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

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.

gjim

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

I haven't seen the plans for this, could you give a link? What is the extent of this core?

For a picture of what the future holds, look at the area bounded by George's St, Grafton St, Stephen's St and Dame St. This "core" area would be perfect for pedestrianisation and would make a natural extension of Grafton Street. It has had private vehicle traffic reduced to the minimum but must still accomodate a bunch of car parks and it will always be thus unless DCC buys them out.

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

Eh? Where does A cross D'Ollier St, Pearse St, Townsend St or O'Connell St (west to east)? This is ignoring the new traffic light junctions on both sides of the quays (100m to the east) or what is planned on Marlborough St with Talbot St or Cathal Brugha Street.

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.

Off the top of my head there's one on Fleet St near Westmoreland St and a couple off Marlborough St. There will be the same compromises which were forced on Stephen's Green for example which means that the entire section from Dawson St to Glover's Alley is open to private traffic purely to allow entrace to car parks.

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.

You're being disengenious. There is nothing magical achieved by separating the two tracks by 100m in terms of saving sets of points. You could save two sets but at the expense of having north bound (from the current Green line) trams does an extra .5km up around the loop in order to go to Connolly. This "saving" would be lost if the line was extended to Liffey Valley. And there's nothing exclusive to the circular suggestion which would permit Liffey Junction trams from terminating in Connolly.

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.

You're talking about a truck breaking down on the Abbey St/O'Connell St junction? Such an accident would also effectively cause the entire system to halt with F and this would occur whether there were points on this location or whether it was just a plain flat junction. In the extended system, you might be able to run a shuttle from Connolly to Liffey Junction but only if you could move all the existing trams from that route. All on-street tram systems have such risks and experience with the red lins shows it can happen occasionally but recovery is usually pretty quick.

I want to see the estimated costings for F versus A. I'd be surprised if F wasn't at least twice the price of A.

gobdaw

gjim wrote:

I haven't seen the plans for this, could you give a link?

http://www.dublincity.ie/living_in_the_city/getting_around/orbital_routes/
There used to be a map of the routes on DCC website, as well, but I can't locate it.

gjim wrote:

For a picture of what the future holds, look at the area bounded by George's St, Grafton St, Stephen's St and Dame St. This "core" area would be perfect for pedestrianisation and would make a natural extension of Grafton Street. It has had private vehicle traffic reduced to the minimum but must still accomodate a bunch of car parks and it will always be thus unless DCC buys them out.

Two car parks, and the area not affected by either proposal A or F. In any case, it is quite likely that pressure from commercial redevelopment will result in these being replaced by office or residential developments.

gjim wrote:

Eh? Where does A cross D'Ollier St, Pearse St, Townsend St or O'Connell St (west to east)?

It crosses traffic from D'Olier combined with Pearse at Westmorland and College St. Nether proposals are clear as to alignments on O'Connell St itself.

Re parking:

gjim wrote:

Off the top of my head there's one on Fleet St near Westmoreland St and a couple off Marlborough St.

Fleet St will be affected in a similar way by either proposal. The other in fact is accessed and exited via Sean McDermott St, so F would have little or no effect on it.

Number of junctions/points:

gjim wrote:

There is nothing magical achieved by separating the two tracks by 100m in terms of saving sets of points.

You'll have to do the dreaded "crayons on paper" for this. It is surprising the saving on expensive point work created by Option F, 12 for F as against 20 for A. I am not providing 2 for the East/South movement from Abbey to Marlborough, as I think it is too tight with the Abbey Theatre. I have counted 2 for Liffey Junction connection with F and 4 points for the tram release for Proposal A. The spread of this infrastructure around the centre of the city, with F, would be a plus, I imagine.

gjim wrote:

I want to see the estimated costings for F versus A.

Yes, so would I, it would be nice.

gjim

Two car parks, and the area not affected by either proposal A or F. In any case, it is quite likely that pressure from commercial redevelopment will result in these being replaced by office or residential developments.

This is slightly off topic but I afraid this is wishful thinking. I've had some exposure to the commercial realities of multi-story car parks and they're an absolute goldmine. Why do you think every proposed residential or office building attempts to get planning for as much car parking as possible?

You'll have to do the dreaded "crayons on paper" for this. It is surprising the saving on expensive point work created by Option F, 12 for F as against 20 for A. I am not providing 2 for the East/South movement from Abbey to Marlborough, as I think it is too tight with the Abbey Theatre. I have counted 2 for Liffey Junction connection with F and 4 points for the tram release for Proposal A.

This is getting completely theoretical but I still think you're being disingenious and I don't have to get out the crayons. Separating the two tracks cannot reduce the number of points required unless you eliminate some of the possible movements. One possible movement you could drop would be the Sandyford to Connolly which could be achieved by sending the trams around the loop (adding over .5km to the journey) but this only brings you down from 16 to 14. Of course if you don't provide for some other movements, then things get simpler but the same economies would be just as applicable with the A option so your 20 versus 12 is not comparing like with like. Also the 4 for a terminus for A would not be required if the line were extended and if it were left in place then it would offer further redundancy etc.

Anyway I doubt they'd try to provide for all possible movements off the bat so saying A requires 20 points isn't exactly fair. I would have said that Connolly could have served a useful temporary terminus for the Green line (until the Liffey Junction extension is planned) if the docklands extension was completed first; the red line would continue straight down the docks with red Luas passengers for Connolly getting off at Busaras. Unfortunately I don't think this will be possible as they are building a "forward in, reverse out" type of junction at Connolly instead of a straightforward set of points to allow straight through to Mayor St (across Amiens St) or turn into Connolly.

The spread of this infrastructure around the centre of the city, with F, would be a plus, I imagine.

I disagree. The priority for any public transport system should be efficiency; getting as many people to where they want to go as quickly and reliabably as possible for the least cost. Everything else is secondary unless you're a campaigner for the WRC, for example.

By the way, if costings were provided for A and F and it turned out that F was going to cost twice as much (not improbable given the new bridge and the near doubling of utilities that have to be moved) would you still be in favour? If the savings (by going with option A over option F) were used to extend the line then you'd reach Broadstone easily; this would be a far better use of public money. However because the RPA have been given a remit just "to link the Luas lines", this sort of cost benefit analysis isn't a factor in their plans which is crazy. It also means we are not comparing like with like when it comes to the routings.

antoinolachtnai

Let's have the end in mind here. To my mind, the ideal situation would be:

- Metro trains running every 6 minutes from Sandyford to the airport on the Green line and the metro.

- Luas trains running every 6 minutes from cherrywood to St. Stephen's Green and then going east to serve the South Docklands, the DART and joining the Tallaght line in the IFSC. Some of these trains would run on to Tallaght.

- DART trains running every 10 minutes from maynooth to Bray and every 10 minutes from Howth to Connolly and beyond

With this arrangement, you could open up a large proportion of the city to access from multiple directions, for the same amount of investment. If you do it the other way, there's no easy access to the south docks from Tallaght. ( you have to cross the river on foot). Equally, there's no fast access to the south or north docks from Sandyford (to get to the South docks you have to walk, to get to the North Docks, you have to either take the much slower luas across the city, or else change to the metro and then change back to the Luas.

If you put all the lines through the middle, you're not giving yourself much opportunity to give a regular public transport service to the Docklands.

Victor

gobdaw wrote:

http://www.dublincity.ie/living_in_the_city/getting_around/orbital_routes/
There used to be a map of the routes on DCC website, as well, but I can't locate it.

gobdaw, can you stick with standard fonts and colours, please?

Victor

gjim wrote:

By the way, if costings were provided for A and F and it turned out that F was going to cost twice as much (not improbable given the new bridge and the near doubling of utilities that have to be moved) would you still be in favour? If the savings (by going with option A over option F) were used to extend the line then you'd reach Broadstone easily; this would be a far better use of public money. However because the RPA have been given a remit just "to link the Luas lines", this sort of cost benefit analysis isn't a factor in their plans which is crazy. It also means we are not comparing like with like when it comes to the routings.

The city council is going to build a bridge anyway at Hawkins Street - Marlborough Street and given the width of O'Connell Street, I imagine there is little difference in the utilities issue.

College Green is a much larger utilities and traffic disruption issue (so much is diverted around adn between Trinity College / Temple Bar).

antoinolachtnai wrote:

With this arrangement, you could open up a large proportion of the city to access from multiple directions, for the same amount of investment. If you do it the other way, there's no easy access to the south docks from Tallaght. ( you have to cross the river on foot). Equally, there's no fast access to the south or north docks from Sandyford (to get to the South docks you have to walk, to get to the North Docks, you have to either take the much slower luas across the city, or else change to the metro and then change back to the Luas.

It struck me recently how much the changes in the O'Connell Street - Connolly has messed things up. There were meant to be stops at Easons and the VHI offices (much more convenient for DART passengers). Busaras stop is also on the wrong side of Busaras if the purpose is to serve the maximum number of passengers.

spacetweek

gjim wrote:

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.

They certainly are not! The word on the street is that BX won't even start until 2009 and may take up to 3 years. Hardly prioritised - not prioritised enough for my liking.

gobdaw

Victor wrote:

gobdaw, can you stick with standard fonts and colours, please?

Sorry, Victor. I type so slow, sometimes I've found that my connection has "timed out", and I have to cut n paste.

I'll try to speed up a bit!

gjim

The city council is going to build a bridge anyway at Hawkins Street - Marlborough Street and given the width of O'Connell Street, I imagine there is little difference in th
e utilities issue.

There are always a bunch of vague ideas for new bridges floating around and this one has been there for years but it's never gotten further than that; I imagine largely because DCC could never justify it's expense given the lack of utility such a bridge would provide. A conspiracy theorist might suggest that the crazy convolution of route F is there to justify building this bridge thus acting as a sop to DCC who get a "free" bridge (in exchange for being allowed to dig up O'Connell Street). DCC are keen as hell to stick random "shiney new" bits and pieces around the city but have little interest in, for example, using proper restoration techniques on the likes of O'Connell Bridge to reflect it's status as the centrepiece bridge in Dublin. O'Connell Bridge might be lucky and get a few stainless steel bollards, some new traffic signs and a new layer of tarmac; or maybe even a bunch of Kiosks!