Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Luas Line E

  • 05-10-2019 12:25pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭ donvito99


    Does anybody have the RPA plan/documents on this Line, deemed unfeasible 2008? I once had the feasibility study which was interesting. The RPA website is obviously redundant and I can't find these plans on the NTA website.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 152 ✭✭ Kevtherev1


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Does anybody have the RPA plan/documents on this Line, deemed unfeasible 2008? I once had the feasibility study which was interesting. The RPA website is obviously redundant and I can't find these plans on the NTA website.


    I dont think that study is publicly available online. It is on some shelf somewhere gathering dust. It only existed as a election stunt for the 2007 general election. Fianna Fail reelection campaign.



    The route from memory went from Dundrum crossroads, Church town Road, Braemor Road. Rathfarnham road through Terenure Crossroads.



    Harolds Cross road and Green, Clanbrassil street and Terminate at Christchurch. (interchange with Dart Underground and Lucan F line)



    But it was a gimmicky plan as the there are several pinch points where the road is too narrow for a two way on street luas


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    You can get it through an FOI request to TII.

    It wasn’t deemed unfeasible btw. The route was found to be feasible!!

    It’s an interesting read although some of the logic is questionable.

    At the time, the N81 continued from the M50 all the way to Christchurch and one of the big concerns was the impact on traffic. To provide a Luas would naturally involved the removal of the “QBC” which the study seemed to reference as a big negative even though the Luas would in effect replace the QBC.

    With the one way loop there was only 100m of shared running.

    Journey times were reasonable:
    -25 minutes from Dundrum to Christchurch
    -12 minutes from Rathfarnham to Christchurch

    Average speed was around 20kmph mark.

    It found that it would not meet running costs although it noted that the modelling is far from conclusive and was completely off when it came to the green and red line.

    From reading it, I can’t see how Busconnects can defend itself against it. It would provide a more reliable faster journey time and if you were to go between Christchurch and the Dodder a total of 30 properties would be effected. Compare that to 300 across the 3 corridors under Busconnects...

    I don’t see how Busconnects can rule it out in an EIA alternative assessment based on the above but time will tell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭ donvito99


    Last Stop wrote: »
    QBC.

    With the one way loop there was only 100m of shared running.

    What did this entail?
    Average speed was around 29kmph mark.

    That seems fantastically optimistic. Green Line from SSG to Brides Glen is about 25kph and that is almost all dedicated right of way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    donvito99 wrote: »
    What did this entail?

    Inbound straight along Terenure road.
    Outbound turned left at Brighton square, continued onto Brighton road and turned right onto Terenure road west before rejoining at Terenure cross
    That seems fantastically optimistic. Green Line from SSG to Brides Glen is about 25kph and that is almost all dedicated right of way.

    Whoops awkward typo. Was caught between saying 19.6 and 20kmlh which is slightly more realistic. I’ll amend my OP.


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    Route map attached


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭ donvito99


    Last Stop wrote: »
    Route map attached

    That Brighton Sq loop is insane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,661 ✭✭✭ Markcheese


    Would bus connects serve just one bus route/area or would multiple bus routes / services be able to use some or all of the bus route... A Luas tends to just be one line,
    (although I think a luas is an easier sell to the public...)

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 78,221 ✭✭✭✭ Victor




  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Would bus connects serve just one bus route/area or would multiple bus routes / services be able to use some or all of the bus route... A Luas tends to just be one line,
    (although I think a luas is an easier sell to the public...)

    It’s important to distinguish between bus routes and bus corridors.
    A Luas Line to Rathfarnham would in theory replace 3 Busconnects corridors
    - Rathfarnham to city centre
    - Kimmage to city centre
    - Tallaght to Terenure

    You can still run buses along these routes but by putting in a Luas you reduce demand meaning they can run at a lower frequency which means that a bus corridor isn’t necessarily required.


  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ ncounties


    This corridor needs to be a future Metro Line, at least to Rathfarnham, with road space given over to high quality cycling lanes and wider pavements.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    ncounties wrote: »
    This corridor needs to be a future Metro Line, at least to Rathfarnham, with road space given over to high quality cycling lanes and wider pavements.

    On what basis do you define “need”?

    I would define need for a metro in terms of demand which the Rathfarnham corridor clearly doesn’t have.
    If you take the RPAs estimate of 7m passengers per year, it’s half of what the green line and a third of what the red line carried in 2017.

    If you’re arguing it based on lack of road space well the study discredits that argument.

    On journey times a Luas provides a vast improvement on current bus times and it is debatable that a metro would be significantly quicker given the time it would take to get in and out of an underground station.

    Providing a Luas still allows you to improve the cycling facilities along Rathmines road, Kimmage road and through Terenure village as well as the Poddle and Dodder greenways.

    So no the corridor does not NEED a metro.


  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ ncounties


    Last Stop wrote: »
    On what basis do you define “need”?

    I would define need for a metro in terms of demand which the Rathfarnham corridor clearly doesn’t have.
    If you take the RPAs estimate of 7m passengers per year, it’s half of what the green line and a third of what the red line carried in 2017.

    If you’re arguing it based on lack of road space well the study discredits that argument.

    On journey times a Luas provides a vast improvement on current bus times and it is debatable that a metro would be significantly quicker given the time it would take to get in and out of an underground station.

    Providing a Luas still allows you to improve the cycling facilities along Rathmines road, Kimmage road and through Terenure village as well as the Poddle and Dodder greenways.

    So no the corridor does not NEED a metro.

    And as previously highlighted by yourself, they were significantly off with estimations for Luas Red and Green lines. Did the initial study include dedicated high quality cycling routes along the corridor? No. My argument is that the city is growing at a rapid rate, and we need to invest in high quality public transport, but we also need high quality cycling infrastructure too. The route does not provide the space for high quality cycling, luas and vehicular infrastructure.

    We need to finally realise that there is a need to bite the bullet and build the quality infrastructure before the full potential need is realised, and spread the development of the city, instead of being localised around existing, bursting at the seams infrastructure, or would you prefer we just spend the next thirty years bemoaning that a luas line (if it were built) was always full, or the drivers were always on strike, and that cyclists still need to dodge cars and buses?


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    ncounties wrote: »
    And as previously highlighted by yourself, they were significantly off with estimations for Luas Red and Green lines. Did the initial study include dedicated high quality cycling routes along the corridor? No. My argument is that the city is growing at a rapid rate, and we need to invest in high quality public transport, but we also need high quality cycling infrastructure too. The route does not provide the space for high quality cycling, luas and vehicular infrastructure.

    We need to finally realise that there is a need to bite the bullet and build the quality infrastructure before the full potential need is realised, and spread the development of the city, instead of being localised around existing, bursting at the seams infrastructure, or would you prefer we just spend the next thirty years bemoaning that a luas line (if it were built) was always full, or the drivers were always on strike, and that cyclists still need to dodge cars and buses?

    Even being way off with their projections, there is no way this corridor can justify a metro.

    You’re interchanging “route” and “corridor” which are two completely different things. The Rathfarnham corridor stretches from the green line to the east and Kimmage to the west. Putting in a Luas route in leaves plenty of other routes for high quality cycling in this corridor.

    Justifying building a metro which would never reach target demand levels because it would leave space for cyclists or a lesser capacity mode MAY become full in 30 years time is madness. There’s future proofing and there is excess.

    Building a Luas line is future proofing based on the demand figures. You can run at lower frequencies and with shorter trams for now and expand as demand increases. There is no chance of it reaching green line levels of demand as there isn’t much development land unlike the green line.


  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ ncounties


    Justifying building a metro which would never reach target demand levels because it would leave space for cyclists or a lesser capacity mode MAY become full in 30 years time is madness. There’s future proofing and there is excess.

    Well then no need to complain when areas are choked and nothing is planned, and any solution is decades away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    ncounties wrote: »
    Well then no need to complain when areas are choked and nothing is planned, and any solution is decades away.

    So now you’re trying to justify a metro by effectively saying “we never build things in this country so we may as well build it big just in case as we will be too slow to upgrade” which is again madness.
    While I don’t agree with the impact of Busconnects, a Luas Line is the best fit for the Rathfarnham corridor.
    If you put a Luas in, buses in the corridor can operate at a lower frequency. If demand for Luas gets near capacity (which it won’t) then you can increase the frequency of buses along several bus routes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ ncounties


    Can you stop using the term "madness". Just because someone has a different view to you on a topic doesn't mean you can start using such words related to them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,783 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    Last Stop wrote: »
    So now you’re trying to justify a metro by effectively saying “we never build things in this country so we may as well build it big just in case as we will be too slow to upgrade” which is again madness.
    While I don’t agree with the impact of Busconnects, a Luas Line is the best fit for the Rathfarnham corridor.
    If you put a Luas in, buses in the corridor can operate at a lower frequency. If demand for Luas gets near capacity (which it won’t) then you can increase the frequency of buses along several bus routes.

    Do you actually use the transport in this area?

    Also, have you gone out and looked at how the traffic flows (or not) as the case may be in the area?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭ donvito99


    The south west of the city is probably the most eligible candidate for a Metro given the sprawl outside the M50 and no radial dual carriageway.

    The Ballymun alignment has a dual carriageway right into Parnell Sq (Griffith Ave plenty wide for Luas) and is certainly not as dense as the south west, but falls between Swords/Airport and city, hence Metro.


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    Do you actually use the transport in this area?

    Also, have you gone out and looked at how the traffic flows (or not) as the case may be in the area?

    Yes I use the 54a and 16 frequently.

    I’m well aware of the traffic congestion in the area.

    I don’t know what your point is exactly?


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    donvito99 wrote: »
    The south west of the city is probably the most eligible candidate for a Metro given the sprawl outside the M50 and no radial dual carriageway.

    The Ballymun alignment has a dual carriageway right into Parnell Sq (Griffith Ave plenty wide for Luas) and is certainly not as dense as the south west, but falls between Swords/Airport and city, hence Metro.

    Completely disagree. The Swords corridor is most eligible candidate. This would be followed by the green line all the way to Bray. Followed by upgrading the red line with an underground from Fatima (possibly to UCD).

    You’re completely contradicting by saying sprawl is justification for a metro when it actually decreases the viability.
    Having no radial dual carriageway isn’t really an argument as Swords has one and still needs metro.

    There is not a dual carriageway all the way from Ballymun to Parnell Sq. If you are suggesting going along Griffith Ave and down Drumcondra road then you leave vast areas south of Griffith Ave without efficient public transport.

    The Metrolink alignment has been optimised to have the greatest catchment and demand. The area around Ballymun has vast areas of undeveloped lands which will be built as high rise.
    The SW has minimal undeveloped land inside the M50 and anything south of this is constrained by the Dublin mountains.

    While I appreciate that it is an awkward area to serve at ground level, a Luas line is the best solution. Besides the unviable cost and lack of demand, there is not sufficient room to build the stations anyway. Where would you build a 100m x 25m hole between Charlemont and Terenure via Rathmines for example?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭ Kellyconor1982


    As a northsider living on the northside but who travels around the city with my job, i would say the south west of the city should have a metro line. Big populated areas like knocklyon with a young population.

    I would have it running through rathmines or harolds cross, terenure, rathfarnham, knocklyon and on to tallaght.

    I know it might not happen for a very long time but it should at least be part of a plan for the city.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭ donvito99


    Last Stop wrote: »
    Where would you build a 100m x 25m hole between Charlemont and Terenure via Rathmines for example?

    Between SSG East and the South West, Cathal Brugha barracks is the obvious candidate for Rathmines/Portobello


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Generally when building Metro's, you want to target areas that have large amounts of land available for development as high density housing near the Metro stations.

    This is where a SW Metro line fails. The area is already highly developed and thus their is little room for new housing there. Building a Metro line doesn't add much extra housing to Dublin. By comparison, Metrolink will open up the space for tens of thousands of new homes in the Swords area and a future Metro to Bray will likewise open up space for tens of thousands of new homes along that line.

    The fact that Metrolink passing through the Airport and North city is the cherry on top, but not the justification.

    When you are facing a housing crisis this is the clear priority.

    Having said that, maybe 30 years down the line when all the other lines and upgrades are done, then it would make sense to turn attention there and perhaps North East on the north side.


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    donvito99 wrote: »
    Between SSG East and the South West, Cathal Brugha barracks is the obvious candidate for Rathmines/Portobello

    Metrolink extends to Charlemont. Are you proposing we drop that station?

    I really don’t think the army would welcome a station being built in an active military base. How would people access it? So no that is not the obvious candidate...


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,239 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    An on street Luas in the rathfarnham area would be a disaster.
    A metro is what is required to guarantee frequency and journey times.
    There is available development land in knocklyon and firehouse. Park and rides can be built at the firehouse M50 exit to become the trip generator that people think the area won't provide.
    A 3k p+r with access to M50 plus a metro would take a lot of traffic off the M50 while providing a service to the cc via the sw corridor and further interchangability with metro link etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 920 Last Stop


    A journey time of 12 minutes between Rathfarnham and Christchurch would be a vast improvement on current times and comparable with similar commute distances on the green and red line. Frequency can be adjusted to meet demand. I love how people are saying a Luas running along the street would be a disaster yet no one (or very few) is raising concerns over Busconnects proposals. Luas commands far more respect and priority than buses.

    Metrolink is designed for 20,000 passengers per hour. Even adding a 3,000 park and ride would still require 17,000 passengers during the peak hour to meet the capacity and that is not likely in the SW. Yes it wouldn’t need that on day one but it would have to get way above Luas figures which can push to 7,000 to justify a metro. Bear in mind you can also add in buses on top of a Luas to catch surplus demand.

    Building a p&r beside an already constrained junction on the m50 would be a recipe for disaster.

    The amount of development land available in Knocklyon/Firhouse is only a fraction of that available in Cherrywood or Swords or Ballymun.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,239 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    Last Stop wrote: »
    A journey time of 12 minutes between Rathfarnham and Christchurch would be a vast improvement on current times and comparable with similar commute distances on the green and red line. Frequency can be adjusted to meet demand. I love how people are saying a Luas running along the street would be a disaster yet no one (or very few) is raising concerns over Busconnects proposals. Luas commands far more respect and priority than buses.

    Metrolink is designed for 20,000 passengers per hour. Even adding a 3,000 park and ride would still require 17,000 passengers during the peak hour to meet the capacity and that is not likely in the SW. Yes it wouldn’t need that on day one but it would have to get way above Luas figures which can push to 7,000 to justify a metro. Bear in mind you can also add in buses on top of a Luas to catch surplus demand.

    Building a p&r beside an already constrained junction on the m50 would be a recipe for disaster.

    The amount of development land available in Knocklyon/Firhouse is only a fraction of that available in Cherrywood or Swords or Ballymun.

    Yes but why do need to justify a metro by quoting maximum capacity numbers?
    It's a PT system for all that's needed in Dublin, just because max capacity won't be reached straight away doesn't mean we can't justify building it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,239 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    Last Stop wrote: »
    A journey time of 12 minutes between Rathfarnham and Christchurch would be a vast improvement on current times and comparable with similar commute distances on the green and red line. Frequency can be adjusted to meet demand. I love how people are saying a Luas running along the street would be a disaster yet no one (or very few) is raising concerns over Busconnects proposals. Luas commands far more respect and priority than buses.

    Metrolink is designed for 20,000 passengers per hour. Even adding a 3,000 park and ride would still require 17,000 passengers during the peak hour to meet the capacity and that is not likely in the SW. Yes it wouldn’t need that on day one but it would have to get way above Luas figures which can push to 7,000 to justify a metro. Bear in mind you can also add in buses on top of a Luas to catch surplus demand.

    Building a p&r beside an already constrained junction on the m50 would be a recipe for disaster.

    The amount of development land available in Knocklyon/Firhouse is only a fraction of that available in Cherrywood or Swords or Ballymun.

    The junction is constrained because the traffic has no where to go.
    With a large efficient p and r the traffic will have somewhere to go and reduce overall traffic levels within the M50 radius.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭ Kellyconor1982


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Yes but why do need to justify a metro by quoting maximum capacity numbers?
    It's a PT system for all that's needed in Dublin, just because max capacity won't be reached straight away doesn't mean we can't justify building it.

    Completely agree with that. The sw route covers busy areas. Throw in the possibility for punters from other areas using it from the m50 and the fact it should terminate in Tallaght, which is the most populated part of the city, this is an important project.

    We need to think of the medium-long term needs of the city, whether they are transport needs or quality of life/environmental efforts.

    I think metro 1 will be a great success so there will be a major push for a metro in the sw then.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,239 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    Completely agree with that. The sw route covers busy areas. Throw in the possibility for punters from other areas using it from the m50 and the fact it should terminate in Tallaght, which is the most populated part of the city, this is an important project.

    We need to think of the medium-long term needs of the city, whether they are transport needs or quality of life/environmental efforts.

    I think metro 1 will be a great success so there will be a major push for a metro in the sw then.

    Agreed.
    Unfortunately the flip side to that coin is metro link which was quoted at 3 billion (the version with all the bells and whistles) back in 2016 (?) Will now cost a lot more with construction inflation. Add in inevitable cost over runs and the result is the opposition parties crucifying the government of the day, thus ensuring we never even look at another metro line for decades. (very pessimistic for a Friday morning I know!! Sorry!!)


Advertisement