Where would you like to see next LUAS line/extension?

Chivito550

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I can't imagine it would be difficult for visitors to distinguish between our 2 lines.

Plus in your scenario your Line 1 and 2 overlap at a certain point and one stops shorter than the other. I would wager that that would be more confusing for these "visitors".


Have you ever gone to NYC? That's not really user friendly but people seem to get on with it.

Not really. In Melbourne tons of lines follow the same route and then branch off at various points eventually. Something like 10 lines go down Swanston st and 8 of these terminate at Melbourne University. These lines follow the same path for a significant length of time. They all have separate numbers.

BonnieSituation

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not really. In Melbourne tons of lines follow the same route and then branch off at various points eventually. Something like 10 lines go down Swanston st and 8 of these terminate at Melbourne University. These lines follow the same path for a significant length of time. They all have separate numbers.

I've lived in Melbourne. If ever there was an example of why an extensive tram network wouldn't suit Dublin it's that.

The network in Melb is a shambles the way it is set up for precisely that reason. Now, I lived there 10 years ago so things might have changed somewhat but fm, it was gash and slow.

Our "2" lines do not need a new convention just yet. Besides, Melbourne doesn't have our bus network so numbering is out of the question tbh.

Chivito550

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I've lived in Melbourne. If ever there was an example of why an extensive tram network wouldn't suit Dublin it's that.

The network in Melb is a shambles the way it is set up for precisely that reason. Now, I lived there 10 years ago so things might have changed somewhat but fm, it was gash and slow.

Our "2" lines do not need a new convention just yet. Besides, Melbourne doesn't have our bus network so numbering is out of the question tbh.

Couldn't disagree more regarding Melbourne's tram network. The trams go absolutely everywhere in the city and inner suburbs and run very frequently. I went almost everywhere on the trams, and could get around the city so much quicker than the farce that is Dublin. Anytime I needed to go somewhere not in an area served by a tram, the trains had me covered. No need for a car at all.

markpb

Our transport network mustn't be too bad if how the two tram lines are named is our biggest concern.

BonnieSituation

Chivito550 wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more regarding Melbourne's tram network. The trams go absolutely everywhere in the city and inner suburbs and run very frequently. I went almost everywhere on the trams, and could get around the city so much quicker than the farce that is Dublin. Anytime I needed to go somewhere not in an area served by a tram, the trains had me covered. No need for a car at all.

An extensive inner burb network like Melbourne could never work in Dublin given the geography.

Look at the layout of Melbourne's CBD. Compare it to our own. It's fruitless to consider it an option. We have an extensive bus network within the canals that do a similar job but because of endless political interference means we have inefficiencies all over the place. But c'est la vie. (The dog leg of the 83 anyone?)

For Dublin to implement a network like Melb would be ball-achingly stupid and needless expensive. And oh so slow.

The alignments that you achieve in Melbourne (eg. the 96 from St Kilda past South Melbourne to Crown Casino) are things we could only dream of here. We are using the old bed for Broombridge-SSG and used Harcourt St so that's that done now. Where else?

Those railway beds should have been heavy rail. That they are being wasted on light rail is an annoyance but we have to go with what we get.

end of the road

BonnieSituation wrote: »

An extensive inner burb network like Melbourne could never work in Dublin given the geography.

Look at the layout of Melbourne's CBD. Compare it to our own. It's fruitless to consider it an option. We have an extensive bus network within the canals that do a similar job but because of endless political interference means we have inefficiencies all over the place. But c'est la vie. (The dog leg of the 83 anyone?)

For Dublin to implement a network like Melb would be ball-achingly stupid and needless expensive. And oh so slow.

The alignments that you achieve in Melbourne (eg. the 96 from St Kilda past South Melbourne to Crown Casino) are things we could only dream of here. We are using the old bed for Broombridge and used Harcourt St so that's that done now. Where else?

Those railway beds should have been heavy rail. That they are being wasted on light rail is an annoyance but we have to go with what we get.

remind me which rail bed broombridge re-used?

Chivito550

BonnieSituation wrote: »

An extensive inner burb network like Melbourne could never work in Dublin given the geography.

Look at the layout of Melbourne's CBD. Compare it to our own. It's fruitless to consider it an option. We have an extensive bus network within the canals that do a similar job but because of endless political interference means we have inefficiencies all over the place. But c'est la vie. (The dog leg of the 83 anyone?)

For Dublin to implement a network like Melb would be ball-achingly stupid and needless expensive. And oh so slow.

The alignments that you achieve in Melbourne (eg. the 96 from St Kilda past South Melbourne to Crown Casino) are things we could only dream of here. We are using the old bed for Broombridge and used Harcourt St so that's that done now. Where else?

Those railway beds should have been heavy rail. That they are being wasted on light rail is an annoyance but we have to go with what we get.

Had we kept the tram tracks it would be interesting to see what our tram network would be like inside the canals today. It could be similar to Melbourne. I've no doubt that would be far better to what we have, horrible slow infrequent buses getting caught in traffic.

The buses here do not do a similar job to trams in Melbourne. The buses are completely unreliable and get stuck in traffic, have horrid dwell times etc. Yes the Melbourne trans are slow in comparison to some systems, but what it does is provide a reliable, frequent way of moving people short distances, not dissimilar to the metro in Paris. With the Melbourne trams you won't get stuck in traffic behind a line of single passenger cars. You will know pretty much how long your journey will take, and this journey time doesn't change too much between on peak and off peak (obviously longer time stopping as there will be people waiting at every stop).

Now if they didn't have a train service I'd agree more. But generally the trains are there to cover longer distances and do so faster, but the trams move people around the city. There's more to public transport than just commuting from home. I found Melbourne so easy to get around, while here is a nightmare.

BonnieSituation

end of the road wrote: »

remind me which rail bed broombridge re-used?

That would be the old Broadstone line dear boy.

L1011

end of the road wrote: »

remind me which rail bed broombridge re-used?

Broadstone

BonnieSituation

Chivito550 wrote: »

Had we kept the tram tracks it would be interesting to see what our tram network would be like inside the canals today. It could be similar to Melbourne.

If we had kept the old tram lines, sure an extensive and reliable network may have followed. But we didn't so I don't see why we are trying to achieve that again.

I've no doubt that would be far better to what we have, horrible slow infrequent buses getting caught in traffic.

It is pretty annoying that buses get stuck in traffic. If only there was a way to reduce the traffic? Perhaps some political pressure might work?

Realistically, the routes that some of the buses take through the CC is part of the problem. We constantly shovel them down the same streets and areas. Needlessly.

The buses here do not do a similar job to trams in Melbourne.

They clearly do in that they provide an extensive network throughout Dublin.

The reliability of said network is a different story.

The buses are completely unreliable and get stuck in traffic

,

Yup.

have horrid dwell times etc.

Yup.

Yes the Melbourne trans are slow in comparison to some systems, but what it does is provide a reliable, frequent way of moving people short distances,

Slow is not what we want though is it? Reliability is one thing though. I'll give you that. Some Dublin Bus routes are pretty reliable until they get to pinch points. Imagine if they had true priority?

not dissimilar to the metro in Paris.

I can't believe you compared Melb to Paris.

With the Melbourne trams you won't get stuck in traffic behind a line of single passenger cars.

But because it's on street you do get stuck in traffic. Let's not forget why the hook-turn exists!!!

You will know pretty much how long your journey will take, and this journey time doesn't change too much between on peak and off peak (obviously longer time stopping as there will be people waiting at every stop).

You do know how long... an interminable amount of time.

Now if they didn't have a train service I'd agree more. But generally the trains are there to cover longer distances and do so faster, but the trams move people around the city. There's more to public transport than just commuting from home. I found Melbourne so easy to get around, while here is a nightmare.

The thing is at least the trams augment a larger long-distance system. We can't even do that. That's the pox!

Chivito550

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If we had kept the old tram lines, sure an extensive and reliable network may have followed. But we didn't so I don't see why we are trying to achieve that again.




It is pretty annoying that buses get stuck in traffic. If only there was a way to reduce the traffic? Perhaps some political pressure might work?

Realistically, the routes that some of the buses take through the CC is part of the problem. We constantly shovel them down the same streets and areas. Needlessly.



They clearly do in that they provide an extensive network throughout Dublin.

The reliability of said network is a different story.

,

Yup.



Yup.



Slow is not what we want though is it? Reliability is one thing though. I'll give you that. Some Dublin Bus routes are pretty reliable until they get to pinch points. Imagine if they had true priority?




I can't believe you compared Melb to Paris.



But because it's on street you do get stuck in traffic. Let's not forget why the hook-turn exists!!!



You do know how long... an interminable amount of time.



The thing is at least the trams augment a larger long-distance system. We can't even do that. That's the pox!

Sorry, I didn't explain my Paris comparison well enough. The metro in Paris isn't hugely fast and has so many stops. It's main purpose is for moving people around the city, like the trams in Melbourne. The RER is there for faster longer journeys, like the trains in Melbourne. Obviously Paris has a considerably more extensive system, but it is also considerably bigger than Melbourne.

I know what you mean about the hook turns. But in general cars drive on left of the road and the trams go down the centre, therefore they don't get stuck in traffic like buses do.

hytrogen

BonnieSituation wrote:

An extensive inner burb network like Melbourne could never work in Dublin given the geography.

I think the whole like-for-like comparison can't be made between Dublin & Melbourne. Dublin being an ancient city with realms of history and political influence to its architecture and design over the centuries where as Melbourne is a new city which progressed as industry and technology developed to where it is today. As you say unless you start off Dublin again with a carte blanc which is not an option we'll have to conclude and move on.
If I were comparing like-for-like then Melbourne and Hamburg would be a better argument.

end of the road

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That would be the old Broadstone line dear boy.

L1011 wrote: »

Broadstone

ah yes. shame on me for forgetting that!!!!

BonnieSituation

Chivito550 wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't explain my Paris comparison well enough. The metro in Paris isn't hugely fast and has so many stops. It's main purpose is for moving people around the city, like the trams in Melbourne. The RER is there for faster longer journeys, like the trains in Melbourne. Obviously Paris has a considerably more extensive system, but it is also considerably bigger than Melbourne.

I know what you mean about the hook turns. But in general cars drive on left of the road and the trams go down the centre, therefore they don't get stuck in traffic like buses do.

I got the Paris reference but I still think its inappropriate. The metro is separated the trams aren't. Anyway...

I personally want no more Luas extensions and want heavy rail all over the shop. Along with proper Bus route rationalisation. Network Direct didn't go far enough in some cases. But would even settle for Kishogue station opening in my life-time.

hytrogen

BonnieSituation wrote:

If we had kept the old tram lines, sure an extensive and reliable network may have followed. But we didn't so I don't see why we are trying to achieve that again.

Probably because it was the most industrially advanced network in the world at the time before the lockouts? But let's definitely not go there!

BonnieSituation

hytrogen wrote: »

I think the whole like-for-like comparison can't be made between Dublin & Melbourne. Dublin being an ancient city with realms of history and political influence to its architecture and design over the centuries where as Melbourne is a new city which progressed as industry and technology developed to where it is today. As you say unless you start off Dublin again with a carte blanc which is not an option we'll have to conclude and move on.
If I were comparing like-for-like then Melbourne and Hamburg would be a better argument.

Precisely why it drove me spare when our ministers used to go on Luas junkets to Melb back in the day.

I also lived in Perth which geographically is bang on (save for it being West-facing) like Dublin and could be used as an example of what can be done. DU would have achieved some of this.

BonnieSituation

hytrogen wrote: »

Probably because it was the most industrially advanced network in the world at the time before the lockouts? But let's definitely not go there!

Fupping right we won't. It's beyond maddening some of the stuff we've gotten up to here in the last 100 years.

LeinsterDub

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Fupping right we won't. It's beyond maddening some of the stuff we've gotten up to here in the last 100 years.

In fairness replacing trams with buses was the prevailing wisdom in many places at the time. Bus were quicker, cheaper, more adaptable and the latest thing

BonnieSituation

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In fairness replacing trams with buses was the prevailing wisdom in many places at the time. Bus were quicker, cheaper, more adaptable and the latest thing

As it may have been. But we can look back on it now with modern eyes for the idiocy that it was.

Ripping the track and overheads up though never mind the ending of services is what was more annoying. Trolley buses anyone? We constantly had notions and powered through without considering the wisdom overall of the plan.

I don't like Trams at all but I would sooner have what we had than what we have now.

I was working for DCC during the summer and came across some great photos of Dublin but there was one of the tram yard in Inchicore which made me weep inside thinking about the what ifs.

hytrogen

Idbatterim wrote:

I foolishly got the red line to the 3 arena a few months back, thinking it would be a short walk to the ferry! Eh it wasnt! so i just entered it on google maps, it was 3.4km to walk. So lets say it didnt drop you right door to door, but somewhere between the ferry terminals, you are still looking at 3km! It certainly isnt 300m...

LeinsterDub wrote:

Also its certainly more than 300 metres

According to the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) plan and measuring on osi maps it would need to be no more than 380m to meet the new cruise terminal proposed in the plan

XPS_Zero

lxflyer wrote: »

The speed restrictions are there for a reason - to minimise noise disruption to local offices/residents and more importantly safety. That's not going to change. The same kind of restrictions will apply on the various corners en route along the Green Line extension as they do on the existing lines.

The reason trams crawl beyond Harcourt Street heading for St Stephen's Green is that they have to stop at the mandatory stop signal, and the driver must select which setting the points should have before proceeding. A rather important safety procedure, I would suggest. Like all rail systems, LUAS is subject to strict safety rules and regulations. Your pet peeve is something that is there to allow for the service to operate safely. That will no longer apply once the Green Line is extended.

They haven't released stop-to-stop journey times, only the overall journey time of 21 minutes from St Stephen's Green to Broombridge. At a guess though, I'd think it will take 6-8 minutes to get from Broombridge to Broadstone on the segregated alignment, I would say 13-15 minutes to get from Broadstone to St Stephen's Green. That would reflect the fact that it will be on-street, subject to traffic lights, and sharing the space between Dawson Street and College Street with buses and taxis.

..,.,and THIS is exactly why Luas going Underground through the cc should have been done in the first place and why metro should get moving.

"Oh but but but we didn't have the money it was too expensive ".

1. It's an investment not an expense we'll make it back it's the ultimate stimulus package that would have been ideal for a recession but we have morons in power who think a state budget operates like a personal budget

2. We did have the cash from ordinary revenue in the Tiger years but wasted it on popularity contest tax cuts that while they were needed in the 90s as taxes were too high went way too far by the 2000s. We also wasted it on 10ers and 5ers to welfare rates and it turned out that property tax money funding all this was temporary anyway!!! And we thus had to take that cash back off people ANYWAY!!!

WHAT A F*****ING WASTE! Imagine what we could have built with that money if we'd recognised its temporary nature and spent it on infrastructure. So many mistakes made in this area by that govt

Course if we did FG/lab/ind/SF/socialists would have cried havoc that de poor weren't getting de money, with FG calling for tax cuts, prob would have voted FF out replaced them and made the same stupid decisions...,.

XPS_Zero

Can people stop dismissively saying "Bray has the DART"

Bray is enormous and most parts of it are a long long way from the DART, and the Luas route proposed is designed to connect areas NOT served by the DART that also have poor bus connections.

Many parts of Bray have to rely on busses that go no further than...BRAY (184/5) or Dun Laoghaire (45a) or a 145 that goes to cc when they want to go to Dundrum or Stillorgan. To get to the Dundrun or Tallaght from Bray ATM you have to get the 45a to Dun Laoghaire then a 75 and if you're going to Tallaght you're gonna take at least an hour and a half to get there possibly two hours.

markpb

XPS_Zero wrote:

Can people stop dismissively saying "Bray has the DART"

Bray is a lot better served by public transport than a lot of places closer to the city centre, that's why people are dismissing it as a priority.

Stephen15

XPS_Zero wrote: »

Can people stop dismissively saying "Bray has the DART"

Bray is enormous and most parts of it are a long long way from the DART, and the Luas route proposed is designed to connect areas NOT served by the DART that also have poor bus connections.

Many parts of Bray have to rely on busses that go no further than...BRAY (184/5) or Dun Laoghaire (45a) or a 145 that goes to cc when they want to go to Dundrum or Stillorgan. To get to the Dundrun or Tallaght from Bray ATM you have to get the 45a to Dun Laoghaire then a 75 and if you're going to Tallaght you're gonna take at least an hour and a half to get there possibly two hours.

I do agree that the Greystones end of Bray is poorly served by public transport with no direct link to the cc since the 84 now only goes as far as Blackrock. Which even in the proposed Luas plan

Bray isin't enormous compared to say Tallaght, Blanchardstown or even Swords your putting in that category. It's a medium sized country town.

You said that there is no direct link to Stillorgan. Did you complete forget the 145 goes to Stillorgan. The quickest way from Bray to Dundrum is probably 145 to Stillorgan and 75 the rest of the way. Look face it most people in Bray want to go into town and not Dundrum or Tallaght.

end of the road

Stephen15 wrote: »

I do agree that the Greystones end of Bray is poorly served by public transport with no direct link to the cc since the 84 now only goes as far as Blackrock. Which even in the proposed Luas plan

Bray isin't enormous compared to say Tallaght, Blanchardstown or even Swords your putting in that category. It's a medium sized country town.

You said that there is no direct link to Stillorgan. Did you complete forget the 145 goes to Stillorgan. The quickest way from Bray to Dundrum is probably 145 to Stillorgan and 75 the rest of the way. Look face it most people in Bray want to go into town and not Dundrum or Tallaght.

based on? i'd suggest they're is a market for services to places such as Dundrum or Tallaght.

newacc2015

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As it may have been. But we can look back on it now with modern eyes for the idiocy that it was.

Ripping the track and overheads up though never mind the ending of services is what was more annoying. Trolley buses anyone? We constantly had notions and powered through without considering the wisdom overall of the plan.

Pretty much every other major city was doing it. Los Angeles had an incredibly tram network which was closed( in fairness a lot of car companies brought tram companies in the US and closed them to create demand for their cars). But even London ripped up all their old trams.

It is also important to remember Ireland was so poor in the 1930s/1940s. Most of our economic policies were incredibly destructive like getting into trade wars with the UK despite needing to import coal and cement from them for building the country. Most economic policies and decisions within the first 30-40 years of the free state were a mess to put it nicely. Ireland was one of the only countries in Europe to stagnate after the war. While the rest of Europe was building Metros and commuter trains, Dublin was slowly decaying. The fact were didnt wipe out most of old Dublin from the 1920s-1980s was a miracle.

Banjoxed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We need what we had 100 years ago.

Bloody British, taking away our trams and trains.

Oops, that was our own government and civil servants. :rolleyes:

LXFlyer

XPS_Zero wrote: »

Can people stop dismissively saying "Bray has the DART"

Bray is enormous and most parts of it are a long long way from the DART, and the Luas route proposed is designed to connect areas NOT served by the DART that also have poor bus connections.

Many parts of Bray have to rely on busses that go no further than...BRAY (184/5) or Dun Laoghaire (45a) or a 145 that goes to cc when they want to go to Dundrum or Stillorgan. To get to the Dundrun or Tallaght from Bray ATM you have to get the 45a to Dun Laoghaire then a 75 and if you're going to Tallaght you're gonna take at least an hour and a half to get there possibly two hours.

Why would you go to Dun Laoghaire on the 45a??

The 145 connects with the 75 along the Stillorgan Road and is much quicker.

Stephen15

newacc2015 wrote: »

Pretty much every other major city was doing it. Los Angeles had an incredibly tram network which was closed( in fairness a lot of car companies brought tram companies in the US and closed them to create demand for their cars). But even London ripped up all their old trams.

Nope it was mostly cities in the English got rid of their tramways with a few exceptions like Melbourne and San Francisco. Most cities on the mainland and the communist block kept theirs. Try telling that to Berlin, Lisbon, Munich, Prague, Vienna and Milan.

Bray Head

Getting back on topic, it is interesting that a corridor running roughly Harold's Cross, Terenure, Templeogue and onwards is not served at all by any kind of electrified rail. Bus services are slow too as there are almost no bus lanes in both directions. DB is also an issue but that is another story....

A feasability study with route was done for an on-street Luas out the Harold's Cross Road to Terenure and eventually past Nutgrove to Ballinteer, essentially the southside part of the 16 bus. I think it was 2007. I have looked at it and don't think it would every work. It would mean sacrificing too much road space to the Luas - Terenure would be a particular pinch point.

In the very long run there is a good case for Metro North being extended south west with stops (roughly) at Rathmines, Terenure, Templeogue village, M50, maybe one more stop in Tallaght and then meeting the Luas red line. There could be shared running with the N81 past Templeogue. It would link Tallaght (rapidly) with the CC and with a proper P&R off the M50 would be a nice entry point from the west.

This is all pipe dreaming of course: MN would be necessary and DU should get priority next.