Luas Line D - Public Consultation

strassenwolf

D.L.R. wrote: »

In my fictional plan, the tunnel portal would be just north of Broadstone Station and the new Broadstone stop would be pretty much underneath the old building. That would allow enough of a gradient headroom for a Liffey tunnel. Total segragation would be my ethos, whether underground or overground. Worth the price, IMO.

It would probably need to be some way beneath the old building. If you have a look at the lie of the land there, Broadstone lies quite high up above even the housing lower down Constitution Hill/Church Street. A bit like the Acropolis, if you will. Hence, even if your tunnel portal is "just north" of the station, it would still be well below the surrounding ground level, and would require a considerable amount of cutting to bring tracks to that level.

D.L.R. wrote: »

I'd advocate this plan partially on the basis that the Metro North and Luas Green eventually merge into a single line at some point in the future. Then, you would have a situation where there are four lines arranged in a '#' (grid) format, with 2 N-S lines, 2 E-W lines, and 4 interchange nodes between them.

I don't see a direct interchange with the Green/Blue line in the city as essential. Most travellers would only need 1 change, and 2 is perfectly acceptable for 'fringe' journeys. There would also be an interchange with DART1 at Broombridge, and possibly the Green line at Dundrum if you base this on the Line E blueprint. I think this is a good level of integration considering the other major advantages of the route.

Interesting points, though I think for it to work properly it would be essential for the metro and Green LUAS to eventually become one entity. And this is by no means certain. (Particularly with competing claims for the metro to be continued to the South-West of the city).

I think your "square" (#) system is okay, and certainly worth looking at, though many cities of Dublin's size have gone for a "triangular" interchange arrangement in their centres, and this seems to be quite efficient. Munich, Frankfurt and Prague are three which spring to mind.

In Frankfurt, for example, the city's entire underground network (i.e. all 14 lines) passes under the main thoroughfare (the "Zeil") or through two stations at either end of it (about 400 metres apart).

In Munich, there is effectively the same arrangement, with all 13 lines passing under, or at either end of, the main stretch between the main train station and the main square (about 1 km).

You get the picture. The basic message here is that, in those cities, those are the most popular areas, so that's why it's important to make it easy for people to get their directly.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Have a look at Line D and Line E in the same context - they really are two halves of the same route! The route would also open up more of Dublin City west of the central core. There's more to Dublin than O'Connell St.

There is definitely more to Dublin than O'Connell Street. I fully agree.

However, O'Connell Street is still a very important area of town and, I think most would agree, the stretch between (say) Parnell Square and St. Stephen's Green is really the most important North-South axis in the city.

And your arrangement (Broadstone-Rathfarnham) doesn't deliver a single sinner directly to any point along this axis, whether it be Parnell Square, O'Connell Street, College Green or St. Stephen's Green.

And that - with the extra costs involved in your plan - is, I suggest, a serious flaw.

Victor

Zebra3 wrote: »

Just curious at how any future extension would cross (under or over) the Maynooth line.....

For the west option for Metro North, the proposal was to go over the railway line and canal. I think going under with a short bored tunnel might be more practical - certainly the viaduct over the Tolka would be much shorter - although exactly how you go through the industrial estate is another matter.

D.L.R.

strassenwolf wrote: »

It would probably need to be some way beneath the old building. If you have a look at the lie of the land there, Broadstone lies quite high up above even the housing lower down Constitution Hill/Church Street. A bit like the Acropolis, if you will. Hence, even if your tunnel portal is "just north" of the station, it would still be well below the surrounding ground level, and would require a considerable amount of cutting to bring tracks to that level.



Interesting points, though I think for it to work properly it would be essential for the metro and Green LUAS to eventually become one entity. And this is by no means certain. (Particularly with competing claims for the metro to be continued to the South-West of the city).

I think your "square" (#) system is okay, and certainly worth looking at, though many cities of Dublin's size have gone for a "triangular" interchange arrangement in their centres, and this seems to be quite efficient. Munich, Frankfurt and Prague are three which spring to mind.

In Frankfurt, for example, the city's entire underground network (i.e. all 14 lines) passes under the main thoroughfare (the "Zeil") or through two stations at either end of it (about 400 metres apart).

In Munich, there is effectively the same arrangement, with all 13 lines passing under, or at either end of, the main stretch between the main train station and the main square (about 1 km).

You get the picture. The basic message here is that, in those cities, those are the most popular areas, so that's why it's important to make it easy for people to get their directly.



There is definitely more to Dublin than O'Connell Street. I fully agree.

However, O'Connell Street is still a very important area of town and, I think most would agree, the stretch between (say) Parnell Square and St. Stephen's Green is really the most important North-South axis in the city.

And your arrangement (Broadstone-Rathfarnham) doesn't deliver a single sinner directly to any point along this axis, whether it be Parnell Square, O'Connell Street, College Green or St. Stephen's Green.

And that - with the extra costs involved in your plan - is, I suggest, a serious flaw.

You're probably right there. I would argue that the Four Courts-Christchurch axis is central enough from a Greater Dublin perspective, but yes it would meet opposition no doubt about it.

Alternatively you could instead just drop Line D underground and merge it with Metro North/Green Line. That kind of leaves Line E hanging out to dry though.

See, its the design of BX that has me picking up the crayons. The one way loop is a solution to what exactly? Am I to believe there is no conceivable way to simply get two tram lines across O'Connell Bridge and up Ireland's widest street? We have a nasty habit of building around the problem here, instead of fixing it.

I took a look at those German systems - one distinct advantage they have is their mainline railway "backbone" is much wider than ours and can handle all sorts of diverging national/local traffic. Our Loop Line can only handle a level of traffic more appropriate to its construction era. The entire east-coast railway in Dublin is completely hamstrung because it is hopelessly boxed in at this stage.

strassenwolf

D.L.R. wrote: »

You're probably right there. I would argue that the Four Courts-Christchurch axis is central enough from a Greater Dublin perspective, but yes it would meet opposition no doubt about it.

It certainly is a very important axis, and if we were starting to plan Dublin's public transport with an entirely clean slate it would probably be the starting point.

As a central axis between the East (St. Stephen's Green, College Green, O'Connell Street, IFSC, etc.) and the West (Heuston, James' St., Parkgate St. and potential and actual developments in these areas, etc.) of the city, it should be an important one.

However, Dublin has been a little skewed over the years, with increasing focus on the East of the city, to the detriment of areas in the West of the city centre which are only now starting to be developed. With the right approach there is potential to develop a properly balanced city, where there are economically important areas in both the eastern and western parts of the city centre.

I think the interconnector is the key to this.

And I simply do not understand why the people who are planning it do not seem to have a clear plan as to how they intend to use its vast capacity.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Alternatively you could instead just drop Line D underground and merge it with Metro North/Green Line. That kind of leaves Line E hanging out to dry though.

Having followed a number of discussions over on archiseek.com, I am increasingly coming around to the view that a shorter and more direct route for the interconnector, via the Dame Street/Temple Bar area rather than St. Stephen's Green, is the solution here. (Quite possibly also a cheaper route, as it would be shorter).

This could involve interchange points in or around the College Green end of Dame Street and at Christchurch.

In that scenario, the metro north could eventually be extended from St. Stephen's Green to the south-west of the city, and I would hope would eventually be done so in a two line format, i.e., to locations such as Walkinstown and Rathfarnham (i.e. something like Rathfarnham-Terenure-Harold's Cross-St. Stephen's Green-Airport-Swords and Walkinstown-Kimmage-Harold's Cross-St. Stephen's Green-Airport-Swords, overground where possible but making good use of city centre tunnel areas). This has been discussed before on the board.

Thus bringing the basic elements of Line E back into play.

The other phase of this would be to develop the Broadstone alignment to metro status. That is, develop an underground line between Broadstone (and Finglas, etc.) and St. Stephen's Green via Christchurch - in several ways similar to what you were suggesting above.

This line could then eventually be extended southward to meet up with the Green line - perhaps somewhere between Ranelagh and the Canal - and I would hope that maximum use of such a tunnel could eventually be achieved by developing another corridor in the South-East of the city, perhaps under or along the N11.

With such an arrangement the city would then have a triangle of interchange points, at Christchurch, Dame Street/College Green and St. Stephen's Green, allowing interchange between the DART and (eventually) up to four LUAS/metro lines, and requiring no more than one change to get to and from a vast number of areas in the city.

If you have a look at it, you may be surprised at how little extra work, above what is currently planned, would be required to get the basic framework in place.

But the route and use of the interconnector appears to be key to this.

D.L.R. wrote: »

See, its the design of BX that has me picking up the crayons. The one way loop is a solution to what exactly? Am I to believe there is no conceivable way to simply get two tram lines across O'Connell Bridge and up Ireland's widest street? We have a nasty habit of building around the problem here, instead of fixing it.

You're absolutely right, it's a ludicrous arrangement.

I don't know how they managed to come up with it, and I've yet to meet (or hear of) anybody who thinks the proposed arrangement is a good idea.

D.L.R. wrote: »

I took a look at those German systems - one distinct advantage they have is their mainline railway "backbone" is much wider than ours and can handle all sorts of diverging national/local traffic. Our Loop Line can only handle a level of traffic more appropriate to its construction era. The entire east-coast railway in Dublin is completely hamstrung because it is hopelessly boxed in at this stage.

The "backbone" in those German systems is not actually wider than what is proposed for Dublin. They just make very good use of their backbones, with the intention of serving many outlying areas well and ensuring that outlying areas have very good access to the key points of their cities.

In Dublin, the plan to create an underground East-West line is basically seen as a way of dealing with an overflow of demand from the DART and the Maynooth line, rather than the opportunity - which it really is - to use the proposed line to its fullest extent to develop Dublin.

D.L.R.

strassenwolf wrote: »

Having followed a number of discussions over on archiseek.com, I am increasingly coming around to the view that a shorter and more direct route for the interconnector, via the Dame Street/Temple Bar area rather than St. Stephen's Green, is the solution here. (Quite possibly also a cheaper route, as it would be shorter).

This could involve interchange points in or around the College Green end of Dame Street and at Christchurch.

In that scenario, the metro north could eventually be extended from St. Stephen's Green to the south-west of the city, and I would hope would eventually be done so in a two line format, i.e., to locations such as Walkinstown and Rathfarnham (i.e. something like Rathfarnham-Terenure-Harold's Cross-St. Stephen's Green-Airport-Swords and Walkinstown-Kimmage-Harold's Cross-St. Stephen's Green-Airport-Swords, overground where possible but making good use of city centre tunnel areas). This has been discussed before on the board.

Thus bringing the basic elements of Line E back into play.

The other phase of this would be to develop the Broadstone alignment to metro status. That is, develop an underground line between Broadstone (and Finglas, etc.) and St. Stephen's Green via Christchurch - in several ways similar to what you were suggesting above.

This line could then eventually be extended southward to meet up with the Green line - perhaps somewhere between Ranelagh and the Canal - and I would hope that maximum use of such a tunnel could eventually be achieved by developing another corridor in the South-East of the city, perhaps under or along the N11.

With such an arrangement the city would then have a triangle of interchange points, at Christchurch, Dame Street/College Green and St. Stephen's Green, allowing interchange between the DART and (eventually) up to four LUAS/metro lines, and requiring no more than one change to get to and from a vast number of areas in the city.

If you have a look at it, you may be surprised at how little extra work, above what is currently planned, would be required to get the basic framework in place.

But the route and use of the interconnector appears to be key to this.


The "backbone" in those German systems is not actually wider than what is proposed for Dublin. They just make very good use of their backbones, with the intention of serving many outlying areas well and ensuring that outlying areas have very good access to the key points of their cities.

In Dublin, the plan to create an underground East-West line is basically seen as a way of dealing with an overflow of demand from the DART and the Maynooth line, rather than the opportunity - which it really is - to use the proposed line to its fullest extent to develop Dublin.

A couple of points:

- Interconnector: I don't see how shifting it a few hundred metres north would change anything. It would still interact with the same lines, and it would still have the same start/end points. You're just moving the SSG interchange to College Green instead. Where's the advantage?

- The German cities in question do have far bigger mainlines. Their S-Bahn (Dart equivalent) does not need to share actual track with long-distance services. Our interconnector, despite being a great idea, will still have to share tracks on the Northern Line. As will the entire Bray-Connolly-Maynooth Dart line. So, more Dart coverage, but similar (sluggish) service I fear.

- You could create a "triangle" more easily by modifying my original idea - instead of Line D continuing south from Broadstone, have it continue via O'Connell St to Pearse. That seems to tick all the right boxes.

Victor

D.L.R. wrote: »

That kind of leaves Line E hanging out to dry though.

Connect it to F at Christchurch - and the Interconnector via escalator / lift.

D.L.R. wrote: »

- The German cities in question do have far bigger mainlines. Their S-Bahn (Dart equivalent) does not need to share actual track with long-distance services.

Agreed. Parts of Dusseldorf-Koeln has anything from 6-19 tracks. The Germans consider choke points to have anything with 4 or less tracks. We have the Tara Street-Connolly mess.

Koeln HBf has about 17 platforms. The nearby equivalent of the loop line has six tracks. Deutz has eight platforms.

donvito99

Victor wrote: »

Connect it to F at Christchurch - and the Interconnector via escalator / lift.

Agreed. Parts of Dusseldorf-Koeln has anything from 6-19 tracks. The Germans consider choke points to have anything with 4 or less tracks. We have the Tara Street-Connolly mess.

Koeln HBf has about 17 platforms. The nearby equivalent of the loop line has six tracks. Deutz has eight platforms.

That would be my favourite option too, but I would have Line D continue to Tallaght via N81 (joining after Harold x and Terenure) so that it could connect up with the Metro West and Red Line. I know its the completely opposite way, but I think this one would be more detatched from the green line, so as not to have them working in tandom, if you catch me drift.

strassenwolf

D.L.R. wrote: »

Interconnector: I don't see how shifting it a few hundred metres north would change anything. It would still interact with the same lines, and it would still have the same start/end points. You're just moving the SSG interchange to College Green instead. Where's the advantage?

There are a couple of advantages.

Firstly, studies carried out on the originally proposed metro line (i.e. a North-South line) indicated that a more central station (e.g. at Trinity, Dame St. or Temple Bar) would be more popular with users of the metro than would a station at St. Stephen's Green.

So building the interconnector (an East-West line) through that more central station, wherever that might turn out to be, would also, presumably, be more popular.

Secondly, it wouldn't be necessary to build a massive three-line interchange at St. Stephen's Green. There's going to be enough trouble with the two-line interchange at St. Stephen's Green as it is, without adding an extra line into the mix.

The arrangement which has been suggested above would provide the city with three two-line interchanges. Quite normal, really, and not a cause for any undue disruption.

D.L.R. wrote: »

The German cities in question do have far bigger mainlines. Their S-Bahn (Dart equivalent) does not need to share actual track with long-distance services. Our interconnector, despite being a great idea, will still have to share tracks on the Northern Line. As will the entire Bray-Connolly-Maynooth Dart line. So, more Dart coverage, but similar (sluggish) service I fear.?

Those S-Bahn lines do not have to share track in the centre city areas or, critically, in the city centre tunnel. This allows such large throughputs through these tunnels.

Outside of these areas, several of the lines do share track with freight and long-distance passenger traffic. But they seem to be able to manage it so that it all works well.

You are absolutely right about the Northern Line, and Irish Rail have been somewhat hesitant in replying to queries about how they intend to deal with this. They have spoken about 20 trains per hour through the tunnel, but this is out of the question if they intend that all of these trains would also use the Northern line.

20 trains per hour is feasible if Irish Rail were to plan for another couple of platforms at Spencer Dock, but for some reason:rolleyes: this does not appear to be part of their plan.

D.L.R. wrote: »

You could create a "triangle" more easily by modifying my original idea - instead of Line D continuing south from Broadstone, have it continue via O'Connell St to Pearse. That seems to tick all the right boxes.

I will have a look at this, but my initial impression is that it is rather east-centric.

And I'm curious to know how the proposed Line E would fit in with your plan?

strassenwolf

Oh yes, I also forgot to reiterate that the interconnector would be shorter, and therefore most probably cheaper, if it were to be built through a more central location.

That's another advantage.

D.L.R.

strassenwolf wrote: »

There are a couple of advantages.

Firstly, studies carried out on the originally proposed metro line (i.e. a North-South line) indicated that a more central station (e.g. at Trinity, Dame St. or Temple Bar) would be more popular with users of the metro than would a station at St. Stephen's Green.

So building the interconnector (an East-West line) through that more central station, wherever that might turn out to be, would also, presumably, be more popular.

Secondly, it wouldn't be necessary to build a massive three-line interchange at St. Stephen's Green. There's going to be enough trouble with the two-line interchange at St. Stephen's Green as it is, without adding an extra line into the mix.

The arrangement which has been suggested above would provide the city with three two-line interchanges. Quite normal, really, and not a cause for any undue disruption.

O'Connell Bridge will serve the Temple Bar/Trinity area on the metro line, as will the Christchurch stop on the IC line. So that area is covered by both lines. Yes its a little more convoluted than it could've been, but I'm just glad we have underground proposals at all. Mind you, I'd prefer MN to be heavy rail.

To be honest I just hope they don't get overly delayed/cancelled at this stage - there's certainly not enough funding to entertain any redesign notions at this point. SSG is a good location all in all. It'd do no harm widening our perceptions of "An Lár". There is however still time to re-think the likes of BX, MW, Line D/E/F, etc.

strassenwolf wrote: »

I will have a look at this, but my initial impression is that it is rather east-centric.

And I'm curious to know how the proposed Line E would fit in with your plan?

Well the east-centric mindset is what had me looking for an alternative to Broadstone-Christchurch-Rathfarnham to begin with. But having thought about it, I think Broadstone-O'Connell-Pearse is actually more effective (combined with MN and IC). It would put O'Connell St only one change from the entire Dart network, and provide a triangle between Pearse-O'Connell-Stephens Green. This triangle is about as central as you can possibly get.

As for Line E, its hard to say really since its such a vague notion - I think it has to arrive at either Christchurch or SSG though, thinking logically. Perhaps if/when they merge MN and the Green Line, they could bore another line off it to the southwest. But thats getting into the realm of sci-fi right now

strassenwolf

D.L.R. wrote: »

O'Connell Bridge will serve the Temple Bar/Trinity area on the metro line, as will the Christchurch stop on the IC line. So that area is covered by both lines. Yes its a little more convoluted than it could've been, but I'm just glad we have underground proposals at all. Mind you, I'd prefer MN to be heavy rail.

O'Connell Bridge will quite probably not serve that area as well as it might be served by a station in or around Temple Bar/Dame Street/College Green, given that you'd need to be at the right end of the train to be on the right side of the river.

And it also will probably not serve O'Connell Street and the Red LUAS line as well as it might otherwise do for the very same reason.

The solution would appear to be to build two stations - one at Temple Bar/College Green/Dame Street and the other at O'Connell Street/Abbey Street - to serve all of these areas well.

There's a nice gap between them - not huge, but not out of line with international precedents (see Frankfurt/Munich above) - and the layout of the O'Connell Bridge station seems to indicate that there's a considerable amount of waste being built into the system by building two stations at one location either side of a river, with platforms under this river to link them.

It would quite probably be cheaper to build stations at two separate locations - such as those mentioned above.

D.L.R. wrote: »

To be honest I just hope they don't get overly delayed/cancelled at this stage - there's certainly not enough funding to entertain any redesign notions at this point. SSG is a good location all in all. It'd do no harm widening our perceptions of "An Lár". There is however still time to re-think the likes of BX, MW, Line D/E/F, etc.

Well, I'd guess that there is time for a redesign at this stage, as it is certainly doubtful whether there is, or will be, funding for either the interconnector or the metro to be built at this stage, or any stage in the next four to five years.

And, widening our perceptions of "An Lár", is all very nice, but as you may have seen from your studies of the other cities mentioned on this thread, the best way may just be to bring people directly to "An Lár", as it is currently known, and let them then change if needs be.

There is certainly time to rethink the others which you mention, with the exception of the metrowest, which should simply be dropped at this stage of the city's development.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Well the east-centric mindset is what had me looking for an alternative to Broadstone-Christchurch-Rathfarnham to begin with. But having thought about it, I think Broadstone-O'Connell-Pearse is actually more effective (combined with MN and IC). It would put O'Connell St only one change from the entire Dart network, and provide a triangle between Pearse-O'Connell-Stephens Green. This triangle is about as central as you can possibly get.

But, weren't you the person who suggested the Broadstone-Christchurch-Rathfarnham route to begin with? On the third page of this thread.

Having suggested a route due South of Broadstone, you then changed tack in favour of a line which runs, to all intents and purposes, due East of Broadstone, in order to counteract (as far as I understood it) an east-centric mindset.

D.L.R.

strassenwolf wrote: »

O'Connell Bridge will quite probably not serve that area as well as it might be served by a station in or around Temple Bar/Dame Street/College Green, given that you'd need to be at the right end of the train to be on the right side of the river.

And it also will probably not serve O'Connell Street and the Red LUAS line as well as it might otherwise do for the very same reason.

The solution would appear to be to build two stations - one at Temple Bar/College Green/Dame Street and the other at O'Connell Street/Abbey Street - to serve all of these areas well.

There's a nice gap between them - not huge, but not out of line with international precedents (see Frankfurt/Munich above) - and the layout of the O'Connell Bridge station seems to indicate that there's a considerable amount of waste being built into the system by building two stations at one location either side of a river, with platforms under this river to link them.

It would quite probably be cheaper to build stations at two separate locations - such as those mentioned above.

Funny you should say that - I proposed the exact same thing on another thread about a year ago. Instead of one O'Connell Bridge station, we could have a College Green station and a more northerly O'Connell station underneath the Red Line. It would make BX even more redundant too.

But the problem with this idea is that we lose the "landmark" Bridge station. And for better or worse, a lot of people have already bought into that concept (councillors included).

strassenwolf wrote: »

Well, I'd guess that there is time for a redesign at this stage, as it is certainly doubtful whether there is, or will be, funding for either the interconnector or the metro to be built at this stage, or any stage in the next four to five years.

And, widening our perceptions of "An Lár", is all very nice, but as you may have seen from your studies of the other cities mentioned on this thread, the best way may just be to bring people directly to "An Lár", as it is currently known, and let them then change if needs be.

There is certainly time to rethink the others which you mention, with the exception of the metrowest, which should simply be dropped at this stage of the city's development.

No, I'm happy to support the building of MN & IC as they are, because a redesign in this climate could mean reducing the scope of the projects to save a few quid. I don't think we're gonna get better designs than those currently on offer. Agreed on Metro West, what an awful bag of sh*te that is.

strassenwolf wrote: »

But, weren't you the person who suggested the Broadstone-Christchurch-Rathfarnham route to begin with? On the third page of this thread.

Having suggested a route due South of Broadstone, you then changed tack in favour of a line which runs, to all intents and purposes, due East of Broadstone, in order to counteract (as far as I understood it) an east-centric mindset.

Hold up there pal I'm just trying ideas. I haven't got a "tack", I just want to see a concise, logical network for Dublin, with good integration and segragation, built with as few lines as possible, serving as many areas as possible.

I offered Broadstone-Christchurch-Rathfarnham as an alternative to Line D/BX, but then you mentioned the triangle concept, so I tried incorporating a triangle. Simple. That provided me a better solution, I feel, in the Broadstone-O'Connell-Pearse route. There might be a better solution, who knows.

Victor

D.L.R. wrote: »

Funny you should say that - I proposed the exact same thing on another thread about a year ago. Instead of one O'Connell Bridge station, we could have a College Green station and a more northerly O'Connell station underneath the Red Line. It would make BX even more redundant too.

To be honest, one O'Connell Bridge station is easier than a College Green station and a O'Connell Street station.

strassenwolf

D.L.R. wrote: »

Funny you should say that - I proposed the exact same thing on another thread about a year ago. Instead of one O'Connell Bridge station, we could have a College Green station and a more northerly O'Connell station underneath the Red Line. It would make BX even more redundant too.

I remember the thread well. It was a very sensible suggestion. The design of that station at O'Connell Bridge is crazy, and the idea of building two such massive stations at one location on an underground tram line is mind-boggling.

Due to the necessity of bringing people on either side of the river down to the level of the platforms under the river, there is at least one extra level required for each station over what would be required in stations at the locations you mention. Then there's the extra cost involved in building platforms under the river rather than just buiding tunnel.

With stations at College Green and O'Connell Street, the stations themselves would not need to be so deep - i.e. they would need fewer levels - and the platforms could be incorporated at the bottom (as is the normal arrangement). Thus the overall station footprint for this combined pair should be much less than for the O'Connell Bridge stations.

Less overall material required for construction + less overall work required for construction = cheaper stations.

Victor wrote:

To be honest, one O'Connell Bridge station is easier than a College Green station and a O'Connell Street station.

It's possible that it would be easier, though not necessarily.

With either arrangement, it is still necessary to build two stations. Since the proposed O'Connell Bridge stations would, overall, be larger than the combined alternative, one would expect construction to take longer and cause disruption over a longer period of time.

Even if it is easier, it's also important to factor in the overall cost and the benefit provided by the completed products. Two stations at separate locations provides a much greater geographical spread than two stations at one location. There's also a factor of the ease of use of a station, and passengers would certainly not want to be at the wrong end of the tram.

I wonder do the RPA have any projections for how long it would take a passenger near the front of a southbound tram to reach the Red line platforms on Abbey Street?

D.L.R. wrote: »

But the problem with this idea is that we lose the "landmark" Bridge station. And for better or worse, a lot of people have already bought into that concept (councillors included).

You're quite possibly right.

(I can understand a landmark building (such as a very tall or beautiful one) or a landmark project. But a landmark underground station? Nobody can see it, unless they happen to have to use it, and we certainly have had no word that the architecture or design of it is going to be so fantastic as to make it a must-see destination.

Ho-hum, maybe I just haven't yet reached the level of sophistication required to understand why it's a landmark station:D)

D.L.R. wrote: »

Hold up there pal I'm just trying ideas. I haven't got a "tack", I just want to see a concise, logical network for Dublin, with good integration and segragation, built with as few lines as possible, serving as many areas as possible.

I offered Broadstone-Christchurch-Rathfarnham as an alternative to Line D/BX, but then you mentioned the triangle concept, so I tried incorporating a triangle. Simple. That provided me a better solution, I feel, in the Broadstone-O'Connell-Pearse route. There might be a better solution, who knows.

Apologies, D.L.R., I didn't mean to get your back up.

The triangle is, I think, an appropriate arrangement for a city of Dublin's size. As I mentioned before, it has worked well in several cities which are of around the same size/population and which are generally considered to have good, integrated, comprehensive transport systems.

To paraphrase you, systems which often have "a concise, logical network, with good integration and segragation, built with as few lines as possible, serving as many areas as possible."

Given that Dublin is effectively a clean slate - as regards construction of a transport network - I'm surprised that none of the plans produced by people like the DTO seem to have recognised this.

strassenwolf

Of course, D.L.R., on the metro thread which you recently mentioned, one of the justifications produced for the Mater Hospital stop, was that it was in the Taoiseach's constituency.

It was then.

It's not now.

D.L.R.

strassenwolf wrote: »

Of course, D.L.R., on the metro thread which you recently mentioned, one of the justifications produced for the Mater Hospital stop, was that it was in the Taoiseach's constituency.

It was then.

It's not now.

I'm not sure what you're on about here. Who mentioned Mater?

BrianD

Is a stop at the Mater required as it will be the loaction of the new childrens hospital? I recall that the availability of a future tram, sorry metro, was a justification for chosing this location over others.

strassenwolf

D.L.R. wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're on about here. Who mentioned Mater?

Well, the Mater Hospital stop did come up in this discussion - i.e. the one which has been referred to on this thread.