Luas Cross City (Line BX/D) [now open]

sdanseo

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why the RPA decided to route southbound trams down Marlborough Street and D'Olier Street? Is there a capacity problem on OCS and Westmorland Street?

The RPA seem to think so, see posts further up the thread referring to Dublin Bus and their tuppence in the matter.

Dublin Bus would have plenty of room with 1 lane each way and a few laybys for bus stops, that's my own view.

GizAGoOfYerGee

sdonn wrote: »

The RPA seem to think so, see posts further up the thread referring to Dublin Bus and their tuppence in the matter.

Dublin Bus would have plenty of room with 1 lane each way and a few laybys for bus stops, that's my own view.

Thanks sdonn. I did read the entire thread, but I didn't come to the conclusion that the route change was entirely because of objections by Dublin Bus.

Is there any official statement from the RPA for this route choice? I scoured through many of the RPA's PDFs, forums threads and news articles, but I couldn't find any solid reason for this seemingly unnecessary route change.

If Dublin Bus are indeed the sole reason for this, I hope it doesn't set a precedent for future Luas projects in the Capital.

A Dublin Transport Authority needed, no?

KC61

eia340600 wrote: »

As someone who's most used forms of transport are the 65/b and the LUAS red, I can honestly say that the LUAS beats the bus every time..I actually find it easier to get a luas to tallaght and then change to a 65/b or a 50 to complete my journey.However, as you siad, they have completly different routes and are only comparable for the begining and final part of their journeys'.

Well as someone who commuted to Tallaght every morning for several years I'd beg to differ - the bus was always out there in about 35 minutes which was certainly faster than the LUAS.

FreudianSlippers

A poster on archiseek posted this idea and I think it's great. Wondering if there was a reason they didn't use this in the first place? Obviously a price issue.

Should we buy the Bordeaux-style ground level power supply instead of overhead catenary? The French seem to have had teething problems but maybe they're resolved now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply

Last thing we need is a load more poles.

Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?

GerardKeating

OisinT wrote: »

A poster on archiseek posted this idea and I think it's great. Wondering if there was a reason they didn't use this in the first place? Obviously a price issue.



Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?

Would this have existing when the Luas was first built ????

markpb

OisinT wrote: »

Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?

I presume they looked at it when the tram lines were originally being built and ruled it out because the technology was unreliable. To change to it now would mean either having two different types of stock or retrofitting it to the existing stock.

BluntGuy

GizAGoOfYerGee wrote: »

A Dublin Transport Authority needed, no?

We'll have to make do with the national transport authority for the moment.

eia340600

OisinT wrote: »

Obviously they cannot implement that on only part of the line as the lines will connect, but was this an option considered at all when planning the Luas?

They could implement it now..Trams in Bordeaux run under overhead wires and only use grounf level supply in the city centre..The LUAS trams would have to be retrofitted with some equipment though..

Alternatively, Nice use batteries in their trams that allow them to run through parts of the city center, before charging their batteries on the outer sections of the lines that have overhead wires.

Both innovations could be used in Dublin with some equipment added to trams.

FreudianSlippers

Any news on this project, or has it been effectively shelved for now?

L1011

eia340600 wrote: »

They could implement it now..Trams in Bordeaux run under overhead wires and only use grounf level supply in the city centre..The LUAS trams would have to be retrofitted with some equipment though..

Alternatively, Nice use batteries in their trams that allow them to run through parts of the city center, before charging their batteries on the outer sections of the lines that have overhead wires.

Both innovations could be used in Dublin with some equipment added to trams.

Its horrendously expensive to install, to fit to trams and rather unreliable.

Batteries, while we KNOW work fine as an idea (seeing as one of it not the first implementation was done on the Harcourt Street line!) would be impossible to fit without losing passenger capacity, particularly as the 5000 series are fully low floor.

BrianD

The arguement against overhead is very weak. It's a city - you expect to see the infrastructure that makes a city work on the streets. All these buildings had tram cables in front of them in the early part of the 20th century. O'Connell St. has a very modern streetscape. Tram infrastructure would not be out of place. You barely notice the cables on Abbey St. or Harcourt St.

As for the split routing - I don't see a problem. It opens up more of the city to tram transport and is quite common in other cities.

dowlingm

MYOB wrote: »

Its horrendously expensive to install, to fit to trams and rather unreliable.

Such a terrible technology it's going to be used in the entire Dubai Citadis install.

Aard

Dubai, where money seems to grow on trees. Well, palm trees.

D.L.R.

BrianD wrote: »

The arguement against overhead is very weak. It's a city - you expect to see the infrastructure that makes a city work on the streets. All these buildings had tram cables in front of them in the early part of the 20th century. O'Connell St. has a very modern streetscape. Tram infrastructure would not be out of place. You barely notice the cables on Abbey St. or Harcourt St.

I agree, some people are just too precious about these things.

BrianD wrote: »

As for the split routing - I don't see a problem. It opens up more of the city to tram transport and is quite common in other cities.

The problem with the split routing, is that it serves no useful purpose, will cost more, and will be slower. The reason you give seems more of an afterthought to justify the selection.

Loops in other cities are usually necessary and small. In our case we have O'Connell St sitting there, a street literally built to take tram lines, but no, theres a "better option". You have to wonder.

Its all politics of course. The one and only reason for the loop is Dublin Bus. Simple as that.

RobAMerc

wouldn't something like whats proposed for the LUAS Blue line not be a much cheaper option ? http://www.blueline.ie/

Ok, I mean it means the users would have to change from Luas to Bluas at the green, but would that be so bad ?

I mean this could be build in maybe 1/4 of the time and surely sooo much cheaper than a proper light rail system ?

We need it now - we've 0 cash now.

Aard

Just to point out that the Blue Line has nothing to do with Luas or the RPA.

donvito99

Is a new bridge across the Liffey part of the BXD plan? It seems ridiculously unnecessary this split routing lark.

What i would say to the RPA (and DCC, DoT, DTA? etc) is have some balls and if necessary, bank on closing or partially closing some streets to traffic. (College Green is proposed, unofficially of course to be pedestrianised). Not only would that lead to a better cityscape and a better environment for the rightful owners of this city, pedestrians, but trams would run much more quickly and simply through central dublin.

Infact, I think split routing could do a tremenduous amount of damage.

dowlingm

Aard wrote: »

Dubai, where money seems to grow on trees. Well, palm trees.

My point being - if they're spending that kind of money (and fully enclosed stations too - not sure how that will work) the tech has to work.

markpb

dowlingm wrote: »

My point being - if they're spending that kind of money (and fully enclosed stations too - not sure how that will work) the tech has to work.

Also, as they invest in it, the technology should improve with time.

Victor

OisinT wrote: »

Any news on this project, or has it been effectively shelved for now?

A new inspector has been appointed by ABP and a hearing is expected in the next few months.

MYOB wrote: »

Its horrendously expensive to install, to fit to trams and rather unreliable.

Batteries, while we KNOW work fine as an idea (seeing as one of it not the first implementation was done on the Harcourt Street line!) would be impossible to fit without losing passenger capacity, particularly as the 5000 series are fully low floor.

Actually, the batteries are often roof mounted.

RobAMerc wrote: »

wouldn't something like whats proposed for the LUAS Blue line not be a much cheaper option ? http://www.blueline.ie/

Ok, I mean it means the users would have to change from Luas to Bluas at the green, but would that be so bad ?

Part of the point is to not to have to change. Of course, the Blue Line is just bus based and limited to the number of people you can fit in a bus.

donvito99 wrote: »

Is a new bridge across the Liffey part of the BXD plan?

The bridge is needed anyway to reduce the amount of right-turning traffic at O'Connell Bridge. While that could be achieved with a simple ban, it would be harsh on quite a few bus routes.

dowlingm wrote: »

fully enclosed stations too - not sure how that will work

Sliding doors for the trains? Its because of the need for air conditioning.

dowlingm

RobAMerc wrote: »

wouldn't something like whats proposed for the LUAS Blue line not be a much cheaper option ? http://www.blueline.ie/

Ok, I mean it means the users would have to change from Luas to Bluas at the green, but would that be so bad ?

I would build BX if only for the ability to have interdepot moves without resorting to low loaders but also to allow Heuston-Cherrywood direct service. Use bendybuses for Line D by all means - better than the local element bashing up the LUAS stops the way they do Broombridge.

[Edit - "Blue Line" is not an RPA project last I heard]

Telchak

dowlingm wrote: »

better than the local element bashing up the LUAS stops the way they do Broombridge.

Broombridge station gets detroyed because it feels like an industrial wasteland. The Luas stop and depot will take up a significant part of the empty area around it, and derelict factories will probably eventually be rezoned for apartments (long into the future, I know). It should make the area safer and more open.

BrianD

D.L.R. wrote: »

I agree, some people are just too precious about these things.



The problem with the split routing, is that it serves no useful purpose, will cost more, and will be slower. The reason you give seems more of an afterthought to justify the selection.

Loops in other cities are usually necessary and small. In our case we have O'Connell St sitting there, a street literally built to take tram lines, but no, theres a "better option". You have to wonder.

Its all politics of course. The one and only reason for the loop is Dublin Bus. Simple as that.

I'm not justifying it but looking at the opportunity it may provide. Obviously it's not just the single line running but also the additional bridge. I'm surprised that DCC would be happy with the extra "visual clutter" that the bridge would cause on the river never mind the building cost.

If the split line is to ahead would there be any sense of also creating a 'loop' out of the two tracks allowing a city centre circular route to operate. Not unlike the circle line in Melbourne.

paulm17781

I was recently in Oberhausen (Germany) where they have tram lines all over the city. Buses use these (and the stations too), even on elevated parts. Why is this not the case with the Luas?

Victor

BrianD wrote: »

I'm not justifying it but looking at the opportunity it may provide. Obviously it's not just the single line running but also the additional bridge. I'm surprised that DCC would be happy with the extra "visual clutter" that the bridge would cause on the river never mind the building cost.

The council are building the bridge and already have permission.

If the split line is to ahead would there be any sense of also creating a 'loop' out of the two tracks allowing a city centre circular route to operate. Not unlike the circle line in Melbourne.

Not really, the loop is too small.

Empire o de Sun

The bridge is needed for Hawking street, even if luas isn't built.

L1011

Victor wrote: »

Actually, the batteries are often roof mounted.

Would mean that said trams couldn't be used on the Red line past Rialto. There's minimal headroom at Suir Road. Dunno what the headroom is like on the tunnel on the Green like though.

eia340600

MYOB wrote: »

Would mean that said trams couldn't be used on the Red line past Rialto. There's minimal headroom at Suir Road.

If there's enough room for a pantograph there's enough room for a battery.

mgmt

Looks like the Luas Interconnector might go ahead. :eek:

It has been assumed in the RPA multi-modal transport model that bus speeds will decrease and journey times will increase on certain bus routes that parallel Luas Line BXD. The speeds of buses running along Luas Line BXD between O‟Connell St and St Stephen‟s Green have been reduced to reflect the decrease in road space resulting from scheme implementation and increased congestion on these parallel routes
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/line_bxd_business_case.pdf

You could overtake the Luas Interconnector by commuting on Shank's Mare.

Sponge Bob

mgmt wrote: »

You could overtake the Luas Interconnector by commuting on Shank's Mare.

I reckon it will end up looking suspiciously like the SouthSide aka The Roysh Roide" Interconnector by the time it is finished.

If Leo really cocks up it will end up built on the south side and all