line at all. The lines would have to cross with a spur line allowing the trams to move from one line to the other. The only purpose for this would be to faciliate trams moving from one line to another for maintenance and operational reasons and not passengers. Green line pax would alight at O'Connell St and walk to the stop on Abbey St. The Green Line could continue along O'Connell St with a loop around Parnell Square until they side where it should terminate. I think Ballymun via DCU would be a good northern terminus for the line.

BrianD

That would be a good idea. Accomodating trucks would be a problem tho.

When the tunnel opens and the HGV management plan kicks in there shouldn't be too many trucks left in the city other than for deliveries.

Even though I joked about it, I don't think an elevated tram way would work well in Dublin because it is a low rise city. There has been a campaign going for years to get the loop line removed and given that we don't even like overhead road signs and traffic lights I can't imagine us sticking the trams above eye level!!

P&L

My suggestion would be to scrape of the top 750mm and pour the concrete bed and place the tracks. To get around the problem of ducts etc. Place several pipes along each side of the tracks and crossovers at 50m intervals. If some body has a problem with their ducts then they have to use the new ones

What would be wrong with this rather that clearing the swepth path?If anybody knowledgable in construction could comment on this i would be really greatful

Im sorry, I might be misunderstanding you, but how could you scrape off 750mm without cutting off every main service in the city?

I'm guessing you might say this because the recommended cover for utilities under city roads is 750mm?
Reality is that practically every service is above that 750mm (except where the new LUAS lines have been built). Especially in the parts of the city where Red and Green could link up.

I'm an ex-utilities technician who worked on the Harcourt Street design, btw.

antoinolachtnai

I think the problem with an elevated line on Grafton St. would be that it would make the current street space very dark. The road is too narrow for this sort of construction. In practical money terms, you might have to buy out rights-to-light and all sorts.

One thing that might just barely work would be to somehow run an elevated line down between Grafton St. and Dawson St.

The problem then is really what you do with the line when you get to the two ends of the road. You end up having a very awkward, sprawling ramp.

I think the conservation objection could be gotten round for Grafton St. (let's all be realistic about the amount of Irish heritage in Grafton St.) if it weren't for the light problem. However, an elevated construction through College Green or on Stephen's Green just isn't gonna happen. You'd ruin all the sightlines.

You also have the problem of how to get people on and off the platforms. The stations end up absorbing a pretty substantial footprint because you need stairs, lifts and maybe escalators. You also have to make the whole thing safe and secure.

One of the strong points of trams is that you're supposed to get a slick, almost-metro service without disrupting the visual and environmental amenity of the street. So if you do all this stuff, you've basically negated one of the main advantages of light rail.

I can't see any other way of getting this tram in close to College Green without taking up the roadspace. That's the cost of the project.

The main alternative I can see is to go from Stephen's Green to Merrion Square, down Macken St. to the Macken St. Bridge and up through the IFSC. You could also do Westland Row or George's St., but that would probably just drive even more traffic through College Green. The Trinity College idea seems like a good idea, but if you actually look at it, you'll see that the levels are very awkward and its hard to find an alignment that doesn't slice up the sports field or reduce the size of the rugby pitch. You'd still disrupt the traffic crossing Nassau St., Pearse St. and the Quays.

narommy

P&L wrote:

Im sorry, I might be misunderstanding you, but how could you scrape off 750mm without cutting off every main service in the city?

I'm guessing you might say this because the recommended cover for utilities under city roads is 750mm?
Reality is that practically every service is above that 750mm (except where the new LUAS lines have been built). Especially in the parts of the city where Red and Green could link up.

I'm an ex-utilities technician who worked on the Harcourt Street design, btw.

Point taken then.

But it does back up the my point that the corporation doesn't exert much control over companies when they are puting in their ducts.

If they put them in with not enough cover then they should be made pay any additional expense incurred in moving them.

I was just suggesting 750mm cos it looked like that was how deep they dug for the concrete bed.

Another innocent point shy couldn't they pour the concrete arount the ducts? would steel mesh not compensate for any weakness caused?

Also was the design over engineered? Did the tracks really need all that steel and concrete? Also what was the point of all that granite alongside the track.
Also why way there tarmac placed between the lines. The concrete each side of the rails would have done (and been alot cheaper and faster) Surely limestone or sandstone could have deen used to add a bit tof variety.

GreeBo

antoinolachtnai wrote:

You'd still disrupt the traffic crossing Nassau St., Pearse St. and the Quays.

My take on this would be "SO"?
I think private traffic has to take second place to public transport.

P&L

narommy wrote:

But it does ...

to be fair to the corpo, yes there has been some abuses - but a lot of those utilites are much older than the standards. As I say, especially in those areas of the city.

The Q. about concrete around the ducts would leave them unserviceable without having to dig up the tracks, there are many many other considerations, we could take this OT for a week but suffice to say every 5m of track needs to be assesed individually - its a jungle down there

As for the other questions - I'd be even less qualified to help you out there

sliabh

I just had a look at Kevin Myers "Irishman's Diary" in the IT today (they are doing a free 30 day trial at the moment). It must be a slow news day for the man. He took a scattergun approach to ranting about the Luas and Dublin Bus. But on the way he restated the (incorrect) claim that the two lines are incompatible.

I would have expected better of the Times. Whatever your opinions on their politics (and I have heard them called far left and far right here on boards) they usually get their facts right. It's a pity even they are printing this nonsense

A Dub in Glasgo

Well you are talking about Mr. Myers who could not care less if he was making sweeping generalisations or regurgitating bull**** he has heard in some pub corner. The IT have been giving him a free reign to spout his nonsense for years.

antoinolachtnai

GreeBo wrote:

My take on this would be "SO"?
I think private traffic has to take second place to public transport.

Well, the problem would be that the disruption of traffic in this instance would probably just mean transferring it to other already-congested areas of the city.

It's fair enough to say that public transport has to have priority. However, you have to accept that there is always going to be some private traffic.

The problem for road planners is that if they obstruct any traffic, particularly private traffic, it causes a tailback, which in turn causes further problems in some other part of the system.

As it stands, there are very few ways to get from (say) Stephen's Green to O'Connell St. in a delivery van. All of the routes are now slow and indirect. That's fair enough, because it improves the flow and gives public transport a chance to succeed. However, there's a limit to how much you can do this. If you take out or obstruct all of the routes, that's definitely going to lead to tailbacks that will screw the whole system up.

It's good to take the attitude that public transport takes priority (which is what you are doing), but it's bad to go down the route of penalizing drivers just because they're drivers, especially when they don't have alternatives.

GreeBo

antoinolachtnai wrote:

It's good to take the attitude that public transport takes priority (which is what you are doing), but it's bad to go down the route of penalizing drivers just because they're drivers, especially when they don't have alternatives.

I think "short term pain for long term gain" on this one.
Yeah the distruptions would be a bitch, but hopefully at the end of it all there will be less traffic on the streets, thus making the more "roundabout" routes faster..
Maybe wishful thinking but I think if you dont aim high....

loyatemu

how about

Stephen's Green North -> Merrion Row -> Merrion St -> Westland Row -> Lombard St.
then over the river and into Connolly via the IFSC

might be a bit tight going round the corner from Merrion Row to Merrion St. and would require a new liffey bridge but would serve a lot of extra areas of the city as well as linking up with Pearse Station

GreeBo

narommy wrote:

Off topic. A pedestrian subway under college gree is way overdue

Not something I would use :eek:
Would probably turn into an elongated version of a public toilet, complete with dirt and drugs. (and the piss a toilet implies!)

jlang

GreeBo wrote:

Not something I would use :eek:
Would probably turn into an elongated version of a public toilet, complete with dirt and drugs. (and the piss a toilet implies!)

Not if it was one of those ones that are basically an under street shopping centre with entrances at each of the street corners. We here have a very poor opinion of pedestrian subways because the piss-covered ones are the only ones we've ever seen. Think rather the Grafton Arcade before Marks and Spencer started buying up all the other shop's leases or the entrance into the Powerscourt Centre down by the Westbury or the Mall behind the GPO or ... (but underground).

antoinolachtnai

GreeBo wrote:

I think "short term pain for long term gain" on this one.
Yeah the distruptions would be a bitch, but hopefully at the end of it all there will be less traffic on the streets, thus making the more "roundabout" routes faster..
Maybe wishful thinking but I think if you dont aim high....

I wasn't talking about the disruption from building. Iwas talking about the disruption to current traffic patterns from actually running the service.

GreeBo

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I wasn't talking about the disruption from building. Iwas talking about the disruption to current traffic patterns from actually running the service.

Yeah I know, but at the end of it all there should be less traffic on the streets and so the disruption to the current traffic patterns would hopefully not affect travel times...
i.e if you used to use Nassau St because it was the quickest way, now you can go via another route and it should take the same time because it has less traffic on it.

antoinolachtnai

Yep, well, that's the 'modal shift' from cars to public transport that should happen when public transport improves. That's what it's all about.

However, it's hard to know what will happen. Say you halve the traffic capacity of the system between two points. That is basically what you are doing if you stop or greatly slow down all the car traffic through College Green. You are depending on demand reducing by half or more if you want the car traffic to be able to move faster. Is that really feasible? I don't know if it is. It would certainly take a while to achieve this reduction.

You may also push some traffic onto small roads that aren't too busy at the moment, or cause further pressure at other bottlenecks, so you move the traffic around rather than dealing with the problem. The answer to this is obviously to provide the best alternatives you can (for example, improved bus services).

You obviously have to give public transport a head's start for road space, but you have to keep all of the other traffic flowing as well as possible too.

GreeBo

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Yep, well, that's the 'modal shift' from cars to public transport that should happen when public transport improves. That's what it's all about.

However, it's hard to know what will happen.

Probably soon after it becomes even more of a pain in the arse to try drive through the city and the trams/buses are back working

Metrobest

I can't believe what I'm hearing that Cullen wants to join the two LUAS lines. It won't work - unless there is a massive change in the city centre car culture.

Most of the government departments are located in the vicinity of St Stephen's Green/Dawson Street and by car is how the civil servants get in and out. The parking spaces are seen as perks and the Servants won't give them up without a bloody fight. In practice this will mean a tram travelling from Stephen's Green to Abbey will be forced to an absolute crawl, stuck behind buses and bullet-proof mercs. Passengers would be quicker walking.

Mary O'Rourke was a dreadful minister but she made one correct decision. She didn't opt to link the two lines. She was a realist, knowing as she did that city cenntre overground LUAS was a white elephant.

Yes, the link line would be sheek and shiny and by God it'll impress the European tourists. But what about the years of construction disruption? The massive costs with no benefits? What about the cross-city bus routes that will be slashed?

All this, for a 5kmph tram line? And let's be real: the 70m Euro price being quoted is the stuff of fantasy. That figure does not include the compensation claims that will roll in from disgruntled traders. And residents of the 46a - Ireland's 'premier' bus route - will no doubt be penning invenctive-drenched letters to the Irish Times bemoaning the destruction of Georgian Dublin - not to mention their beloved door-to-door bus route to 'Nude' and Avoca Hand Weavers.

Underground LUAS is the only option. Cities such as Brussels, Cologne and Munich run their tram lines underground and it works perfectly. Why does Fianna Fail always have to go for the short term option. Underground is the only sustainable, QUALITY mode of transport for comfort and reliability, not to mention shifting the largest number of passengers. But yet again our government plumps for the cheapo option because it gives Cullen some nice PR.

weehamster

Sorry but underground LUAS? And your complaining that the over ground would be at least €70m. It would cost a fortune to make the LUAS underground for the small section.

As for the compensation, Conax will be the only ones getting compensation from ignorant drivers who cant follow even the basic rules of the road like traffic lights, yellow boxes and yellow signs that clearly show tramway ahead. If they can’t see theses thing then they are not fit to drive.

As for construction, well, that will only last 2 years, max. But the LUAS will be there for far longer than that.

This link was in the original plan which was originally designed by Irish Rail and then later amended by the RPA/Mary O'Rourke. They bowed to pressure from powerful motor lobbyist. Given that Dublin City council’s long term plan is to get rid of cars altogether from the city centre, this just helps to enforce this further. There is simply too many cars on Dublin’s roads and it must stop now.

And yes, the whole LUAS was built just for the European Tourists and for government departments. :rolleyes:

I understand that bus would be effective as well. But Dublin Bus must adapt. There’s no way a bus would be better than a tram.

Please, why can’t Dublin have trams all over the place, replacing cars and busses. Other cities have one, and overground too. We must stop the moaning and get on with it or we’ll be here forever. It was the moaning which delayed the LUAS from starting constructing by several years.

This section is a very small part of a bigger transport plan and if people are complaining about this very small section, then what will happen when far bigger projects go ahead, like the DART ‘interconnector’ and extensions to Kildare/Drogheda/Maynooth/Airport and LUAS lines like the extensions of the RED line to the Point Depot, the Green Line to Cherrywood, the Dundrum to Ballymun line (which Mary O’Rourke also decided to leave out).

jesus_thats_gre

Why do they not extend the line to the line crossing O'Connell street and beyond. Have the two lines crossing each other and extend the line down to the back of the Ilac on Parnel St.?

enterprise

weehamster wrote:

Sorry but underground LUAS? And your complaining that the over ground would be at least €70m. It would cost a fortune to make the LUAS underground for the small section.

As for the compensation, Conax will be the only ones getting compensation from ignorant drivers who cant follow even the basic rules of the road like traffic lights, yellow boxes and yellow signs that clearly show tramway ahead. If they can’t see theses thing then they are not fit to drive.

As for construction, well, that will only last 2 years, max. But the LUAS will be there for far longer than that.

This link was in the original plan which was originally designed by Irish Rail and then later amended by the RPA/Mary O'Rourke. They bowed to pressure from powerful motor lobbyist. Given that Dublin City council’s long term plan is to get rid of cars altogether from the city centre, this just helps to enforce this further. There is simply too many cars on Dublin’s roads and it must stop now.

And yes, the whole LUAS was built just for the European Tourists and for government departments. :rolleyes:

I understand that bus would be effective as well. But Dublin Bus must adapt. There’s no way a bus would be better than a tram.

Please, why can’t Dublin have trams all over the place, replacing cars and busses. Other cities have one, and overground too. We must stop the moaning and get on with it or we’ll be here forever. It was the moaning which delayed the LUAS from starting constructing by several years.

This section is a very small part of a bigger transport plan and if people are complaining about this very small section, then what will happen when far bigger projects go ahead, like the DART ‘interconnector’ and extensions to Kildare/Drogheda/Maynooth/Airport and LUAS lines like the extensions of the RED line to the Point Depot, the Green Line to Cherrywood, the Dundrum to Ballymun line (which Mary O’Rourke also decided to leave out).

I couldn't agree with you more weehamster.

The plan to link up the two lines (which Mary should have done 1st day) is a quick win project which will give major benefits to the city centre. Construction will take 18-24 months and it will be a pain in the butt when it is being done but we will have a quality tram service when it is done.

Also people have to get their head around the fact that cars will have to be banned from using nassau street during construction and when operations start.

"short term pain for long term gain"

mackerski

Metrobest wrote:

Cities such as Brussels, Cologne and Munich run their tram lines underground and it works perfectly.

I agree with much of the rest of what you've said, but all of Munich's trams run on the surface. Moreover, except where there was enough road space to run them in a private reservation, they usually share the city streets with normal traffic. I'd be surprised if Cologne were any different. Brussels? If you say so.

My take on this is that, as long as you're going to the expense of boring a tunnel, you'd be mad to run something with a capacity as low as a Luas tram. Especially with the tunnel bore required for overhead power.

Dermot

Victor

mackerski wrote:

I'd be surprise if Cologne were any different. Brussels? If you say so.

Cologne has all routes operate over ground with the very inner city underground, operating as a metro in the inner city.

Brussels has 3 proper metro lines (">--<" superimposed on a "U"). It then has a large array of overground trams with about 10 routes joinging together to form and "I" superimposed on the "U".

antoinolachtnai

Metrobest wrote:

I can't believe what I'm hearing that Cullen wants to join the two LUAS lines. It won't work - unless there is a massive change in the city centre car culture.

A trader isn't entitled to compensation in the circumstances you outline. This is well-established.

The number of traders on Dawson St/Nassau St/Suffolk St is actually not that high.

There's quite a chance that the 46A would still run the same route after the construction, so your friends on that august bus route would not be permanently effected.

There would still be a line of traffic on Dawson St. if the Luas ran down it (there is space anyway). Quite likely Nassau St. easterly would still have some traffic on it too.

There isn't that much bus congestion going Northwards/Westwards on Suffolk St./Nassau St. Stand there some rush-hour. A lot of the congestion there is caused by taxis.

There isn't much congestion on the part of Nassau St. between Grafton St. and Dawson St. There is plenty of congestion on the stretch between Dawson St. and Kildare St., because of the bus stops, weaving traffic and queueing. But this wouldn't effect tram running.

Is it perfect? No, but at least it's achieveable.

Metrobest

Dublin is not Cologne, nor is it Brussels. In those cities,.streets are wider - allowing tram lines to be segregated from cars – and straighter, so the tram can travel in a logical trajectory picking up speed between stops.
Dublin’s streets, on the other hand, are small, mostly two-laned. Streets are short and corners tight. The link line would be indeed possible - but let's ask: what use will it be, a tram travelling at a snail's pace, counstruction sites filling up the lovliest part of Dublin. Underground is the only option.

As far as traffic goes, the streets we're talking about feed into multi-storey car parks so you can’t remove traffic without demolishing the Parks. And the government does not have the bottle to do this – not least because vast chunks of politicians/big business interests are tied up in investment schemes linked to the car parks so that they can avoid tax. One of the many examples of transport planning in Ireland being manipulated by big business interests.

Problem with LUAS is that most of its fans-with-typewriters live in the wealthy suburbs along the Sandyford line. So the 700m tram is hailed a ‘success.’ What is not mentioned is that the Tallaght line is a disaster: slower than the bus, woefully short of capacity, clogged up by endless traffic lights and road junctions.

The 70m link-up suffers the same fate. And it is a stand-alone link. A passenger travelling Ranelagh to Heuston would have to get off at Stephen’s Green, change for the link line to Abbey, change again for the Tallaght line to Heuston. In heavy traffic the link line would be desperately slow – slower even than the bus because trams don’t have the option of ‘weaving’ around things like parked cars, trucks, bicycles and jaw-walking pedestrians. The bus would be quicker – guranteed. On top of that, surface construction will cost many multiples of 70m in economic losses suffered during construction. It’s in the RPA’s interest to make the cost seem low and the benefits high – don’t believe the hype.

vinnyfitz

Victor wrote:

Brussels has 3 proper metro lines (">--<" superimposed on a "U"). It then has a large array of overground trams with about 10 routes joinging together to form and "I" superimposed on the "U".

True but incomplete. The core Brussels metro lines were originally tram lines on the surface that were gradually undergrounded and, as a second, phase, converted into metro lines. (The "U" was converted during the 80's.)