Luas docklands line to open 2nd week of December

dowlingm

markpb wrote: »

Post of the week.

When you hear that the RPA told ABP that they will dig up O'Connell St and Ballymun during Metro North construction *to move utilities*, you might also go on to ask why this couldn't have been done when both of those streets were being dug up anyway.

While in theory that sounds good it requires a budget to be allocated to RPA so that can be done while metro is not yet approved. Imagine the uproar of 'waste" for instance if it turned out metro could not go down OCS but a mint of money had been spent. Hard to win with this stuff...

markpb

dowlingm wrote: »

While in theory that sounds good it requires a budget to be allocated to RPA so that can be done while metro is not yet approved. Imagine the uproar of 'waste" for instance if it turned out metro could not go down OCS but a mint of money had been spent. Hard to win with this stuff...

True but in both places, large amounts of time were spent moving utilities to facilitate to roadworks. Within reason, why weren't the moved in accordance with recommendations from the RPA? It's not a minor moving-the-last-awkward-ones they're suggesting, utilities alone on O'Connell St will take over a year and just slightly less in Ballymun.

Metrobest

markpb wrote: »

When you hear that the RPA told ABP that they will dig up O'Connell St and Ballymun during Metro North construction *to move utilities*, you might also go on to ask why this couldn't have been done when both of those streets were being dug up anyway.

Probably because An Board Pleaneala would have wanted to hold an oral hearing into it... :rolleyes:

KC61

paulm17781 wrote: »

Hardly impressive either.

Both are new and not directly linked.

I really fail to see the big deal here. A four minute walk will not kill anyone. In fairness in many London Underground stations you would walk longer than that between lines.

Are you advocating that even more more money should have been spent rerouting the LUAS via Sherriff Street Bridge? Moving the station would be impossible given that there are apartments in the way!

There is a direct walk from Docklands Station under the bridge and through the apartments to the LUAS stop.

West Briton

KC61 wrote: »

I really fail to see the big deal here. A four minute walk will not kill anyone. In fairness in many London Underground stations you would walk longer than that between lines.

Are you advocating that even more more money should have been spent rerouting the LUAS via Sherriff Street Bridge? Moving the station would be impossible given that there are apartments in the way!

There is a direct walk from Docklands Station under the bridge and through the apartments to the LUAS stop.

No seamless connection and in the rain as well? I also had to laugh at the concept of George's Dock stop as being the one to change at for Connolly.

Ah sure, it'll do. We don't do joined up thinking do we? That would be a bit British or European or whatever bogeyman you're having yourself.

Bluetonic

West Briton wrote: »

No seamless connection and in the rain as well? I also had to laugh at the concept of George's Dock stop as being the one to change at for Connolly.

Ah sure, it'll do. We don't do joined up thinking do we? That would be a bit British or European or whatever bogeyman you're having yourself.

Why stop there, sure the Busarás stop isn't even at the main entrance to Busarás.

Disgrace :rolleyes:

Carawaystick

KC61 wrote: »

Docklands Station to Spencer Dock LUAS stop takes 4 minutes to walk, which is hardly excessive.

How long does it take to walk from Docklands station to the nearest point of the tram line?

KC61

About 3 minutes!

Bluetonic

KC61 wrote: »

About 3 minutes!

It's less distance than some of the platforms in Connolly to the Connolly LUAS.

KC61

Exactly!

West Briton

So, no-one noticed that there's a a nice big roof and canopies over platforms in Connolly?

:rolleyes:

Judgement Day

Bluetonic wrote: »

Why stop there, sure the Busarás stop isn't even at the main entrance to Busarás.

Disgrace :rolleyes:

Is there a main entrance to Busarás?

Victor

KC61 wrote: »

Docklands Station to Spencer Dock LUAS stop takes 4 minutes to walk, which is hardly excessive.

However, given that they are both new, its hardly appropriate either.

KC61 wrote: »

I really fail to see the big deal here. A four minute walk will not kill anyone. In fairness in many London Underground stations you would walk longer than that between lines.

But only when trying to join up stations on restricted sites, not with what was effectively a blank page. Docklands could have been positioned 200-400m further south with the Luas platforms directly overhead.

Are you advocating that even more more money should have been spent rerouting the LUAS via Sherriff Street Bridge?

I imagine the Sheriff Street route would have been modestly move expensive (although by avoiding so much of the disruption on Lower Mayor Street, it might have been cheaper). However, it would have meant better connections to Connolly, Dockalnds and the proposed bus station for Connolly car park.

Moving the station would be impossible given that there are apartments in the way!

Now yes, 4 years ago no.

West Briton wrote: »

No seamless connection and in the rain as well? I also had to laugh at the concept of George's Dock stop as being the one to change at for Connolly.

Only when westbound. If eastbound, use Busáras.

Absurdum

Luas to and from the O2 before and after Depeche Mode last night ran well, no major queues or headaches.

paulm17781

KC61 wrote: »

I really fail to see the big deal here. A four minute walk will not kill anyone. In fairness in many London Underground stations you would walk longer than that between lines.

It shows the complete lack of planning and integration that our transport system has. Both new neither connected.

Madame C

I live in Ringsend so I took the LUAS today from the city centre to The Point. I found it really useful, it's only a short walk across the bridge to the south side. We have the area serviced by buses 1,2,3 but they never come on time and the exact fare is a real pain.So from now on it will be only LUAS for me and I think a lot of people in Ringsend and Irishtown will also use it.

And I can go all the way to Heuston station and Phoenix Park yay!

strassenwolf

Carawaystick wrote: »

Would the fact these lines are actually under construction be the reason they are next?

That is absolutely the reason they are next.

You are 100% correct.

However, I can't help but get the feeling you missed the thrust of my original point.

Which is, that the recently opened extension and the extensions under construction are all developer-led projects which do not go through the areas of the Dublin Metropolitan Area which have the highest densities.

They go to or through areas which will probably have relatively low densities for a very considerable time to come.

Apart from the developer element, the two lines under construction were started because they couldn't cause any disruption, as there was practically nobody living anywhere near them. Thus no votes to be lost along the way.

In the higher density areas, like (for example) Finglas or Terenure, there hasn't been that much development, relatively, over recent years, because most of it had already been done. This means that the disruption caused by construction of LUAS through such areas would undoubtedly been greater than building across barren terrain.

But the rewards - in terms of overall passenger numbers on the LUAS - would surely also have been greater.

Government policy dictated that everything should be done to aid property development, and this filtered down to the Department of Transport and agencies like the RPA. Essentially this meant that these bodies chickened out of building LUAS lines to areas which are currently high density in favour of those which were "going to be" high density.

Now areas like Cherrywood and citywest are going to be, in fact, pretty low density for a long time to come, but will have a LUAS line.

Higher density areas won't have LUAS lines, for a long time to come, because the money's gone.

The chickens have come home to roost.

Empire o de Sun

I used the Luas as well at the weekend from Spencer Dock to town. It was deadly. Although I had to walk ten minutes to get to the Luas stop. I wouldn't normally use it.

The problem with "Docklands" station and "Spencer Dock" is that Docklands was supposed to be a temporary station. I understand that the planning permission is temporary and it will or has been changed to permanent. IÉ wanted to used Broadstone eventually, but the RPA got onto the minister and that was stopped.

So Docklands was built on the old North Wall container yard, except if they and Luas knew that it was to be permanent it could have been built a block further south on Mayor Street and with more platforms maybe. And they could still have built offices or appartments above it.

At the moment Docklands is about 350 m from Spencer Dock, and 400 m from Mayor Square.

Empire o de Sun

To illustrate the problem of not having a single body in charge or Transport or having two different companies talk to each other.

Above what we will have on a map of Luas Dart Metro and Commuter<

Below what we could have had

Aard

Tbh they'll probably print the latter one anyway.

dowlingm

Em - doesn't Docklands disappear post interconnector? Doesn't it only have temporary planning? Or did that change?

Also - wasn't the reason that Docklands was built where it was because the site was jointly developed with Treasury Holdings who got the land immediately south of it?

KC61

It *may* become permanent for the Pace services.

Personally I think that deviating the LUAS to operate via Sherriff Street bridge would have been madness. It would have caused all sorts of traffic problems, especially given the increase in traffic on Guild Street with the new Samuel Beckett Bridge. Putting the station any closer to Mayor Street was also not an option given the development of the Spencer Dock site.

The current LUAS stop will connect with the new Interconnector Docklands station, which cannot be any further north given the gradients involved.

KC61

strassenwolf wrote: »

That is absolutely the reason they are next.

You are 100% correct.

However, I can't help but get the feeling you missed the thrust of my original point.

Which is, that the recently opened extension and the extensions under construction are all developer-led projects which do not go through the areas of the Dublin Metropolitan Area which have the highest densities.

They go to or through areas which will probably have relatively low densities for a very considerable time to come.

Apart from the developer element, the two lines under construction were started because they couldn't cause any disruption, as there was practically nobody living anywhere near them. Thus no votes to be lost along the way.

In the higher density areas, like (for example) Finglas or Terenure, there hasn't been that much development, relatively, over recent years, because most of it had already been done. This means that the disruption caused by construction of LUAS through such areas would undoubtedly been greater than building across barren terrain.

But the rewards - in terms of overall passenger numbers on the LUAS - would surely also have been greater.

Government policy dictated that everything should be done to aid property development, and this filtered down to the Department of Transport and agencies like the RPA. Essentially this meant that these bodies chickened out of building LUAS lines to areas which are currently high density in favour of those which were "going to be" high density.

Now areas like Cherrywood and citywest are going to be, in fact, pretty low density for a long time to come, but will have a LUAS line.

Higher density areas won't have LUAS lines, for a long time to come, because the money's gone.

The chickens have come home to roost.

That is true, but the LUAS as planned by the RPA for Terenure and Rathfarnham was madness from start to finish. It would have been completely on street, travelling through approximately 30 traffic controlled junctions from Nutgrove to Christchurch.

There is insufficient roadspace as it is on most of that route for four lanes of traffic let alone two lanes of track and two lanes of road space. The costs and inconvenience of having every front garden south of Terenure cut back was ludicrous.

The lack of priority that the LUAS given it would be completely on-street means that it failed to offer any significant improvement in terms of travel time over the existing bus services.

The reality remains in my view that the only realistic alternative for a rail based solution in the south central area of the city is an underground metro. Anything else would cause far too much disruption in construction, and operationally would not deliver tangible benefits to the city.

markpb

KC61 wrote: »

Putting the station any closer to Mayor Street was also not an option given the development of the Spencer Dock site.

I know the current situation is acceptable and, if Docklands disappears and Spencer Dock is built, it will be fine in the future but it's worth remembering that CIE sold the land to Treasury Holdings specifically for residential development. Now we find out that lines can't connect because an apartment block was built in the way. That's not a mistake or oversight, it's staggering levels of incompetence from CIE.

Since the docklands line already existed and the red line extension was at the planning stages, would it have been so hard to CIE to stipulate that the developer put the station and lines underneath the apartment block when it was being built. The cost of building a basement would be trivial compared to the eventual profit they made from the sale of all the units.

dowlingm

The cost of building a basement would be trivial compared to the eventual profit they made from the sale of all the units.

I really doubt it would be a trivial cost to have a void that size under the building, not least because it would eliminate underground parking. The reality is that at the time, C1 route had not been decided and Docklands was meant to be a temporary station. Also - have you forgotten that IE run diesel units into Docklands, not electric?

Empire o de Sun

The peoblem was that Docklands was temporary, the eventual plan was to reopen Broadstone for Sligo (and Perhaps Galway) services. But the RPA wanted the Railway alignment to put a luas on from Broadstone to the Sligo Mainline. The minister backed RPAs proposal and CIE were told to use the new Docklands as a permanent station.

In this time, Luas had been designed and the interconnector station location too. Both of which are together (proper order).

But in order to maximise the land potential for CIE, they sold all of their land south of Sheriff Street (except for the interconnector site, but I'm not sure about the details) to build appartments offices and so on.

Victor

dowlingm wrote: »

I really doubt it would be a trivial cost to have a void that size under the building, not least because it would eliminate underground parking. The reality is that at the time, C1 route had not been decided and Docklands was meant to be a temporary station. Also - have you forgotten that IE run diesel units into Docklands, not electric?

It would have been eminently possible. RPA and CIÉ knew what the other was doing, but they hoarded that information. If the RPA had actually bothered to put all the drawings for Luas C1 on the internet at the time for the Luas extension (I don't think they done it yet), it would have been much more obvious how much of a mistake was being made.

antoinolachtnai

But the docklands station is a temporary station, surely? It wouldn't have made sense to construct a building to a special spec if the station was only going to have a ten year lifespan, would it?

dowlingm

Victor - I see your point on the siloing of data but DofT should have been aware of both as their notional boss and been the bridge - but it seems they didn't feel that's their role. NTA must take a firmer stand for the future.

BrianD

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

To illustrate the problem of not having a single body in charge or Transport or having two different companies talk to each other.

Above what we will have on a map of Luas Dart Metro and Commuter<

Below what we could have had

Just because there is a "gap" between the two modes of transport does not imply a lack of joined up thinking. There are plenty of situations like this in cities where there is more organised transport systems. It may well be that the cost of having both stations "on top" of each other would far outweigh the benefits and that a 5 min walk might be the better option.