New integrated transport draft plan for Dublin

ezra_pound

http://nationaltransport.ie.cdn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-Intergrated-Implemation-Plan-2013-2018.pdf

What do you guys think?

Major changes on the way if they follow through on the proposals.

TheBandicoot

There seems to be a commitment to closing all 7 level crossings on the Maynooth line, which is great, if they put their money where their mouth is and do it. No idea how you would close Coolmine crossing while maintaining the current road in the area though.

Dravokivich

They've started works on closing off those railway crossings already. I'm kind of curious about both Coolmine and Clonsilla as well. Carpenterstown can't handle the traffic that usually goes through Clonsilla if it's to be sent down there.

murphaph

Clonsilla will require a new bridge (I think planned to go to the west of the station). Coolmine would be very tricky to maintain open, but if they really wanted to they could sink the railway under the road (would have to sink the whole station!) and raise the road a couple of metres. Very disruptive works anyway. I think they'll go for the "divert" option for Coolmine tbh.

Infini

TheBandicoot wrote: »

There seems to be a commitment to closing all 7 level crossings on the Maynooth line, which is great, if they put their money where their mouth is and do it. No idea how you would close Coolmine crossing while maintaining the current road in the area though.

Well O'Reillys will definately be closed as the flyovers going in along with 3 of those smaller ones past Clonsilla. Clonsilla crossing itself however I doubt could be closed and the same with Ashtown as theres no real room for a bridge to go into either of them though automating those 2 crossing would help reduce delays considerably. Clonsilla could POSSIBLY be closed since theres a flyover bridge only around the corner.

Interesting with the resignalling project. I noticed the track in Grand Canals Platform 1 has been relaid recently (its currently used atm for stabling out of service commuters) and the bases for the new signals have been there a while but Im wondering if theyre gonna add a new set of points at the pearse end for trains to go directly onto the uproad from Platform 1 and move the existing points North a few metres too (the points from the Up line to the downline are about 5~10m too far back on Platform 2).

Would be nice to see the Maynooth/M3 Line and Line to Balbriggan electrified too. Phoenix park tunnel being put back into commission for passenger services from Kildare is also promising but Platform 10 needs some work (also would help if they built a platform 9 on the other side as well).

murphaph

Clonsilla & Coolmine are the worst offenders because trains approaching Clonsilla station from the west (and Coolmine from the east) trigger a closure of the gates, even though the trains will be slowing down to stop at the respective stations BEFORE the gates. This cannot be avoided for safety reasons but the delays to road traffic and congestion it causes are terrible at rush hour. These are the hardest nuts to crack but deliver the most bang for your buck as well.

I think there is already a plan to divert the R121 to the west of its existing alignment and flyover the railway/canal west of the station. Coolmine (as I already mentioned) is seriously problematic and I think they'll just divert to the bridge west of Riverwood (Dr. something bridge IIRC)

Chris_5339762

At least Dart Underground and Metro North are both mentioned under "Protect and progress".

Some interesting points on there and good news, but I still think an AWFUL lot can be done simply and easily by re-working traffic lights, improving sequencing, automation of lights (Terenure I'm looking at you) and possibly some form of tidal flow system.

LXFlyer

Infini2 wrote: »

Well O'Reillys will definately be closed as the flyovers going in along with 3 of those smaller ones past Clonsilla. Clonsilla crossing itself however I doubt could be closed and the same with Ashtown as theres no real room for a bridge to go into either of them though automating those 2 crossing would help reduce delays considerably. Clonsilla could POSSIBLY be closed since theres a flyover bridge only around the corner.

Interesting with the resignalling project. I noticed the track in Grand Canals Platform 1 has been relaid recently (its currently used atm for stabling out of service commuters) and the bases for the new signals have been there a while but Im wondering if theyre gonna add a new set of points at the pearse end for trains to go directly onto the uproad from Platform 1 and move the existing points North a few metres too (the points from the Up line to the downline are about 5~10m too far back on Platform 2).

Would be nice to see the Maynooth/M3 Line and Line to Balbriggan electrified too. Phoenix park tunnel being put back into commission for passenger services from Kildare is also promising but Platform 10 needs some work (also would help if they built a platform 9 on the other side as well).

Platform 1 at GCD is to be the through line northbound post-resignalling and platform 2 the turnback platform. That will mean that there won't be any conflicting movements.

Re Heuston - platform 10 will suffice to be honest, but a crossover will be needed north of the bridge to access the up line for trains heading to Connolly.

Dravokivich

murphaph wrote: »

I think there is already a plan to divert the R121 to the west of its existing alignment and flyover the railway/canal west of the station. Coolmine (as I already mentioned) is seriously problematic and I think they'll just divert to the bridge west of Riverwood (Dr. something bridge IIRC)

That'd be too lazy. It can't even handle moderate traffic through Carpenterstown the way it's setup now.

theSHU

ezra_pound wrote: »

http://nationaltransport.ie.cdn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-Intergrated-Implemation-Plan-2013-2018.pdf

What do you guys think?

Major changes on the way if they follow through on the proposals.

Disappointed DublinBikes got just an afterthought mention.

L1011

Porterstown Gate can be closed straight away if they'd just do the damn paperwork - the road to replace it (using the existing bridge) has been open for at least a year.

Infini

lxflyer wrote: »

Platform 1 at GCD is to be the through line northbound post-resignalling and platform 2 the turnback platform. That will mean that there won't be any conflicting movements.

Re Heuston - platform 10 will suffice to be honest, but a crossover will be needed north of the bridge to access the up line for trains heading to Connolly.

Platform 1 isnt electrified (along with the entire Pearse Yard for that matter) and DARTs cant use it , Platform 2/3 are and I havent heard of any plans to electrify Platform 1 so new points are more likely.

Platform 10 is long but theres a set of points in the platform area that might need to be pushed back to make full use of the platform and no platform on the far side for Connoly bound trains so a new platform would work better expecially if 2 trains came in at the same time.

LXFlyer

Infini2 wrote: »

Platform 1 isnt electrified (along with the entire Pearse Yard for that matter) and DARTs cant use it , Platform 2/3 are and I havent heard of any plans to electrify Platform 1 so new points are more likely.

Platform 10 is long but theres a set of points in the platform area that might need to be pushed back to make full use of the platform and no platform on the far side for Connoly bound trains so a new platform would work better expecially if 2 trains came in at the same time.

If you did any research on the city centre resignalling project you would know that the plan IS to electrify platform 1 and realign the northbound running line to use it.

The whole point is to make the middle road the turnback platform for trains coming from Maynooth, Drogheda or indeed stations south of Heuston. By doing this, such trains will be able to proceed from Pearse into that platform and this avoid crossing over the northbound line and using up a path unnecessarily.

TheBandicoot

The problem with that plan is that it only allows for one train to be stabled as far as I can see. Depending on alignment, you could put one train on the middle platform and another on top of it in the running line, but then that second train can't serve GCD.

Basically the layout would require slick turnaround and is essentially a terminus with a single arrival/departure platform with no sidings, which is madness.

The current layout has plenty of needed sidings- you can stable a 8 car in the southbound loop or in the running line and loop Darts around it; you can stable another 8 cars on the stub of the old platforms on the southern side of the station, you can stable another 8 cars directly behind this on the yard access road; you can store 2 separate 4 cars in the yard itself, and you can store another 8 cars at GCD platform 1 Cutting that to a single platform is a major reduction of capacity and doesn't make sense with current service patterns, and then you want to put Kildare services into the mix as well?!

LXFlyer

Obviously a full recast of the timetable would be involved. That may involve far slicker turnarounds.

You could have two trains terminating with one making a fast turnaround from P1 the other remaining in P2.

TheBandicoot

Sure, I just forsee it become an operational bottleneck. It's a good thing for DART services as it cuts out a conflicting move northbound trains can get caught in, but it might have negative impacts on commuter services.

LXFlyer

It makes no odds in the morning peak really when all Northern line trains continue to Bray.

MGWR

ezra_pound wrote: »

NTA Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018

What do you guys think?

Major changes on the way if they follow through on the proposals.

I think they have too many plans come out every few years.

They are definitely overthinking things with respect to rural bus stops.

BRT and additional "branding" both wastes of money. Better to make "limited-stop" trips on existing busy routes and so designate them on both bus signage and bus stop signage. Also, they are looking to replace potential new rail corridors with BRT, using the "interim solution" diversionary tactic, especially when it comes to the airport.

I figured that the Phoenix Park Tunnel would have to come into play for passenger service eventually. And incidentally: 20 trains per hour on the Loop Line is a new achievement (up from 12)? If you want to look overseas at other urban railway systems, they can and do have up to 40 TPH on two-track railways, operating at way faster speeds than the DART and even using archaic signalling.

And why is there a trolleybus graphic on opening pages of sections? I see no future investment in trolleybuses in Dublin, no matter what benefits they may have.

murphaph

MGWR wrote: »

BRT and additional "branding" both wastes of money. Better to make "limited-stop" trips on existing busy routes and so designate them on both bus signage and bus stop signage.

Indeed, more pointless branding instead of fixing things and letting the SERVICE sell itself. Do these people take the travelling public for absolute fools who will be swayed by a different colour bus?

They already have the X routes which people are familiar with. They should just substantially improve the X services and designate "BRT" routes as X routes.

bk

MGWR wrote: »

BRT and additional "branding" both wastes of money. Better to make "limited-stop" trips on existing busy routes and so designate them on both bus signage and bus stop signage.

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, more pointless branding instead of fixing things and letting the SERVICE sell itself. Do these people take the travelling public for absolute fools who will be swayed by a different colour bus?

I think you are both missing the point of this exercise.

The point of doing these BRT's is to reduce the power and influence of Dublin Bus over bus services in the Dublin area. Much in the same way as Luas was separated from Irish Rail to reduce their power and influence on the Dublin area.

The second point of this exercise seems to be to show Dublin Bus how to run a fast efficient bus service properly, with high quality, well spaced out bus stops, multi door operations, off bus ticketing, etc.

It isn't simply a "branding" exercise and while it won't be as revolutionary as Luas I do believe it is highly welcome.

murphaph

Why does the state have to "show" a state company how to do things properly? Just _FORCE_ Dublin Bus (and it's not just their fault, the Gaŕdai and various local authorities are also complicit in the general sh!teness of many bus services) to run the service that is deemed appropriate. It was the height of political spinelessness to create the RPA because the government were afraid of the CIE unions and this government is no different. It's time to make the CIE companies do what the travelling public wants, not what their management and unions want.

I completely understand the motives for all this-I just don't agree with them. If the CIE companies are deemed beyond reform, then ALL services should be put out to public tender (the operators paid according to defined QoS targets, not operators cherry picking lucrative routes. Operators would not get any of the farebox revenue directly) and still a common brand (I see no reason to change from Dublin Bus and their branding-it belongs to the state, us, after all) should be maintained as in London (you can't easily tell that buses there are run by several companies).

They are moving deckchairs around on the Titanic rather than facing up to the problems at the heart of the matter.Sure, the approach is better than a "do nothing" one, but it's not the best option. Dublin could actually have a fairly decent functioning bus network if ANY government had the balls to implement it.

bk

I agree that DB and BE should be broken up and put out to tender, but I think the government feels that it can't directly do this. That CIE and it's unions are too powerful and would cripple the country with strikes.

So instead the plan seems to be to slowly break them up and weaken them.

You can see that with the recent strikes, DB went on strike, but the LUAS kept running, as did all the private operators. This BRT network with take a number of very high passenger routes (e.g. airport/swords) out of their control.

That really is the genius of the London Bus model, 12 large private companies operate it. Sure one company might (and have) gone on strike, butit's impact is much more limited then, the whole city doesn't close down and there is always the threat there to strikers that their routes will be handed to one of the other companies.

Divide and conquer.

cdebru

bk wrote: »

I agree that DB and BE should be broken up and put out to tender, but I think the government feels that it can't directly do this. That CIE and it's unions are too powerful and would cripple the country with strikes.

So instead the plan seems to be to slowly break them up and weaken them.

You can see that with the recent strikes, DB went on strike, but the LUAS kept running, as did all the private operators. This BRT network with take a number of very high passenger routes (e.g. airport/swords) out of their control.

That really is the genius of the London Bus model, 12 large private companies operate it. Sure one company might (and have) gone on strike, butit's impact is much more limited then, the whole city doesn't close down and there is always the threat there to strikers that their routes will be handed to one of the other companies.

Divide and conquer.

I think you are slightly getting carried away with yourselves, I don't think BRT has anything to do with taking power away from DB or showing them anything, it is about improving the bus corridors on those routes to a higher standard.

As for taking power away from DB, the tender is up next year anyway if they want to tender then they can if they can get any decent reliable applications (which might be a problem).


Lastly you should look up transfer of undertakings

A transfer of undertakings occurs when a business or part of a business is taken over by another employer as a result of a merger or transfer.

When a transfer takes place there is a legal obligation on the new employer to take on the existing staff of the business or the part of the business concerned. The employee's accrued service with his or her original employer is deemed to have been with the new employer. The employee is entitled to terms and conditions of employment with the new employer which are no less favourable than those he or she enjoyed with the previous employer immediately prior to the transfer.

http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/informationforemployees/transferofundertakings/



You seem to be under the impression that, workers should be concerned that their current employer would lose the tender, makes no difference really.


PS we won't end up with 12 companies in Dublin, might be more at the start but in the end it will be 2 or 3 I would say.

cdebru

murphaph wrote: »

Why does the state have to "show" a state company how to do things properly? Just _FORCE_ Dublin Bus (and it's not just their fault, the Gaŕdai and various local authorities are also complicit in the general sh!teness of many bus services) to run the service that is deemed appropriate. It was the height of political spinelessness to create the RPA because the government were afraid of the CIE unions and this government is no different. It's time to make the CIE companies do what the travelling public wants, not what their management and unions want.

I completely understand the motives for all this-I just don't agree with them. If the CIE companies are deemed beyond reform, then ALL services should be put out to public tender (the operators paid according to defined QoS targets, not operators cherry picking lucrative routes. Operators would not get any of the farebox revenue directly) and still a common brand (I see no reason to change from Dublin Bus and their branding-it belongs to the state, us, after all) should be maintained as in London (you can't easily tell that buses there are run by several companies).

They are moving deckchairs around on the Titanic rather than facing up to the problems at the heart of the matter.Sure, the approach is better than a "do nothing" one, but it's not the best option. Dublin could actually have a fairly decent functioning bus network if ANY government had the balls to implement it.

Tendering is on the way, might start next year even, given that should all NTA tenders now operate a per kilometer payment with QoS targets, with the NTA collecting all revenue.

I think DB and IE have shown themselves completely incapable of protecting their own revenue, if the revenue is the NTAs then revenue protection would be their responsibility, this would also have the desirable effect of removing competition from revenue that is currently preventing real integrated ticketing.

LoonyLovegood

Traffic bottleneck though it may be, am I correct in saying the level crossing gates in Clonsilla are protected because of their age? I seem to remember someone saying that the last time there was a debate about putting similar gates to Coolmine on it.

murphaph

I doubt they are listed/protected. Railway infrastructure generally isn't, hence why there was no problem tearing down all those old bridges during the Kildare Route Project etc.

MGWR

cdebru wrote: »

Tendering is on the way, might start next year even, given that should all NTA tenders now operate a per kilometre payment with QoS targets, with the NTA collecting all revenue.

I think DB and IE have shown themselves completely incapable of protecting their own revenue, if the revenue is the NTAs then revenue protection would be their responsibility, this would also have the desirable effect of removing competition from revenue that is currently preventing real integrated ticketing

Competition does not inhibit integrated ticketing, nor does centralisation promote it.

cdebru

MGWR wrote: »

Competition does not inhibit integrated ticketing, nor does centralisation promote it.

But it is, luas, DB,IE are all afraid they will lose out on integrated ticketing, if all the revenue is going to the NTA and they are paying on a per kilometre basis, then it doesn't matter whether you use the bus or the luas or the dart more on your leap card.

petronius

Good to see them dealing with level crossings on the Maynooth line - quaint but for safety its better to remove them, and for efficient traffic.

As with all these schemes just act
DART/Electrification to Maynooth do it
DART/Electrification to Balbriggan do it

Why they were not obliged to install electrical facilities (future proofing it for DART) when building the Dunboyne extension/spur is beyond me (or am i wrong)

Reopen the phoneix park tunnel more connectivity the better - these lines already exist
Ok some extra stations, and enhancements, and a turnabout facility at balbriggan and maynooth? but not major upheaval

dowlingm

once you install the stuff it starts depreciating and its lifespan starts decreasing. The important thing is that bridge clearances etc. would be okay for it so that installing the hanger posts, running the cable, installing the transformers wouldn't require structures to change.

hmmm

There is no sign of the Lucan LUAS ever being built, and considering the lack of commuters on the CityWest anti-social LUAS express even if it was built it wouldn't be used. So why was Lucan and Dublin West dropped as a potential BRT route? If anything, Lucan is perfect - nice wide roads most of the way, a BRT would sail down the quays.

dowlingm

Interesting point on Lucan but how is Citywest LUAS "antisocial"?