[Article] RPA recommends Luas lines be linked at O’Connell Street

bk

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/03/25/story22170.asp

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) is in favour of a route linking the Sandyford and Tallaght lines along O’Connell Street in a loop that would run east along Cathal Brugha Street and south along Marlborough Street before crossing the Liffey over a new bridge.

Looks fairly good, I hope they put a stop at the top of O'Connell St, near Parnell St, and also eventually continue unto Parnell St as it will greatly help to rejuvenate these areas.

Also, with this sort of setup Dublin Bus should seriously consider stopping across city center routes and replacing them with circular routes starting from the top of O'Connell St and Stephens green, linked by both the Metro and LUAS in between. Of course this will require a fair integrated ticketing system.

Ste.phen

Ok, correct me if i'm wrong here:
LUAS route from / to Stephen's green:

Stephen's Green

{This part isnt specified, but i presume it to be the opposite of the southbound route, which is:}
Dawson St
Nassau St

College Green
Westmoreland St
O Connoll Bridge
O Connoll St
Right turn across O Connoll St median onto Cathal Brugha St
Right turn onto Marlborough St
Across Eden Quay, and over a new bridge yet-to-be-constructed
Hawkins St
College St
College Green
Nassau St
Dawson St
Stephen's Green

Problems i see with that:
- Marlborough St currently clogged up with Dublin bus using it as parking, it's pracically at a stnadstill most of the time
- Cutting across Eden Quay, which is quite busy
- Boardwalk...? (or does it start slightly to the east of the proposed bridge?)
-Turning distance in the for both the O Connoll St - Cathal Brugha St turn and the Cathal Brugha St to Marlborough St turn?

Skyhater

I really can's see the benefit of this line.......

It would be OK if it was and extension to the Green Luas line........., but it's not!!!
All it does is link the Green and Red Luas lines.... This Job will be done by Metro North!!!

Typical Ireland....we put two pieces of Infrastructure on top of each other, doing more or less the same thing.

The money would be far better spend starting with a New Luas Line from Parnell Square (Beside the Proposed Metro Stop), to Grangegorman (new DIT campus) and onto Liffey Junction, where it would connect with the Maynooth (& soon to be Pace) Commuter Line (....will be Dart1 once interconnector is built??)

Ste.phen

Path:

Ste.phen

Skyhater wrote:

Typical Ireland....we put two pieces of Infrastructure on top of each other, doing more or less the same thing.

Well right now neither is in place or likely to be finished any time soon.

The money would be far better spend starting with a New Luas Line from Parnell Square (Beside the Proposed Metro Stop), to Grangegorman (new DIT campus) and onto Liffey Junction, where it would connect with the Maynooth (& soon to be Pace) Commuter Line (....will be Dart1 once interconnector is built??)

Better still, they could have the Green line continue onwards to grangegorman instead of turning around mid-O' Connell st?

lostexpectation

have they solved the problem of tightness on dawson street

bk

There was a map in the SBPost article, it was similar to Igy's picture above, but it turns right onto Cathal Burgha St, unlike Igys picture which has it lower down.

Igy wrote:

- Marlborough St currently clogged up with Dublin bus using it as parking, it's pracically at a stnadstill most of the time

Well I honestly think that DB need to get their act together and adjust their routes to co-operate with LUAS, Metro and Dart.

-Turning distance in the for both the O Connoll St - Cathal Brugha St turn and the Cathal Brugha St to Marlborough St turn?

Turning onto Cathal Brugha should be fine, plenty of turning space where the Taxi rank and 123 Bus turn right onto Cathal Burgha.

Not sure about turning onto Marlborough St, but I assume it would be fine, not a particularly busy road and right turns are relatively easy.

Skyhater wrote:

It would be OK if it was and extension to the Green Luas line........., but it's not!!!

Looking at the map on the SBPost, it looks like it will actually be an extension of the Luas Green Line.

markpb

It seems like a funny route, notwithstanding the duplication of Metro North.

If they're trying to avoid making a mess of O'Connell St, why would one tram line make any less of a mess than two tram lines? Surely there'll be less distruption if the work is on one street instead of two.

Also, how on earth are DB going to function with a tram line interfering with them on O'Connell st, Cathal Brugha St, Marlborough st and college green? I appreciate what bk is saying but it would be a complete network re-organisation for them to remove most of their buses from the city centre zone.

Assuming those streets are going to be blocked by construction work and later by a tram line, how should those buses cross the city and where will buses lay-up before taking up duty?

bk

markpb wrote:

Assuming those streets are going to be blocked by construction work and later by a tram line, how should those buses cross the city and where will buses lay-up before taking up duty?

If we are going to improve public transport then we are going to have to suffer some pain, no one send it would be painless.

It really isn't that hard to fix, DB need to stop laying up in the city centre, I can't think of any other major city where buses lay-up in the city centre, it is mad when you stop and think about it.

I keep coming back to my time in Prague, they have an incredible public transport system, all cars and buses are banned from the city centre, only Trams and Metro serve the city centre. The buses operate from the Metro and Tram stations outside the city centre to serve outlying areas.

Also in Prague many of the tram routes follow Metro routes, likewise in San Francisco. Basically if you are coming from far out and want to get somewhere fast you take the Metro, if you are fluting about the shopping and historical areas of the city centre or just going a short distance you jump on the trams.

Slice

It's disappointing that in effect the two lines will still not be linked as such - they'll simply pass nearby each other. They won't even share the same stops. Is this what the Government meant when they promised that the two lines will be joined up?

Would it not make more sense to feed the Green line eastbound into the red line and have it sharing the Abbey Street and Busaras stops with the red line then going on to terminate at Connolly; while the red line can terminate at the Point Depot without serving Connolly at all. That would be better integration in that Green line passengers could change for the red line at the same stop while the red line wouldn't need to backtrack the short distance at Connolly. Or perhaps there's some technical barrier to this... though I don't understand what it would be since there's older tram systems doing far more in terms of sharing tracks in other cities.

Skyhater

markpb wrote:

It seems like a funny route, notwithstanding the duplication of Metro North.

If they're trying to avoid making a mess of O'Connell St, why would one tram line make any less of a mess than two tram lines? Surely there'll be less distruption if the work is on one street instead of two.

Also, how on earth are DB going to function with a tram line interfering with them on O'Connell st, Cathal Brugha St, Marlborough st and college green? I appreciate what bk is saying but it would be a complete network re-organisation for them to remove most of their buses from the city centre zone.

Assuming those streets are going to be blocked by construction work and later by a tram line, how should those buses cross the city and where will buses lay-up before taking up duty?

It's all MAD...............mad I tell you!!!!
I'd love to see a cost benefit analysis for this rout!!!

bk wrote:

Looking at the map on the SBPost, it looks like it will actually be an extension of the Luas Green Line.

I read an artical (can't remember where) a few months ago, and it said that it was going to be a city centre circle rout.....
It would be more useful if it was an extension of the green line (saving people having to change onto Metro @ Stephens green), but still low on my Integrated Transport Priority List.

And if i had to design the rout.... I'd bring to down towards Connolly station and cross the Liffey east of the customs house.
The RPA have managed to design a City Centre Rout that doesn't integrate with any of the 3 IE City Centre stations!!!

Ste.phen

bk wrote:

There was a map in the SBPost article, it was similar to Igy's picture above, but it turns right onto Cathal Burgha St, unlike Igys picture which has it lower down.

Apologies, I confused Cathal Brugha St and North Earl St when tracing out the map route.

Well I honestly think that DB need to get their act together and adjust their routes to co-operate with LUAS, Metro and Dart.

As others have said here, they need more routes that go to destinations other than the general O Connell St . area. There are simply too many buses terminating in that area

gjim

This is the worst possible route - it looks like a Frankenstein's monster. Double the disruption and probably double the cost and for what? I wouldn't have minded a more roundabout route if it linked with Pearse or Tara but this just looks daft. I could imagine justifying building a bridge if the goal was to keep the Luas off O'Connell Bridge/Street but this is achieves nothing at great extra cost and with almost double the amount of road disruption. It also makes the planned extension to Liffey Junction more difficult (which has become more important than ever given the chosen metro route).

What is the point of the huge loop around Cathal Brugha Street? Is there going to be a stop there? That wouldn't make any sense given that Abbey Street is fairly close and if there's no stop past Abbey why drag the Luas up around a 500m loop? There is no operational benefit given that Luas is bidirectional and every other existing terminus works perfectly well without a loop at the end. Why not use the "wasted" track to bring the line up to Parnell Square?

Why no junction with the red line? Even just for operational benefits like being able to share stock between the lines but more importantly to be able to offer routes like Cherrywood to Heuston or Cherrywood to Connolly for example.

I really hope that the SBP has it completely wrong or that this is an RPA ploy to make the council drop it's well publicised objections to the straightforward original Westmoreland Street/O'Connell Street plan by proposing something so ludicrous that no-one could support it.

I would prefer ANY of the original options proposed by the RPA than this hybrid mess.

bk

gjim wrote:

This is the worst possible route - it looks like a Frankenstein's monster. Double the disruption and probably double the cost and for what? I wouldn't have minded a more roundabout route if it linked with Pearse or Tara but this just looks daft.

What would be the point of that, the LUAS will eventually integrate in with the DART at Stephens Green.

gjim wrote:

I could imagine justifying building a bridge if the goal was to keep the Luas off O'Connell Bridge/Street but this is achieves nothing at great extra cost and with almost double the amount of road disruption.

It seems to be due to all the complaints from DB and DCC about the LUAS taking up two lanes on O'Connell St taking up too much space and causing too much disruption. So this is the compromise.

It will cause much less disruption as Marlborough St, is a very quiet street compared to O'Connell and is really only used by DB as a lay-up location for their buses.

On the positive side this should lead to the regeneration of Upper O'Connell St, Cathal Burgha St and Marlborough St.

gjim wrote:

It also makes the planned extension to Liffey Junction more difficult (which has become more important than ever given the chosen metro route).

Why would it, the map specifically indicates an extension for the Liffey Junction line? This actually makes the Liffey Junction extension even more likely.

gjim wrote:

What is the point of the huge loop around Cathal Brugha Street? Is there going to be a stop there?

Yes

gjim wrote:

That wouldn't make any sense given that Abbey Street is fairly close and if there's no stop past Abbey why drag the Luas up around a 500m loop?

On the Map there is also a stop proposed for Upper O'Connell St, just before the turn off for Cathal Burgha St.

gjim wrote:

Why no junction with the red line? Even just for operational benefits like being able to share stock between the lines but more importantly to be able to offer routes like Cherrywood to Heuston or Cherrywood to Connolly for example.

I can understand why they want to avoid doing this. Trams are supposed to be simple point to point jobs, they probably want to keep it simple and not have all the confusion of people getting on wrong trams etc.

bk

Actually just found the map published on the SBPost:
http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/Line%20BX%20Route%20Option%20F.jpg

It was one of the original options.

Looking at it here, I'd say only option A (Up and Down O'Connell St) was better then it.

Tadhg17

Why on earth don't they just connect the metro to the luas by bringing the metro to Beechwood and then coming out of a tunnel to join the green line?. This would bring increased capacity which will defo be needed when the cherrywood extension opens. This loop line option is a crazy waste of money not to mention o connell street will be a construction site for another three years again and it duplicates the metro route more or less. Is there anyone working in the RPA with a bit of vision at all?? guess not

Skyhater

bk wrote:

gjim wrote:

I wouldn't have minded a more roundabout route if it linked with Pearse or Tara but this just looks daft.

What would be the point of that, the LUAS will eventually integrate in with the DART at Stephens Green.

It will link with "Dart Line2" @ Stephens Green. I would definitely be an advantage to link with "Dart Line1" at Connolly, Tara, or Pearce..... My preference would be Connolly as it would also link in with Northern Commuter services and the Enterprise Service

gjim

What would be the point of that, the LUAS will eventually integrate in with the DART at Stephens Green.

I actually agree with you. However, the B option integrated with DART which provided some reason to deviate from the obvious, simple and cheapest option which was A.

It will cause much less disruption as Marlborough St, is a very quiet street compared to O'Connell and is really only used by DB as a lay-up location for their buses.

How will it cause "much less disruption"? You still have to dig up O'Connell Street and move all the utilities - the fact that you've 5 foot less width to worry about will hardly make a huge difference. At the same time you've to do the very same thing about 100m in parallel along the length of Marlborogh Street. You'll have two intersections on both sides of the quays and Abbey Street instead of one and another crossing of O'Connell Street as the northbound leg has to swing accross O'Connell Street from the west side to go down Caghal Brugha Street. The result will unnecessarily choke the quays in both directions by having 2 Luas crossing 100m apart. This is even before you consider the logistics of digging up Hawkins Street and Pearse Street at the junction with D'olier Street. I can't imagine a more disruptive plan especially when it comes to buses. This is a dogs dinner of an arrangement in terms of disruption.

On the Map there is also a stop proposed for Upper O'Connell St, just before the turn off for Cathal Burgha St.

I've just seen the map and don't understand this at all. Why have two stops 50m from each other?

I can understand why they want to avoid doing this. Trams are supposed to be simple point to point jobs, they probably want to keep it simple and not have all the confusion of people getting on wrong trams etc.

Nonsense - they should be building flexibility into the system from the word go. Any properly "trammed up" city I've been in like Zurich have lots of track sharing between lines without causing confusion.

Why on earth don't they just connect the metro to the luas by bringing the metro to Beechwood and then coming out of a tunnel to join the green line?

Well the idea was to continue the Luas through the city centre but head towards Phibsboro or Finglas - places the metro won't go near.

strassenwolf

bk wrote:

Actually just found the map published on the SBPost:
http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/Line%20BX%20Route%20Option%20F.jpg

Thanks for sticking up the link.

It was one of the original options.

It wasn't. Option F seems to be a mixture of a couple of the options, which was added in after the public consultation phase.

This makes it quite interesting. The public were asked to give their views on 5 options, though the original documentation did state that the possibilities were not limited to these five, should something else emerge after the public consultation. That seems to have happened.

I'm not really convinced by the whole idea. It's going to increase the costs by quite a lot (because of the duplication and the bridge, as has been pointed out), it's not going to stop O'Connell Street being dug up again, and "urban regeneration" would probably happen on Marlborough Street anyway, given that the LUAS link-up would only be about 100 metres away from it. It's hard to understand why such a complex solution is necessary.

Looking at it here, I'd say only option A (Up and Down O'Connell St) was better then it.

I agree, and of course if the original LUAS system had been built as intended, it wouldn't be necessary to dig up O'Connell Street again. It could have been in place before the street was renovated. Which would probably have made sense.

bk

gjim wrote:

I actually agree with you. However, the B option integrated with DART which provided some reason to deviate from the obvious, simple and cheapest option which was A.

I can certainly see that, but that route looks much longer (therefore slower) and it would be less preferable for shoppers and tourists in the city. I just don't think having LUAS interconnect with DART line 1 at Tara or Pearse serves any purpose. Remember you will be able to change from DART line 1 to DART line 2 (the interconnector) at Pearse and head to Stephens Green. So the LUAS at Tara and Pearse would serve no purpose, all the likely destinations would already be served.

From the point of view of tourists and shoppers, route A would be the best option, but route F would be preferable to route B or the other routes.

gjim wrote:

How will it cause "much less disruption"? You still have to dig up O'Connell Street and move all the utilities - the fact that you've 5 foot less width to worry about will hardly make a huge difference.

I'm not a civil engineer but I'd assume digging up both sides of O'Connell St would cause more disruption as you probably need to close more then just one line to get the work done.

gjim wrote:

At the same time you've to do the very same thing about 100m in parallel along the length of Marlborogh Street. You'll have two intersections on both sides of the quays and Abbey Street instead of one and another crossing of O'Connell Street as the northbound leg has to swing accross O'Connell Street from the west side to go down Caghal Brugha Street. The result will unnecessarily choke the quays in both directions by having 2 Luas crossing 100m apart. This is even before you consider the logistics of digging up Hawkins Street and Pearse Street at the junction with D'olier Street. I can't imagine a more disruptive plan especially when it comes to buses. This is a dogs dinner of an arrangement in terms of disruption.

I don't disagree with you, but no matter where they go it is going to cause massive disruption. But what we learned from the first Luas lines is that in the end it is worth it.

I suppose I'm just happy that I'll be going up the length of O'Connell St rather then just stopping at Abbey St. I've always seen this as an important point as it will lead to the rejuvenation of the whole of O'Connell St.

bk

Ok, looking at all the options again and all your arguments, I agree with everyone that option A is by far the best option. It would probably be the cheapest to do, cause the least disruption in the long term (only one crossing of the quays rather then 2) and would be the best for tourists, shoppers, etc.

The only thing that I'd change is that it would go up and down the length of O'Connell St with stops at the end of O'Connell St (and possibly extended on to Liffey Junction in future).

Option B is awful IMO, absolutely no point in connecting with Tara and Pearse, this route just doesn't go where people want to go.

Option C and D are both fairly weak.

Option E being a small variant of A would be fine.

Option F is a weird variant, that is 50% ok, but 50% not so great.

One thing that I noticed in all the maps, it isn't obvious that there will be a stop at the top of O'Connell St, I assume there will be? It would be stupid not to.

I suppose if we want option A, then we should indicate this to the RPA and our local politicians, while criticising DB and DCC for forcing the issue on O'Connell St.

It is a pity this can't be developed at the same time as the Eastern Bypass, I'd love to see O'Connell St, Bridge, etc. closed to all traffic but Luas, Bus, Taxi and Bike and eventually have buses banned.

wwhyte

I don't like the surface link up. It doesn't seem to me to do anything to add capacity, when you take into account the disruption that'll be caused to the bus services. I know that in an ideal world we wouldn't have bus services into town, but unfortunately it isn't an ideal world. Once there's good capacity underground with the Metro and interconnector it might be appropriate to start looking at building more surface lines in the city centre. Until then this doesn't seem like the best use that could be made of that amount of money.

Slice

Nonsense - they should be building flexibility into the system from the word go. Any properly "trammed up" city I've been in like Zurich have lots of track sharing between lines without causing confusion.

Exactly - there is the argument for simplicity in the lay-out of routes but at the same time the majority of people using it aren't totally stupid - there are plenty of stations on the IE network that are serviced by more than one route with differing destinations yet how often does it happen that people get on the wrong train? Linking the Luas like this without linking it at all in the literal sense is madness.

I also think another bridge over the Liffey as proposed in that area will only add to the visual congestion of that part of the river - if CIE ever chose to replace the loop line bridge with something more slender there'd still be this new one unnecessarily poking out in the same area.

markpb

Slice wrote:

I also think another bridge over the Liffey as proposed in that area will only add to the visual congestion of that part of the river - if CIE ever chose to replace the loop line bridge with something more slender there'd still be this new one unnecessarily poking out in the same area.

I assume the new Luas bridge will be at the same height as the roads around it. It won't be as visually intrusive as the Dart bridge because its not grade separated.

That said, it's a pity to spend all that money building a new bridge, destroying part of the boardwalk and the quay walls when O'Connell bridge is more than wide enough to take two luas lines without affecting traffic or pedestrians all that much.

The plan stinks of compromise.

strassenwolf

bk wrote:

Ok, looking at all the options again and all your arguments, I agree with everyone that option A is by far the best option. It would probably be the cheapest to do, cause the least disruption in the long term (only one crossing of the quays rather then 2) and would be the best for tourists, shoppers, etc.

Tourists and Shoppers? Only? There are a lot of people who work on O'Connell Street - collectively, the businesses on the street are probably one of the bigger employers in the city.

It's easy to forget that O'Connell Street is not just a street full of burger joints - though that is the impression that one gets walking along the street. There are lots of offices upstairs, and the burger shops, etc. also employ people. Off the top of my head, I can't readily think of any street, of a similar length, in the entire city, where more people are employed.

bk

strassenwolf wrote:

Tourists and Shoppers? Only? There are a lot of people who work on O'Connell Street - collectively, the businesses on the street are probably one of the bigger employers in the city.

I was thinking that people who commute in will typically use the Metro as it would be much faster. Of course there are many journeys besides shoppers/tourists where Luas would be preferable.

I wonder if you were coming in on the Luas green line heading to O'Connell St, would you stay on the Luas or transfer to the Metro?

strassenwolf

bk wrote:

I was thinking that people who commute in will typically use the Metro as it would be much faster. Of course there are many journeys besides shoppers/tourists where Luas would be preferable.

I'd imagine that people will. as you say, typically use the metro if they live/work along its route. But the LUAS line along O'Connell Street is planned to eventually come in, on the northside, from a different direction, so the people along that route would be using the LUAS. But obviously, if you were on O'Connell Street and wanted to get quickly to St. Stephen's Green, or vice versa, you'd almost certainly take the metro. Unless you were a bit claustrophobic.:D

I wonder if you were coming in on the Luas green line heading to O'Connell St, would you stay on the Luas or transfer to the Metro?

As above, if I was coming into the city from the northside, I would use the metro if I lived close to the metro route, and I would use the LUAS if I lived close to the LUAS route. It's only in the centre of town that there's likely to be an overlap between the two routes. In the northern suburbs, it's likely to be one or the other, and I honestly can't see many people changing from tram to metro once they reach a location where they start to overlap, just to save a minute or two. You'd spend that just getting down onto the metro platforms.

If I was coming from the southside on the LUAS, I'd guess it's unlikely that I would change onto the metro at St. Stephen's Green if all I wanted to do was go to O'Connell Street or the area around College Green. But I probably would change at St. Stephen's Green if I wanted to go to the airport, Swords, DCU, Ballymun or Drumcondra.

And then there's always the possibility that the green LUAS line will be upgraded to a joint metro/LUAS line, so that both LUAS and metro would run together along much of the same line. And that'll open a whole new can of worms.:p

gjim

bk wrote:

Ok, looking at all the options again and all your arguments, I agree with everyone that option A is by far the best option.

Absolutely. It's simple, it causes the least amount of disruption possible, it's the shortest (i.e. most direct and fastest), the cheapest and it's obvious. E or this newly proposed F are the most stupid - splitting the line in two at great expense in terms of finance and disruption for no obvious benefit.

Slice wrote:

I also think another bridge over the Liffey as proposed in that area will only add to the visual congestion of that part of the river

I agree with this also but it might be reasonable to ask whether the aesthetic damage was worth it if there were compelling benefits to routing the Luas over a new bridge. But there aren't any benefits at all besides greatly increasing the cost and complexity of the project.

markpb wrote:

The plan stinks of compromise.

This plan is completely daft.

casey jones

:rolleyes: This is farcical. Duplicating overhead cables in parallel streets for no benefit. They should run the tracks together either up O'Connoll St or along Marlborough St, not both, and continue on up along Parnell Square and it's a very short run to the Broadstone station where you have dedicated trackbed all the way to Liffey Junction and the Maynooth line.

OTK

bk wrote:

I wonder if you were coming in on the Luas green line heading to O'Connell St, would you stay on the Luas or transfer to the Metro?

Both choices are rubbish: either you stay on the tram while it follows a roundabout route through at-grade junctions on congested streets, completing your journey in much the same time as walking straight down grafton street or you get off the tram, go through ticketing gates and down escalators to the metro north station where you wait for the next train. All so you can travel one or two stops.

So we are building two half-assed non-integrated parallel systems rather than making a single north-south underground. Genius.

Victor

casey jones wrote:

:rolleyes: This is farcical. Duplicating overhead cables in parallel streets for no benefit. They should run the tracks together either up O'Connoll St or along Marlborough St, not both, and continue on up along Parnell Square and it's a very short run to the Broadstone station where you have dedicated trackbed all the way to Liffey Junction and the Maynooth line.

I don't see the loop at that bad. They did something similar in Croydon.

Marlborough St. isn't wide enough for 2 trams + stops + delivery bays, etc. O'Connell Street is grossly oversubscribed already. The city council want to build a bridge at Marlborough St. - Hawkins Street to reduce congestion on O'Connell
Bridge. Doing a loop means not having and on-street turn back facility.

That said, Broadstone - Liffey junction is quite simple and could be built in 18 months total.

bk

OTK wrote:

go through ticketing gates

FYI, the Metro won't have ticket gates, it will operate in the same way as the LUAS (ticket inspectors).

spacetweek

I think Option F is by far the best option. It will rejuvenate Marlborough St, it heads through College Green which is a totally essential area to serve, it runs the length of the city's primary north-south axis and it solves the problem of how to incorporate a switch-over so trams can head back where they came, which would be difficult and destructive with Option A.

Option F requires only road works down one side of O'Connell St, Option A would require works on both sides plus the destruction of the median to add the crossovers.

The other options are rubbish as you don't need integration with Tara or Connolly etc, this will all fall into place when the rest of the infrastructure is complete i.e. Interconnector, Metro North.

Stop at Upper O'C street: I think what's happening here is that this won't be built as part of BX but will appear when D is opened. This is because when D opens trams heading north on OC will no longer turn right for the Cathal Brugha stop and will continue straight north. In which case the stop on Lower OC will be your only chance to disembark.

Dublin Bus need to get this idea out of their heads that College Green is theirs and theirs only, it should be a pedestrian zone with no traffic at all! Even if they started terminating buses a tiny bit further out from the city centre it would free up central areas of bus blight, noise and fumes and most importantly clear the way for the Luas.

(split into two posts!)

spacetweek

Duplication of infrastructure: it's not duplication, these are two different modes, one overground, one under. The Luas is designed for short hops, it's easier to access, and it's better for tourists. The Metro is aimed at people in a hurry, people making longer journeys, and people who aren't interested in checking out tourist attractions on the way. They're aiming at two different markets. Secondly the O'connell-Stephen's Green axis is the city's central axis, and the busiest in the city. It needs as many transport options as possible.

Sandyford-Stephen's Green and SG-O'Connell not being a through service: Where are people getting this from? There's no reason to believe it won't be a through service. It's an extension of the existing line, trams will no longer terminate at SG.

With respect to the Broadstone extension, I'm with everyone here. This should be progressed as soon as possible, preferably at the same time. (It's only a short distance via Parnell Sq and the Western Way until you reach Broadstone bus garage.) After all, I remember the T21 dates said BX was due for 2008 and Line D (Broadstone) for 2012 - but now they're saying BX won't be ready until 2011 or 2012, so it looks like the two will be coincident!

Some people were talking about services like Cherrywood-Heuston. I don't really think any extra services on Zone 1 of the Red line are possible, since it's already jammers 7 days a week and suffers from unreliable frequencies due to all the traffic lights and crossings. To add these new services you'd have to remove existing ones.

Zoney

All these people tlaking about duplication, you'd think they hadn't realised there are already buses, trains and trams on the same routes in Ireland. Also some continental cities have single corridors with buses, metro, trams and DART-like services.

Indeed, we most like mostly have that between Pearse and Connolly stations. It would be nonsensical for example to have DART services stop at each, and you catch the bus or tram between the stations. Similarly you wouldn't catch a Luas to Connolly, a DART to Pearse, and Luas again from Pearse.

It is not some strange and mysterious concept to have through connections on the one mode of transport, while allowing switches to another mode if say you are taking a shorter onward trip (perhaps to a different destination) from train station by bus or tram.

Mind you - there are arguments for things like co-location of bus and rail stations (and connections like Luas at Connolly, Heuston, etc. even for purposes other than connecting the two stations); e.g. in Cork the bus and railway stations should be co-located. In Limerick and some provencial towns (e.g. Ennis) it is the case, and it is useful, although in Limerick city bus services don't as yet quite adequately serve the station.

gjim

I think Option F is by far the best option. It will rejuvenate Marlborough St, it heads through College Green which is a totally essential area to serve, it runs the length of the city's primary north-south axis and it

If you want to "rejuventate Marlborough street", run the Luas down it. If you want to serve the city's main north-south axis, run the Luas along O'Connell street. If you want to double the cost and disruption - split the line in two and put half on one street and half on another.

solves the problem of how to incorporate a switch-over so trams can head
back where they came, which would be difficult and destructive with Option A.

You're joking right? Loops are used in some systems so that cheaper trams can be used with a single driver cab and doors only at one side. Putting a loop on the Luas with its dual cab, bidirectional trams is completely redundant and adds no operational benefits. ALL the existing terminii work perfectly without loops. There would be nothing "difficult" or "destructive" about having a simple terminus like the one at Stephen's Green on Parnell Square.

Option F requires only road works down one side of O'Connell St, Option A would require works on both sides plus the destruction of the median to add the crossovers.

This is a straw man; why would they adopt a different approach to the one they've used for EVERY other on street Luas section in the city and split the line and put northbound and southbound on opposite sides of the street? The lines would have run side by side up the east side of the street like they do on the rest of the Green line: along Harcourt Street and Stephen's Green.

I'm searching justification for this lunacy in the rest of your message but I can't find any. Could you please spell out the benefits of this proposal over option A for example and explain how these benefits justify doubling the disruption and cost associated with it's construction and the operational degradation introduced by having two extra quays crossings, an extra traversal of O'Connell Street, an extra traversal of Pearse St, an extra traversal of D'Ollier St and the reduction of Hawkins Street to a single lane making it impossible for buses to stop there. All these extra traversals and crossings will not only be terrible for existing road users - and I mean cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorized vehicles like buses and taxis - but they will also severely impact the efficiency of the tram system. A lose lose proposition: more cost, more disruption and less operational efficiency.

If they adopt this proposal then the cause of turning Dublin into a trammed up city will be put back years.

Victor

gjim wrote:

This is a straw man; why would they adopt a different approach to the one they've used for EVERY other on street Luas section in the city and split the line and put northbound and southbound on opposite sides of the street? The lines would have run side by side up the east side of the street like they do on the rest of the Green line: along Harcourt Street and Stephen's Green.

Pedestrian safety. You would have a Left-Right-Left-Right situation. I do admit it has its attactions though.

I don't see the loss of Hawkins Street as such a problem. Trafficwise it might be easier to have trams cross in separate places.

spacetweek

gjim wrote:

why would they adopt a different approach to the one they've used for EVERY other on street Luas section in the city and split the line and put northbound and southbound on opposite sides of the street? The lines would have run side by side up the east side of the street like they do on the rest of the Green line: along Harcourt Street and Stephen's Green.

None of the other Luas Termini are on a street as wide as O'Connell. Putting nb and sb services on opposite sides of the street would be the logical thing to do, as to dedicate one side of the street to Luas and the other side to buses and cars would require a major reorganisation of the traffic flows - e.g. for a bus travelling northbound, how do you access Parnell St West?

We'll have to drop the point though, as neither of us know what Option A would entail - Luas all on one side, or split between the two sides.

gjim wrote:

All these extra traversals and crossings will not only be terrible for existing road users - and I mean cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorized vehicles like buses and taxis - but they will also severely impact the efficiency of the tram system.

We're talking about the primary central district, so the more areas served by Luas, the better. As for buses stopping on Hawkins St, the point has already been made by numerous other posters that buses can be rerouted at will, so they should be located to suit Luas, not the other way around. Pedestrian and cyclists will find their environment improved, not disimproved, as a result of all the traffic lanes that would be reassigned to Luas. If you convert a vehicular street to a Luas street, you've removed the biggest nuisance for pedestrians.

OTK

spacetweek wrote:

Duplication of infrastructure: it's not duplication, these are two different modes, one overground, one under.

It's the same mode: light rail, at the same gauge, following exactly the same route at different elevations.

The Luas is designed for short hops, it's easier to access, and it's better for tourists. The Metro is aimed at people in a hurry, people making longer journeys, and people who aren't interested in checking out tourist attractions on the way. They're aiming at two different markets.

Are you suggesting that providing disconnected overground and underground lines over the same route will serve separate markets better? What about a passenger north or south of the city centre wishing to travel to the other side?

Secondly the O'connell-Stephen's Green axis is the city's central axis, and the busiest in the city. It needs as many transport options as possible.

More is not always the same as better. One good option would trump multiple poor options.

bk

OTK wrote:

It's the same mode: light rail, at the same gauge, following exactly the same route at different elevations.

But as Metro will be underground, have larger carriages and further spaced stops, it will be much faster.

This isn't unusual, in San Francisco a large number of both tram and metro routes follow exactly the same route on Market St., just take a look at this map:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=53003033

Skyhater

bk wrote:

But as Metro will be underground, have larger carriages and further spaced stops, it will be much faster.

This isn't unusual, in San Francisco a large number of both tram and metro routes follow exactly the same route on Market St.[/url]

It's not the same in San Fran..... Hardly anybody there uses the Cable cars for commuting. They are just for the tourists!!!!

The fact is that Ireland currently had limited time and relatively limited resources to deliver a fully integrated transport system. We're playing catch-up. In this scenario, we should not be duplicating routes.

We should spend this time and resources in the most efficient way possible, to deliver high quality public transport to as many people as possible.
It's a matter of prioritisation!!!

In this example: Parnell Sq to Liffey Junction Should be Prioritised ahead of St Stephens Green to O'Connell St.
Similarly, the DART Interconnector should be prioritised above ALL other Public transport programmes (with the exception of Metro North).
We have to get in place a systems that will deliver high quality public transport to as many people as possible as soon as possible.....Dublicating modes/lines at this stage of our development does not act as a real "value add" to the system.

Having said all this.....my real worry isn't prioritisation........it's integration!!!
Looking at the Options, RPA aren't worrying too much about integrating the Luas lines properly (ie at the same stop). Given this, I'm even more worried about how the integration will work with Dart and Metro. Drumcondra, Porterstown, St Stephens Green, Liffey Junction, Clondalkin, etc must all have seamless integration to make a proper public transport systems. There's no point having two stops (no matter what mode) "running close" to each other.

gobdaw

Skyhater wrote:

In this example: Parnell Sq to Liffey Junction Should be Prioritised ahead of St Stephens Green to O'Connell St.

Skyhater wrote:

In this example: Parnell Sq to Liffey Junction Should be Prioritised ahead of St Stephens Green to O'Connell St.

I think Option F could work very well with Liffey Junction line.

North bound track starts at junction with Cahal Brugha St, goes via Parnell Sq etc.

South bound track, via Parnell Sq, rejoins Optin F at junction Cahal Brugha St, heads to Connolly along Marlborough St, and terminating at Connolly by means of new junction Marlborough St/Abbey St.

North bound Luas would leave Connolly and rejoin Option F by means of a new junction Abbey St/O'Connell St.

The suggested junctions on Abbey St would additionally allow trams from Red Line to access Connolly or Finance Centre.

Skyhater

gobdaw wrote:

I think Option F could work very well with Liffey Junction line.

North bound track starts at junction with Cahal Brugha St, goes via Parnell Sq etc.

South bound track, via Parnell Sq, rejoins Optin F at junction Cahal Brugha St, heads to Connolly along Marlborough St, and terminating at Connolly by means of new junction Marlborough St/Abbey St.

North bound Luas would leave Connolly and rejoin Option F by means of a new junction Abbey St/O'Connell St.

The suggested junctions on Abbey St would additionally allow trams from Red Line to access Connolly or Finance Centre.

My Point is that I don't want any of the options , well at least at the moment. Line BX should come after all the other RPA Projects are completed. They will provide a greater benefit than Line BX.

Slice

To describe the Luas link as a duplication of the Metro route is a gross exaggeration. We're only talking about a few km here. Both routes serve completely different parts of the city. No one going to O'Connell Street on the Luas Green line is going to change for Metro if the tram they were on would get them there as well - the difference in time taken to travel that small distance between Luas and Metro would be offset by having to change at Stephen's Green and the inconvenience of doing so. Also, bringing the Green line further north would avoid any potential congestion at Stephen's Green because you're not forcing all onward journeys to change at what would otherwise be a city centre station that both lines terminate at.

Connecting the two Luas lines has it benefits in that it would encourage more journeys between the two lines. The more changes required to get from a stop on the red line to a stop on the green line the fewer journeys between the two lines. That's why I think the link doesn't go far enough in that it brings both red and green lines closer to one another but unless they connect this may still prove a deterrent.

OTK

The choice is
a) to build one north-south underground line that uses no central roadspace and allows passengers to get on and off without changing between any two stops
OR
b) to build two north-south lines that overlap in the city centre for 1 Km, use some of the most contended roadspace in the city and require all passengers to change trains who wish to make journeys between north and south Dublin.

It's as if Dublin Bus had planned the route map.

gjim

I think Option F could work very well with Liffey Junction line.

North bound track starts at junction with Cahal Brugha St, goes via Parnell Sq etc.

South bound track, via Parnell Sq, rejoins Optin F at junction Cahal Brugha St, heads to Connolly along Marlborough St, and terminating at Connolly by means of new junction Marlborough St/Abbey St.

North bound Luas would leave Connolly and rejoin Option F by means of a new junction Abbey St/O'Connell St

Why complicate things in this manner? The original idea was simple: continue the Green line through the city centre and on to the airport. Green and Red would then provide a "cross" of tram lines integrating in the very centre of town. The airport is getting a metro, so the destination for the north side of the Green line was changed to Liffey Junction which isn't a bad idea as it increases integration (potentially) and extends tram coverage to a densely populated part of the city currently without access to rail. It would also support a later extension to the Finglas area which is currently has no access to rail.

While it's nice to look at lines on maps, you also need to consider the operating efficiency of tram line arrangements. The city centre will constitute a horrible bottleneck for the Green line if option F is built to the extent that I doubt the extension north will ever be contemplated. The central section is going to be a bottle neck anyway but given that shortly outside the central section, it could be almost completely segregated (both north and south), it is vital that the central section be made as efficient as possible. Otherwise it will be impossible to exploit the potential for extra capacity offered by the segregated sections. For me this means the BX extension has to be as simple and direct as possible with the least amount of intersections with traversing traffic. The F option is terrible in this regard given all the extra traversals: Pearse St, D'Olier St, Fleet St, the quays, Abbey St, etc.

I largely agree with Skyhater regarding prioritisation and efficiency of provision. However I also think that while there is some duplication with metro and Luas between Stephen's Green and O'Connell St, this constitutes a relatively small amount of the overall coverage provided by the metro and the Green Luas. I would hope that eventually that the metro would be continued south but in the direction of Harold's Cross and Crumlin; with the Green Line (or whatever it's called at that stage) extended to Finglas, the duplication will be minimal. However the "Luas link up" has, for some reason been pushed close to the top of the pile in terms of prioritisation and I don't feel that this can be changed. However, it is driving me nuts that they're contemplating such a balloonheaded route as F.

Victor

Skyhater wrote:

My Point is that I don't want any of the options , well at least at the moment. Line BX should come after all the other RPA Projects are completed. They will provide a greater benefit than Line BX.

BX can be delivered in a relatively short time-frame. The others can't.

gobdaw

gjim wrote:

The central section is going to be a bottle neck anyway but given that shortly outside the central section, it could be almost completely segregated (both north and south), it is vital that the central section be made as efficient as possible. Otherwise it will be impossible to exploit the potential for extra capacity offered by the segregated sections.

Having a "circular" central section in the Luas network, using Option F, would facilitate interchange between lines, allowing the creation of routes, using portions of different lines.

gjim wrote:

For me this means the BX extension has to be as simple and direct as possible with the least amount of intersections with traversing traffic. The F option is terrible in this regard given all the extra traversals: Pearse St, D'Olier St, Fleet St, the quays, Abbey St, etc.

Dublin City Council, with their traffic management proposals, are moving towards the virtual elimination of non-public transport in the city core. Arnott's redevelopment will probably see the closure of their Prince St car park and allow practical closure of O'Connell St to cars.

Chris_533976

And that should really be prioitised. The minute that cars are off the core streets is the same minute that public transport (buses and to a lesser extent, trams), start running on time and the entire system is more efficient and better with very little investment.

Plus when cars are off the roads its much easier to build metro/luas/etc.

gjim

Dublin City Council, with their traffic management proposals, are moving towards the virtual elimination of non-public transport in the city core. Arnott's redevelopment will probably see the closure of their Prince St car park and allow practical closure of O'Connell St to cars.

They are talking about taking (private motorized) traffic off the College Green, Westmoreland St, O'Connell St axis. There are no current plans to take private traffic off the quays, D'Olier St, Fleet St, etc. which is where the extra traversals occur and it's hard to envisage how it could ever be possible to move private traffic off the quays without involving massively expensive CPO's of the privately owned car parks. Even the former plan will take a few years. And in any case, while traffic volumes will be significantly less you still have buses, cyclists, pedestrians, emergency vehicles, gardai, delivery vehicles (at certain times of the day), etc. so you will still need traffic lights at such traversals forcing trams slow to a crawl. Even with prioritised traffic lights, for safety reasons trams will always have to slow to a crawl at such points. Sometimes, it's impossible to avoid such points, but in this case, by choosing F over A for example, a whole load of unnecessary pinch points have been added to the line.

Having a "circular" central section in the Luas network, using Option F, would facilitate interchange between lines, allowing the creation of routes, using portions of different lines.

I'm with you on increasing the options with regard to routes but I don't understand why F would facilitate this? The loop is one-way so you'll need the exact same number of junctions to provide a Sandyford to Connolly service for example. In any case there are NO such junctions as part of F so this is hypothetical.

gobdaw

gjim wrote:

They are talking about taking (private motorized) traffic off the College Green, Westmoreland St, O'Connell St axis. There are no current plans to take private traffic off the quays, D'Olier St, Fleet St, etc. which is where the extra traversals occur....

Phase 1. Ultimately the idea is minimal/zero private traffic in the core, "cross city " traffic being channelled around by the inner and outer tangent routes

gjim wrote:

.....the quays, D'Olier St, Fleet St, etc. which is where the extra traversals occur....

Either proposal has the same number of traversals, and at approximately the same location.

gjim wrote:

and it's hard to envisage how it could ever be possible to move private traffic off the quays without involving massively expensive CPO's of the privately owned car parks.

I don't know what privately owned car parks within the notional city core area you are referring to, I don't think that there are any. Either route has the same number of traversals of the quays, in any case.

gjim wrote:

Even the former plan will take a few years. And in any case, while traffic volumes will be significantly less you still have buses, cyclists, pedestrians, emergency vehicles, gardai, delivery vehicles (at certain times of the day), etc. so you will still need traffic lights at such traversals forcing trams slow to a crawl. Even with prioritised traffic lights, for safety reasons trams will always have to slow to a crawl at such points. Sometimes, it's impossible to avoid such points, but in this case, by choosing F over A for example, a whole load of unnecessary pinch points have been added to the line.

Again, I don't see where there are any additional traversals or "pinch points" for one or the other. Anyway, I have no doubt that Arnotts development will be under way, and the car park history, long before the Luas link is started.

gjim wrote:

I'm with you on increasing the options with regard to routes but I don't understand why F would facilitate this? The loop is one-way so you'll need the exact same number of junctions to provide a Sandyford to Connolly service for example.

What I have in mind is total interchangability between all the lines, in all directions to allow different routes evolve in the future.
If the link terminates at the top of O'Connell St, for instance, at Abbey St a very complex four way delta junction would be required. That's to allow Tallaght/ Liffey Junction, Tallaght/ Stephan's Green, Stephan's Green/ Connolly and Connolly/Liffey Junction routes. Apart from the area required, 16 points would be needed, and that's ignoring special complex frogs and plates to cross other junctions. Operationally I believe that it would be undesirable to have such a complex series of points in a single location. A single road accident could cause the entire Luas system to halt. In addition, a terminus would need a double switch of 4 points to allow trams to change tracks. That's a total of 20 points.

The "circular" suggestion would require 12 points, relatively simple and not complex. It would also allow Liffey Junction to terminate at Connolly, which will not now be required, post extension to the Point.

gjim wrote:

In any case there are NO such junctions as part of F so this is hypothetical.

Yes, your correct, but maybe we could file this under "future-proofing" to allow, as suggested, route evolution. The proposals don't need to be implemented now, or as part of Option F, but option F allows them to be added in the future.