Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge

robd

bk wrote: »

Also 19 million to retrofit all red line trams to not use overhead cables seems very reasonable to avoid wires in the city center, I thought it would be much more, I really hope ABP force them to do this.

In the presentation given to IEI, already linked to this thread or Luas thread in this forum, a number of other reasons are given.

• Unreliability.
• Unsuitability to climate (doesn't like damp or snow).
• Unsuitability of route due to mixed traffic (only suitable for short distance on segregated route where time is a constant).

The reality that the Luas as is is an efficient and reliable system. Should be kept as is.

bk

robd wrote: »

The reality that the Luas as is is an efficient and reliable system. Should be kept as is.

Fair enough, then one of the alternative routes that completely avoided the fronts of our most historic buildings should be chosen.

Any way I never did think it made sense to split the lines, what a waste.

I won't be so sure that ABP won't force this issue, just like they have forced some sense with the childrens hospital.

Aard

Here's a post by transport planner Jarret Walker on the efficacy of a split line, like BX. http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/one-way-splits-as-symbolic-transit.html

Maybe not such a big deal here given that the distance between OCS and Marlborough is less than 150m (less than 2 mins' walk). Interesting nonetheless, and certainly applicable to many bus routes and their respective stops around the city centre.

D.L.R.

Aard wrote: »

Here's a post by transport planner Jarret Walker on the efficacy of a split line, like BX. http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/one-way-splits-as-symbolic-transit.html

Maybe not such a big deal here given that the distance between OCS and Marlborough is less than 150m (less than 2 mins' walk). Interesting nonetheless, and certainly applicable to many bus routes and their respective stops around the city centre.

The split I find baffling since
- we don't need a split due to constraints
- its more expensive
- its more disruptive
- we already have a wide road & bridge available (O'Connell St)

I really wonder about this country sometimes, and the mental abilities of those who rubber stamp these things. if you need more capacity, just build another bridge and divert buses to it. BXD is so inefficient and clunky..

Carawaystick

MYOB wrote: »

Not a railway bridge. Private foot/cart/electrical cables bridge.

I'm on about the bridge from platform10 to the Phoenix park

L1011

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm on about the bridge from platform10 to the Phoenix park

Thats:

a: not defunct
b: nowhere near the Westlink
c: you already mentioned it ("the railway bridge at Heuston is listed")

BrianD

bk wrote: »

Fair enough, then one of the alternative routes that completely avoided the fronts of our most historic buildings should be chosen.

Any way I never did think it made sense to split the lines, what a waste.

I won't be so sure that ABP won't force this issue, just like they have forced some sense with the childrens hospital.

These historic buildings have had tram lines and electrical infrastructure in front of them before. The visual impact of the cabling is mimimal. If done properly it adds to the streetscape. We're in a city we expect to see the infrastructure of a city about us.

Unfortunately, the city planners and ABP seem to think we live in a village and hence we have these half arsed buildings thrown up that add nothing to the streetscape.

If they want to improve college green - cut down the trees so you have a better sense of a public space and put in the tramline to get people there. You'd have a fine public space then.

AngryLips

I wonder if another reason for building this bridge is so that the council can do something about O'Connell Street bridge without causing substantial distruption to traffic in the city centre. I remember a piece in the IT a few years back saying that O'CS bridge is badly in need of repair and unfit for its current purpose.

monument

Joko wrote: »

What bus routes are planned to use this bridge? The plans only have south bound bus lanes.

It offers the option of a direct turn back for buses which currently come from the north quays onto O'Connell Bridge -- that bridge has no right turns onto the south quays, but the new bridge allows right turns.

It also offers a more direct turn back for Eden Quay contra-flow bus lane, importantly away from the mass of pedestrians and traffic on O'Connell Bridge.

How well these work depend on the road layout and set up leading up to and away from the new bridge.

AngryLips wrote: »

I wonder if another reason for this building this bridge is so that the council can do something about O'Connell Street bridge without causing substantial distruption to traffic in the city centre. I remember a piece in the IT a few years back saying that O'CS bridge is badly in need of repair and unfit for its current purpose.

If BXD does not go ahead, it would be interesting looking at the bridge and Marlborough Street as a high quality QBC or a BRT route.

With or without Luas, if O'CS Bridge was put out of action the new bridge would only be able to handle buses / cyclists / peds at most. But then again BXD will likely force a large drop in cross river private traffic on O'CS Bridge.

bk

BrianD wrote: »

These historic buildings have had tram lines and electrical infrastructure in front of them before. The visual impact of the cabling is mimimal. If done properly it adds to the streetscape. We're in a city we expect to see the infrastructure of a city about us.

Just because it once had them, doesn't mean we should have them again.

We once had slums and tenements too, do you think it would be ok if they returned too?

We now have the technology to avoid this sort of eye sore and create a much more attractive city center, so why not make use of it?

We should be striving to remove street clutter from our streets (bus stops, advertising, etc.) not adding even more.

AngryLips

bk wrote: »

We now have the technology to avoid this sort of eye sore and create a much more attractive city center, so why not make use of it?

Personally, I think a programme to reduce and rationalise the amount of street furniture/signage/clutter would be more effective and cost less.

bk

AngryLips wrote: »

Personally, I think a programme to reduce and rationalise the amount of street furniture/signage/clutter would be more effective and cost less.

Personally I think both should be done. No point in reducing street furniture to only replace it with more poles and overhead wires.

MrDerp

bk wrote: »

Personally I think both should be done. No point in reducing street furniture to only replace it with more poles and overhead wires.

I lived in Vancouver for a summer, which has an extensive network of electric trolley-buses running from overhead power lines. These run right through both downtown and suburban Vancouver. You'd have to be looking for them to notice them.

I was in Antwerp twice this year. They have trams running everywhere from overhead lines. Again, you simply don't notice them, but you do notice any fine buildings. There's trams running across main squares without detracting from the visual surroundings.

I don't believe that the human eye actually processes something as relatively insignificant as a 100mm cable. Instead the residents enjoy a quick reliable tram system (3 day pass for 5.50 btw) that covers the downtown area perfectly, admittedly supported by a tunnel which 4 main artery routes follow.

I have to say Antwerp was a real eye-opener in terms of public transport. Simple cheap cars hauling people around at short intervals at low cost. Easy changeovers and one backbone tunnel to do the donkey work.

If you gave me carte blanche I'd run wires everywhere, buy cheap cars, and send the red line luas through one side of the port tunnel, leaving the other bore to 2-way HGV traffic.

BrianD

bk wrote: »

Just because it once had them, doesn't mean we should have them again.

We once had slums and tenements too, do you think it would be ok if they returned too?

We now have the technology to avoid this sort of eye sore and create a much more attractive city center, so why not make use of it?

We should be striving to remove street clutter from our streets (bus stops, advertising, etc.) not adding even more.

I think that's an unreasonable comparison. We're talking about modern transport infrastructure and not neglected properties.

Transport infrastructure is to be welcomed in an urban environment. It adds to it and makes an attractive urban environment. It seems that some people would prefer to have thatched cottages in our urban landscape.

Personally, I think the visual effect of overhead tram power lines are minimal. In other cities such as Amsterdam, Vienna and Melbourne, trams are city icons.

I would agree with you regarding the visual clutter of multiple bus stops and other street furniture - it is fair to say we've a lot crap furniture on our streets - but I don't think tram infrastructure belongs in this category.

munchkin_utd

Has anyone got recent photos of the current state of progress?

The only photos online here(/ skyscraper city!) or on flickr are from the beginning of works in April/ May.

Mr Simpson

It really hasn't moved on too much, its still just the steel which has been sunk into the river bed.

munchkin_utd

mmcn90 wrote: »

It really hasn't moved on too much, its still just the steel which has been sunk into the river bed.

fair enough so!
Understandable why nobody has bothered photographing it if theres little visible above water.

admiralofthefleet

munchkin_utd wrote: »

fair enough so!
Understandable why nobody has bothered photographing it if theres little visible above water.

it looked like a platform was placed over the steel beams today

Mr Simpson

Here's a pic update from Saoro on Skyscraper City

Victor

2 August 2012.

Victor

7 August 2012 - part 1.

Victor

7 August 2012 - part 2.

The concrete deck seems to be a working platform for the assembly of the bridge.

Victor

I'm wondering. Quite a few buses now make the turn from O'Connell Bridge northbound to Eden Quay. How should these routes be catered for. Sending them to Tara Street might not be great.

LXFlyer

I don't expect any change for northbound routes at all - why would they move those routes?

This bridge has frankly very limited applicability to bus services - I'm struggling to see which routes might use it unless the 14, 15 and 27 are all re-routed from Amiens Street and Georges Quay.

monument

Victor wrote: »

I'm wondering. Quite a few buses now make the turn from O'Connell Bridge northbound to Eden Quay. How should these routes be catered for. Sending them to Tara Street might not be great.

Drawings on the bridge only show two southbound lanes. Is this more of a BXD issue?

lxflyer wrote: »

I don't expect any change for northbound routes at all - why would they move those routes?

Because Luas BXD removes the right turn on O'Connell Bridge.

LXFlyer

That causes issues for the 14, 15 and 27. The 27 could route via Winetavern St and the North Quays like the 151, but the other two will have to go via Fleet St, Townsend St and Tara St.

Also Swords Express will have to move their terminus, possibly to Custom House Quay.

Sponge Bob

From what I heard at the weekend. This bridge will be built with NO Tram tracks and seemingly with no ducting for service related cabling of any sort and will have to be closed and dug up again for the Luas BXD project within 3 years.

Genius!

monument

Sponge Bob wrote: »

From what I heard at the weekend. This bridge will be built with NO Tram tracks and seemingly with no ducting for service related cabling of any sort and will have to be closed and dug up again for the Luas BXD project within 3 years.

Genius!

Do you think it would be cost effective to hire somebody to lay tracks for 50 meters?

Sponge Bob

It would be cost effective if the bridge did not have to be closed for a long period in future, yes. Dublin needs somewhere to park them buses while the lads read the Herald.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Do you think it would be cost effective to hire somebody to lay tracks for 50 meters?

It was done for the Outer Ring Road / Citywest Luas, so clearly it is.

Victor

monument wrote: »

Do you think it would be cost effective to hire somebody to lay tracks for 50 meters?

To be fair, digging up the bridge to lay the track afterwards would probably be more disruptive and expensive.

They also did it with the Beckett Bridge.

D'Peoples Voice

Victor wrote: »

7 August 2012 - part 2.

The concrete deck seems to be a working platform for the assembly of the bridge.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/216772.jpg

slightly off topic, but the road on the far side of the river,
is that the road that leads up to close to the new Children's hospital?

L1011

It leads up to Parnell Street.

The planned NCH site is on Eccles Street which does not run (even taking in to account bends and name changes) to the river at all.

Victor

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

slightly off topic, but the road on the far side of the river,
is that the road that leads up to close to the new Children's hospital?

Not quite. http://maps.google.ie/maps?saddr=Marlborough+Street&daddr=Eccles+Street,+Dublin&hl=en&sll=53.353113,-6.261864&sspn=0.013038,0.042272&geocode=FcIHLgMdwoSg_w%3BFcEuLgMdi2Gg_ylt8fBZfg5nSDH0LxcBBQaksw&dirflg=w&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=15&t=m&z=15

dubhthach

monument wrote: »

Do you think it would be cost effective to hire somebody to lay tracks for 50 meters?

The Samuel Beckett bridge was built with "slots" (for want of better term) in place for any future tram tracks. These were filled in with Tarmac, but obviously are still there. See this photo from the following thread:



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60111335&postcount=26

Bit of forward thinking like this would at least make life easier when it comes to building tram system. Aside form that ducting for Fibre should be in by default on any new build bridges/roads -- NRA already puts such ducts along new motorway builds.

monument

We still don't know exactly what they are planning to do, and I'm not sure why the area where the tracks are going would be covered over that much given that the track bed area on the bridge is planned to be segregated and not shared running.

Re the Beckett Bridge -- bit of a difference in laying tracks and leaving it easy to lay them. And with the Outer Ring Road / Citywest Luas it was double the length and doing it after would mean a good bit of disruption -- in this case with the Marlborough Street bridge the closed off section is nearly exclusively going to be segregated anyway.

Sponge Bob

monument wrote: »

We still don't know exactly what they are planning to do, and I'm not sure why the area where the tracks are going would be covered over that much given that the track bed area on the bridge is planned to be segregated and not shared running.

Then there should be a set of tracks in the middle seeing as the segregation is up the middle.

monument

But given that the the great bulk of the area of road closed off for the bridge works is within that fully segregated area, there's little difference putting in the tracks later this year or in a year or two.

Of course it should be left so it'll be easy to lay the tracks -- like it was with the Beckett Bridge above -- but putting the tracks in or not with the bridge works would seem to make very little difference.

Gumbo

Not a great amount of detail in the photos, but after seeing this thread and was down that way today, said i'd take what i could.


Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge by kceire, on Flickr


Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge by kceire, on Flickr


Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge by kceire, on Flickr

Victor

Plenty of colour!

Sure it will be grand

Thanks for the pics.

AngryLips

It will be interesting to see how this new bridge opens up and changes the commercial activity along Burgh and Eden Quays as well as Marlborough, Hawkins and D'Olier Streets.

I've noticed in the last few years more shops opening up along in these parts especially catering to or run by various minority ethnic communities. Hopefully it will lead to a regenration of the area along the lines of what you see on Parnell Street and Moore Street.

Aard

It will also allow Marlborough and Hawkins to become pedestrian rat-runs to avoid O'Connell Bridge, which will greatly add to footfall and in turn increase the percepted level of safety there.

Zhane

What does everyone think of the petition going around to get the new bridge named after Maeve Binchy?

PS. Not affiliated with the petition, but I think its fitting for it to be named in honour of one of Irelands recent writers.

dubhthach

Zhane wrote: »

What does everyone think of the petition going around to get the new bridge named after Maeve Binchy?

PS. Not affiliated with the petition, but I think its fitting for it to be named in honour of one of Irelands recent writers.

There was a letter in the Times during the week suggesting naming it after William Rowan Hamilton, given that it will carry the BXD line to Broombridge it was an interesting suggestion!

AngryLips

Next we'll be renaming Dublin Airport after Charles Haughey. Why can't we just call it something rudimentary and geographically appropriate like Marlborough Street Bridge?

Zhane

AngryLips wrote: »

Next we'll be renaming Dublin Airport after Charles Haughey. Why can't we just call it something rudimentary and geographically appropriate like Marlborough Street Bridge?

Why would we call our Airport after Haughey?

Telchak

Can't imagine it won't follow recent convention of naming bridges after authors.

dowlingm

Telchak wrote: »

Can't imagine it won't follow recent convention of naming bridges after authors.

Typical Irish undervaluing of scientists. Without mathematics it's pretty hard to build railways and bridges.

dubhthach

dowlingm wrote: »

Typical Irish undervaluing of scientists. Without mathematics it's pretty hard to build railways and bridges.

After the death of Séamus Brennan supposedly the local party hacks in Dundrum wanted to rename the William Dargan Bridge after him. :eek: