LUAS Citywest Extension Open

JupiterKid

I was checking the AA Roadwatch website and I noticed that there was an announcement that the LUAS red line extension to Citywest and Saggart opens at noon tomorrow (July 2nd).:)

During tomorrow, travel on the LUAS red line will be free.

Zebra3

JupiterKid wrote: »

During tomorrow, travel on the LUAS red line will be free.

Isn't it always?

G_R

Here's a current map of the LUAS Network, can it be called a network yet?

Cathaoirleach

€150 million for 4.2km of light rail.

€36,000 per metre. Incredible. It's no wonder we have a shíte transport system.

D'Peoples Voice

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

€150 million for 4.2km of light rail.

€36,000 per metre. Incredible. It's no wonder we have a shíte transport system.

i wouldn't mind but the junction with Cheeverstonw Road/Outer Link Road isn't even grade separated!
Unless I'm wrong, there are NO significant bridges on this extension that i can think of......seems a lot ot pay alright.
I like to benchmark the cost against this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_Express_Transit:rolleyes:

DWCommuter

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

€150 million for 4.2km of light rail.

€36,000 per metre. Incredible. It's no wonder we have a shíte transport system.

Remember that many transport aficionados will be salivating at the onset of this luas extension. What they don't realise is that, due to a complete starvation of decent rail based transport projects, they are merely whores with a feeling of self worth. In fact this luas extension is just that. A transport whore, with a feeling of self worth, driven by a pimp that is the RPA, who in turn answers to a bigger pimp that is the inept people in political power.

spacetweek

DWCommuter wrote: »

Remember that many transport aficionados will be salivating at the onset of this luas extension. What they don't realise is that, due to a complete starvation of decent rail based transport projects, they are merely whores with a feeling of self worth. In fact this luas extension is just that. A transport whore, with a feeling of self worth, driven by a pimp that is the RPA, who in turn answers to a bigger pimp that is the inept people in political power.

Get some sleep before you post in future DW

chooochooo

spacetweek wrote: »

Get some sleep before you post in future DW

sleep won't help this case.
strong medication needed.

LeinsterDub

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

€150 million for 4.2km of light rail.

€36,000 per metre. Incredible. It's no wonder we have a shíte transport system.

What would be considered good value?

Geogregor

DWCommuter wrote: »

Remember that many transport aficionados will be salivating at the onset of this luas extension. What they don't realise is that, due to a complete starvation of decent rail based transport projects, they are merely whores with a feeling of self worth. In fact this luas extension is just that. A transport whore, with a feeling of self worth, driven by a pimp that is the RPA, who in turn answers to a bigger pimp that is the inept people in political power.

I thought I can understand English. I was clearly wrong.

DWCommuter

spacetweek wrote: »

Get some sleep before you post in future DW

Whats your problem?

DWCommuter

chooochooo wrote: »

sleep won't help this case.
strong medication needed.

And whats your problem?

You can only fail to understand my post by having a poor understanding of state policy towards Rail based infrastructure. Furthermore the personally directed remarks by both you and spacetweek have been noted.

BluntGuy

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Here's a current map of the LUAS Network, can it be called a network yet?

Depends on whether you consider two tramlines in which you must "interchange" to walking in order to switch between them a "network". Some would argue not.

Though perhaps if Luas BXD goes ahead, one could legitimately call it such.

A fairly unambitious "network" in either case, to be sure though.

dynamick

We don't yet know the proportion of developer funding used to pay for this project. I don't know why this is being kept secret but presumably there is a confidentiality clause. The revised business case from 3 yrs ago showed a benefit cost ratio of 5.1:1 which is very high compared to other transport projects.

Luas route length increased by 50% since 2005 when T21 was announced. BXD will likely be approved this autumn. We could see 40m Luas passengers in 2015.

markpb

dynamick wrote: »

We don't yet know the proportion of developer funding used to pay for this project. I don't know why this is being kept secret but presumably there is a confidentiality clause.

Someone should tell the RPA it'a a secret, they posted it on their [url=Facebook page

The Developers contributed 55% to the total cost of Luas Citywest. They (Citywest Luas Limited) have met all their commitments in this regard.

JupiterKid

Hmm...I started this thread last week but no-one seems to have actually used the new LUAS line to Saggart/Citywest.

Can anyone give us a report if they've actually used the new line?

And to the trams run straight to Citywest from the City centre/Point or do passengers have to change at the Belgard stop?

markpb

JupiterKid wrote: »

Can anyone give us a report if they've actually used the new line?

I suspect they'll say it's very, very like the rest of the Luas line

And to the trams run straight to Citywest from the City centre/Point or do passengers have to change at the Belgard stop?

From RPA.ie

Trams from Tallaght will run to The Point serving all stops in between. Trams from Saggart will run to Connolly serving all stops in between from 7.00am and 7.30pm Monday to Friday and most of the weekend. Some early morning and late evening trams will run between Saggart and Belgard only; at Belgard you can hop onto the next tram serving all stops to The Point or to Tallaght.

Judgement Day

Dead link to Facebook page or is it just me?

Cathaoirleach

Judgement Day wrote: »

Dead link to Facebook page or is it just me?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Luas-Citywest-New-Luas-Line-to-Saggart/154582441276663

AngryLips

BluntGuy wrote: »

Depends on whether you consider two tramlines in which you must "interchange" to walking in order to switch between them a "network". Some would argue not.

You're dead right, they should build a walkalator from Stephen's Green stop to Abbey Street stop.

Wild Bill

JupiterKid wrote: »

Hmm...I started this thread last week but no-one seems to have actually used the new LUAS line to Saggart/Citywest.

I'm waiting till I can connect to it from my local Green Line stop.

How long will I be waiting?

1huge1

BluntGuy wrote: »

Depends on whether you consider two tramlines in which you must "interchange" to walking in order to switch between them a "network". Some would argue not.

Though perhaps if Luas BXD goes ahead, one could legitimately call it such.

A fairly unambitious "network" in either case, to be sure though.

I assume by that you mean you only have to walk if you want to go from Tallaght to Saggart and vice versa?

Please don't tell me that if your coming from Saggart you have to get off at Belgard and switch/walk to the Tallaght line to go into the city?

paulm17781

1huge1 wrote: »

I assume by that you mean you only have to walk if you want to go from Tallaght to Saggart and vice versa?

I reckon he means green line to red line.

Babooshka

JupiterKid wrote: »

Hmm...I started this thread last week but no-one seems to have actually used the new LUAS line to Saggart/Citywest.

Can anyone give us a report if they've actually used the new line?

And to the trams run straight to Citywest from the City centre/Point or do passengers have to change at the Belgard stop?

Yes I have. They run from Connolly direct, no jumping at Belgard (unless you get on the wrong luas...destination must say"saggart" and not "tallaght" ). They're every ten minutes during peak hours and they're really convenient.

LXFlyer

Operating patterns are:

Monday-Friday

Tallaght-Point: 05:30-00:30 (Both Directions)

Saggart-Connolly: 07:00-19:40

Saggart-Belgard Shuttle: 05:35-07:00 and 19:40-00:25

Last Outbound tram from the Point with shuttle connection to Saggart - 00:05

Saturday:

Tallaght-Point: 06:30-00:30 (Both Directions)

Saggart-Connolly: 08:55-18:55

Saggart-Belgard Shuttle: 06:35-08:55 and 18:55-00:25

Last Outbound tram from the Point with shuttle connection to Saggart - 00:05

Sundays

Tallaght-Point: 07:00-23:30 (Both Directions)

Saggart-Connolly: 12:00-19:10

Saggart-Belgard Shuttle: 07:05-12:00 and 19:10-23:25

Last Outbound tram from the Point with shuttle connection to Saggart - 23:05

Therefore early mornings/evenings you do need to change at Belgard to go to Saggart from the city.

Hondo75

Luas saggart stop at 7.30 this morning was empty.
I work in citywest and and a guy that travels from city is using the bus still.

LXFlyer

Hondo75 wrote: »

Luas saggart stop at 7.30 this morning was empty.
I work in citywest and and a guy that travels from city is using the bus still.

It depends on where people are coming from and indeed where in Citywest campus they work. The bus may be closer to their workplace.

If your colleage uses the Mortons bus then I can understand that as it goes straight out along the Quays and the Naas Road. However, there is only one Mortons bus per day.

The Dublin Bus services (50, 65b and 69) will all take longer that the LUAS due to having to divert around Killinarden and Tallaght (50/65b) or the 69 around Clondalkin.

It really depends on the circumstances - the LUAS will not suit everyone.

I would have thought that the LUAS stop would start getting busier from nearer 8 onwards as people start arriving for work.

Live4Ever

I used it, it's the usual LUAS... I got on at Saggart went straight into town - no changeovers.

In fairness the Citywest campus looked pretty far away from the LUAS stop, if it's a wet day you'd get soaked walking over.

Other than that its the usual red line scumbags and the 'Saggart' stop is a good 10min walk from Saggart.

weehamster

Live4Ever wrote: »

...and the 'Saggart' stop is a good 10min walk from Saggart.

Only a good 10 minute walk?. It's a good 25 minute walk to my nearest DART station. A 10 minute walk to a good quality rail service would be very nice thing to have.

spacetweek

JupiterKid wrote: »

Hmm...I started this thread last week but no-one seems to have actually used the new LUAS line to Saggart/Citywest.

Can anyone give us a report if they've actually used the new line?

I've used it:

Starting from Belgard, it runs alongside a new road under construction. Not much to see.
As we passed Cheeverstown, there was a bonfire burning on some waste ground. Land along here is dead land behind houses and needs to be tidied up: the ground levelled, grass planted, rubbish taken away, graffiti painted over.
Further on, at Citywest, they had done that. The land between the line and the backs of the houses had been treated just like I described above. Noted the wide space to the north between the Citywest buildings and the station. They may eventually build more buildings there.
Fortunestown Shopping Centre was unremarkable. Next the line winds alongside an apartment block, I'm surprised they put it in the tight space as they could have passed around the far side through open space.
Saggart Stop is very quiet. New apartments and Saggart village is distant.
Journey Belgard-Saggart-Belgard 11 minutes, I think.

At the end of the day, it's handy for the localities, but it's of marginal significance for the city as a whole. Citywest should never really have been built so far from the city. It's been repeated ad nauseum but the DART Interconnector and Metro North are of infinitely greater significance than stuff like this.

Photos.

Live4Ever

weehamster wrote: »

Only a good 10 minute walk?. It's a good 25 minute walk to my nearest DART station. A 10 minute walk to a good quality rail service would be very nice thing to have.

Ah yeah I'm not complaining about the length of the walk, just pointing out that it's a good walk from Saggart so it's hardly the 'Saggart' stop, they should have brought it right across to the hotel!

LXFlyer

spacetweek wrote: »

I've used it:

Starting from Belgard, it runs alongside a new road under construction. Not much to see.
As we passed Cheeverstown, there was a bonfire burning on some waste ground. Land along here is dead land behind houses and needs to be tidied up: the ground levelled, grass planted, rubbish taken away, graffiti painted over.
Further on, at Citywest, they had done that. The land between the line and the backs of the houses had been treated just like I described above. Noted the wide space to the north between the Citywest buildings and the station. They may eventually build more buildings there.
Fortunestown Shopping Centre was unremarkable. Next the line winds alongside an apartment block, I'm surprised they put it in the tight space as they could have passed around the far side through open space.
Saggart Stop is very quiet. New apartments and Saggart village is distant.
Journey Belgard-Saggart-Belgard 11 minutes, I think.

At the end of the day, it's handy for the localities, but it's of marginal significance for the city as a whole. Citywest should never really have been built so far from the city. It's been repeated ad nauseum but the DART Interconnector and Metro North are of infinitely greater significance than stuff like this.

Photos.

The whole point of this line was that it was to be functional rather than offering tourist trips!

It provides a faster route to/from the Citywest Business Campus - that was the primary function.

spacetweek

lxflyer wrote: »

The whole point of this line was that it was to be functional rather than offering tourist trips!

It provides a faster route to/from the Citywest Business Campus - that was the primary function.

True, but many areas of that campus are easier to access by car or bus than Luas.
At the end of the day, Citywest is a car-oriented development that grew out of a grade-separated junction that a private developer built on the Naas road. When you build a car-oriented development, it will easier to get around by car than anything else. The solution is to stop building car-oriented areas.

LXFlyer

spacetweek wrote: »

True, but many areas of that campus are easier to access by car or bus than Luas.
At the end of the day, Citywest is a car-oriented development that grew out of a grade-separated junction that a private developer built on the Naas road. When you build a car-oriented development, it will easier to get around by car than anything else. The solution is to stop building car-oriented areas.

Unfortunately that can be said about most business parks anywhere.

AngryLips

spacetweek wrote: »

True, but many areas of that campus are easier to access by car or bus than Luas.
At the end of the day, Citywest is a car-oriented development that grew out of a grade-separated junction that a private developer built on the Naas road. When you build a car-oriented development, it will easier to get around by car than anything else. The solution is to stop building car-oriented areas.

Totally agree with your point though I hope you're not presenting it as an argument against any effort to make such existing developments more accessible to public transport?

dowlingm

In my opinion, the lad behind Citywest epitomised the hubris with the Celtic Tiger. He lands a massive development in the middle of nowhere while playing ducks and drakes with planning permission both there and at Weston Aerodrome.

I'd say his proposal for LUAS A1 would have been rejected out of hand were it not for the pols and the technocrats thinking "maybe there are other Mansfields out there who will co-pay the cost of building infrastructure" and that telling him to sling his hook would have put them off.

As it turns out of course the private sector's involvement in infrastructure was in the main limited to toll roads (with their minimum income contracts) and even where the private sector collaborated on projects the State was left looking like eejits as IE is at present at Hansfield and is perceived as having been played in Docklands.

spacetweek

AngryLips wrote: »

Totally agree with your point though I hope you're not presenting it as an argument against any effort to make such existing developments more accessible to public transport?

Certainly not! I said that the solution was to stop building car-accessible areas. Citywest is a fact now and will be hard to reorganise, but we can at least change things going forward in new areas.

What's crazy is that comparing Citywest with Parkwest, Parkwest is a far better location for large-scale office development. It's much closer to the city and has a train station at its centre which will one day be a DART. I'm told even with the current level of service that the journey time to Heuston is only 9 mins. And yet Citywest is so big now that it's practically a new suburb in its own right, while Parkwest languishes and has in fact gone into decline with many empty buildings.

Wild Bill

spacetweek wrote: »

while Parkwest languishes and has in fact gone into decline with many empty buildings.

Hmmmm. I wonder why that is?

Could it be that people actually prefer to work and/or invest in "parkland" settings? Maybe they actually prefer living and working in the suburbs? I know, as someone who spent a decade commuting to the City Centre I'd not do it ever again.

There are not many sites a vast as Parkwest close to the city centre. And (generally) the very same people who have serially objected to high-rise offices and apartments in the City are those who object to "green field" developments.

The Luas here in Sandyford is thriving as far as Carrickmines; and if they every manage to built a car park at Cherrywood it will draw even more commuters onto public transport.

I'm sure that Saggart will attract the crowds when it settles in.

markpb

Wild Bill wrote: »

Could it be that people actually prefer to work and/or invest in "parkland" settings? Maybe they actually prefer living and working in the suburbs? I know, as someone who spent a decade commuting to the City Centre I'd not do it ever again.

While I can't argue with your opinion, I can honestly say that I've never met _anyone_ who liked worked in industrial estates or business parks. Everyone I know prefers working in the city centre.

Wild Bill

markpb wrote: »

Everyone I know prefers working in the city centre.

You need to get around a bit more!

Most folk I know like to work where it is easy to drive to and park, for free. Thus living in the suburbs and working, contra rush-hour flow, a bit further out is very desirable.

Better still live within a couple of M50 junctions from the workplace.

Ask the IDA - the folk who have tried and failed to get a thousand foreign investors to locate in the locations favoured by "planners". Business parks have an almost universal requirement to locate beside a motorway; good public transport is great if available.

But strictly optional. Road access isn't.

New Luas lines must follow this reality or fail. You provide public transport to where people work and live - not to where you think they should work and live. :cool:

DWCommuter

Wild Bill wrote: »

You provide public transport to where people work and live - not to where you think they should work and live. :cool:

That's an Irish conundrum you have going on there. Providing PT to where people already work and live is handy enough if its sustainable. However, it did not pan out that way as Lil oul Eire developed. Providing PT to where you think people should work and live is actually a very good idea. But it didn't pan out that way either in Lil oul Eire.

Its a fact that in Dublin (as an example) people lived quite far from their jobs and had cross radial commutes that required a car. Thats why the M50 was such a pinch point. Add to that the dormitory town commuters and you can begin to see the mess created by the boom in the absence of sensible planning. It all became car dependent.

Of course now that we have hit the ****, we can start all over again.

Wild Bill

DWCommuter wrote: »

That's an Irish conundrum you have going on there.

Hardly just an Irish one.

DWCommuter wrote: »

Providing PT to where people already work and live is handy enough if its sustainable.

What, exactly, does "sustainable" mean? It is the most overused malaprop in the modern English language.

DWCommuter wrote: »

However, it did not pan out that way as Lil oul Eire developed. Providing PT to where you think people should work and live is actually a very good idea. But it didn't pan out that way either in Lil oul Eire.

Eh...no. Providing PT to where you think people should work and live is madness if they don't/won't work and live where you think they should.

Its a fact that in Dublin (as an example) people lived quite far from their jobs and had cross radial commutes that required a car. Thats why the M50 was such a pinch point. Add to that the dormitory town commuters and you can begin to see the mess created by the boom in the absence of sensible planning. It all became car dependent.

Car dependent = mess; that's the trendy opinion not shared by the actual choices real people actually make.
And the "boom" didn't "create" the suburbs or cross-radial commuting; it provided solutions that work extremely well; the M50 and the Luas lines. Pity is we spent too much time debating and listening to trendy "sustainable" planners and not enough building more rail lines when we had the money.

Of course now that we have hit the ****, we can start all over again.

I think to build on what we have achieved is a more rational way forward. :cool:

markpb

Wild Bill wrote: »

Most folk I know like to work where it is easy to drive to and park, for free. Thus living in the suburbs and working, contra rush-hour flow, a bit further out is very desirable.

Except that so many people in Dublin work in suburban industrial estates that getting to them isn't contra-flow anymore - they form traffic jams of their own. It's not so long ago that you couldn't get into or out of Sandyford at 9/5 without getting stuck in traffic. Even now there are traffic jams getting out in the evenings and it took people *hours* to get out during the snow in January (when, incidentally, the Luas ran almost flawlessly and people walking to it had no trouble at all.)

Ask the IDA - the folk who have tried and failed to get a thousand foreign investors to locate in the locations favoured by "planners".

Can you give a specific example rather than just mocking an entire profession?

New Luas lines must follow this reality or fail. You provide public transport to where people work and live - not to where you think they should work and live. :cool:

So you're saying new Luas lines must follow the same model which gives us low density industrial estates, traffic jams and public transport which cannot be efficient because of where the estates are and how they're laid out? Not to mention leaving people in areas which have few other facilities at all.

Wild Bill

markpb wrote: »

Except that so many people in Dublin work in suburban industrial estates that getting to them isn't contra-flow anymore - they form traffic jams of their own. It's not so long ago that you couldn't get into or out of Sandyford at 9/5 without getting stuck in traffic. Even now there are traffic jams getting out in the evenings and it took people *hours* to get out during the snow in January (when, incidentally, the Luas ran almost flawlessly and people walking to it had no trouble at all.)

Wrong actually. The Luas was out for two days from Sandyford to Cherrywood during the snow. The roads all remained open, all the time. I know. I live a mile from the main junction. Compared to the traffic jams in the City centre the occasional rush hour hiccups (now largely solved) hardly rate.

Can you give a specific example rather than just mocking an entire profession?

Example of what? It's not the planners I mock but the braindead trendy recitation of "suburbs bad, city centres good" and other fetishes like (often contradictory) like opposing everything including high rise and "sprawl".

This is largely based on the assumption that private cars will soon be history - and/or are in some way "bad" - a pseudo-religious belief not supported by and reasoning worthy of the name.

So you're saying new Luas lines must follow the same model which gives us low density industrial estates, traffic jams and public transport which cannot be efficient because of where the estates are and how they're laid out? Not to mention leaving people in areas which have few other facilities at all.

What I said is you build public transport to where the public lives and works.
low density estates are very pleasant places to live; I know - I left the crowded centre to live in one. :cool:

markpb

Wild Bill wrote: »

Wrong actually. The Luas was out for two days from Sandyford to Cherrywood during the snow. The roads all remained open, all the time. I know. I live a mile from the main junction. Compared to the traffic jams in the City centre the occasional rush hour hiccups (now largely solved) hardly rate.

The Luas was out for 2 evenings, not 2 days. I worked my full 8-10 hours a day both days and used the Luas to get to and from work. The roads were impassible - several people in my office couldn't get to work and one of them, having taken just shy of 2 hours to get from Sandyford to Bewleys Hotel, gave up and checked in for the night.

Also, the traffic jams have abated because of the reduction in numbers employed right now. When the economy picks back up, they ill return.

Example of what? It's not the planners I mock but the braindead trendy recitation of "suburbs bad, city centres good" and other fetishes like (often contradictory) like opposing everything including high rise and "sprawl".

You said that the IDA had trouble getting companies into industrial estates where the planners wanted them. Name one please.

Wild Bill

markpb wrote: »

The Luas was out for 2 evenings, not 2 days. I worked my full 8-10 hours a day both days and used the Luas to get to and from work. The roads were impassible - several people in my office couldn't get to work and one of them, having taken just shy of 2 hours to get from Sandyford to Bewleys Hotel, gave up and checked in for the night.

We'll need to differ on this: I live here; the roads were open at all times and the Luas down the Ballyogan Road was most certainly closed for two days. I drove up and down the road by the empty track a dozen times!

Also, the traffic jams have abated because of the reduction in numbers employed right now. When the economy picks back up, they ill return.

In relation to Sandyford that's a myth; there are no less people working there than there were; bar the construction activity. The exits and rail access have improved.

You said that the IDA had trouble getting companies into industrial estates where the planners wanted them. Name one please.

The estates are where the investors want them. Mainly on the edge of the city and in greenfield sites.

Wild Bill

The Lep Valley, Ballyogan Rd, 1.15pm on the afternoon of December 1st 2010.
Note the snow covered track-bed - note the cars moving freely on the road alongside the track.

(And the Luas sign reads "all services cancelled" or somesuch).

markpb

Wild Bill wrote: »

(And the Luas sign reads "all services cancelled" or somesuch).

I stand corrected, the core part of the line ran fine most of the time but the extension was closed for a while (for reasons that were never properly explained by RPA).

However, I stand by my point. Building industrial estates that cater for large number of people driving in and out at the same time is a bad idea. They're badly spread out to cater for the volume of road traffic which reduces their attractiveness to pedestrians and public transport users which in turn only serves to attract even more car users. This causes traffic jams and reduces the air quality in the very place that people are working.

Suburban industrial estates tend to be spread out around the city instead of encouraging businesses to cluster in one place. This means that public transport is hampered again and that facilities are poorer.

Wild Bill

markpb wrote: »

the extension was closed for a while (for reasons that were never properly explained by RPA).

Interestingly, in opposing the BX line through the city centre being powered by underground cables (to avoid unsightly overhead wires in College Green etc) the RPA have argued that in Bordeaux (underground power) the trams are sometimes stopped by snow in winter, whereas overhead lines are immune!

I think what happened is that the snow (which got to a foot deep) bunched up in front the trains; and instead of just clearing the line they closed it.

Interestingly, in the second heavy fall a fortnight later (also about a foot deep up here) the line never closed as they 'ploughed' the line to leave just a very thin covering of snow.

I imagine the Saggart extension is in a fairly snowy place if we get another outbreak.

Wild Bill

A week later at the same spot, all is well. This stop is just outside a local pub, so it's one I've used many a Friday and Saturday night.

And to think ye'd begrudge me this wee Luas extension? :eek:

DWCommuter

Wild Bill wrote: »

Hardly just an Irish one.




What, exactly, does "sustainable" mean? It is the most overused malaprop in the modern English language.



Eh...no. Providing PT to where you think people should work and live is madness if they don't/won't work and live where you think they should.



Car dependent = mess; that's the trendy opinion not shared by the actual choices real people actually make.
And the "boom" didn't "create" the suburbs or cross-radial commuting; it provided solutions that work extremely well; the M50 and the Luas lines. Pity is we spent too much time debating and listening to trendy "sustainable" planners and not enough building more rail lines when we had the money.



I think to build on what we have achieved is a more rational way forward. :cool:

I will enlighten you in due course.