Luas Development

Metrobest

spacetweek wrote:

Once you get past Clondalkin, it's all undeveloped on both sides, with the exception of the under-construction Adamstown area. But even this will only build on one side of the line.

The Maynooth line: The Phoenix Park and south of Clonsilla. The Dunboyne Spur will serve Ongar but I believe only the north side of this spur will be developed.

The coastal DART: With the exception of the city centre, Clontarf and Kilbarrack, fully half of the entire catchment of this line is out in Dublin Bay.

Development in the future should concentrate along the undeveloped sides of these existing lines.

The type of development that's taking place at present is absurd. The catchment areas of most DART/Arrow stations at presents consists of houses with gardens - low density environments cannot support high-density transit. Many stations on the existing rail network were not built for commuting purposes: they were for little pleasure trips down to Kingstown and the seaside. Upgrading this antiquated route network to the extent that the DRP envisages will prove problematic, and eat into the 10-year plan. There has to be another way.

Yes, of course, there is huge demand for existing train services. And yes, capacity needs to improve massively. But the question is, is the right way to go about solving the transport needs of Dublin the development of existing rail lines without the development of a metropolitan rail network to serve more populated suburbs? I think not.

Whether or not it takes place next to a rail line, the reality is that unless development is clustered around hubs, high density, and planned properly, car use will proliferate in these ghastly commuter hell-hole suburbs.

SeanW

Ah, Metrobust. Nice to see you've returned from Planet Zog for ANOTHER round of DRP bashing.

The current rail network is busting at the seams under the strain, and it doesn't get people where they want to go. DRP/Interconnector has to happen.

No one's said the DRP will fix everything - obviously there has to be more Luas and perhaps also a Metro.

The Interconnector serves 3 purposes:

1: Through running DARTs negate the need for City Centre terminations and reversals - these are almost always messy in nature and are better dealt with in remote locations.
2: It Interconnects, hence the name "Interconnector." At Heuston, you've got long distance rail, Luas Red line etc. At St. Stephens Green you've got Green line Luas and potential future Metro. At Pearse, there's Southern long-distance rail and DART. At Spencer Dock, there will a commuter rail terminus and Luas Red Line C1. The Interconnector stitches it all together, ends the isolation of Heuston Station and St. Stephens Green/Luas.
3: It makes the Southern City Centre, and the rapidly growing Spencer Dock area, infinitely more accessible from a wide variety of locations. We're seeing the root foundations of DART as a Metro - planning permission was just granted for a RESIDENTIAL skyscraper tower just beside Heuston station. How are these people going to get around? Hopefully many of them will be on the DART to St Stephens Green, Spencer Dock, the Airport ...

The DRP will need to be complimented by other (metropolitan rail) solutions, and Irish Rail were very clear about this. So I don't know why you're banging on about this point.

Many stations on the existing rail network were not built for commuting purposes: they were for little pleasure trips down to Kingstown and the seaside

What do think Irish Rail has been doing with these stations for the last 3 years? Digging them up and rebuilding them just to have more places to hang flower baskets? The original construction of some stations is not a showstopper and IE rehabilitated most stations relatively expediently, An Taisce interferences aside.

will prove problematic, and eat into the 10-year plan.

Kinda like letting the RPA build a (toy) Metro, no?

Bill McH

Perhaps someone on the board could answer a couple of queries I have.

The Minister wants to proceed with linking the two LUAS lines.

The DTO didn't have this as part of their Platform for Change plan.

(Instead, the closest approximation I can see to the Minister's plan is that the DTO envisaged constructing a Metro from Ranelagh to the Airport via a city centre tunnel in the years from 2006 to 2010 and upgrading the Green LUAS to a metro and connecting this to the tunnel)

Now I know the Metro plan is a bit behind time, but my queries are these:

Why is the Minister not only falling behind with the plans which the DTO did have, and intending to proceed with plans which they didn't have?

AND

can we read anything in this about the current status of the Platform for Change plan?

murphaph

Bill,
The DTO will shortly be releasing a revised version of 'Platform for Change'. I'd expect to see the Luas link up in there.

A lot of messing and interference by politicians (Mary O'Rourke, in particular) has left us with a silly pair of tram lines that don't join up. This needs addressing. A metro (in the event it ever happens) can take a more westerly route than the Luas link up thus reducing the overlap somewhat. The ideal answer would be quad track the northern railway line to near the airport and run DART to the airport, while expanding a QUALITY Luas network with far more priority than the Red Line experiences currently. But all this in a country that can't even get a few QBCs up and running?

philologos

I think Lucan and Clondalkin should be included on the LUAS

spacetweek

Jakkass wrote:

I think Lucan and Clondalkin should be included on the LUAS

They are. The Lucan (inc. Ronanstown) - Docklands Luas line has been in planning for some time. Clondalkin will be served by the future metro and Kildare DART.

Metrobest

Bill McH wrote:

Why is the Minister not only falling behind with the plans which the DTO did have, and intending to proceed with plans which they didn't have?
?

Two reasons. First reason is that the DTO's Platform for Change is not do-able. It is grandiose and out of touch with financial realities. Dublin needs, at most, two metro lines for a city of its size, and these metro lines have to serve metropolitan areas which generate transport demand as work/home hubs.

Second is irresponsible media reporting of the Luas. Before it was up and running, you could barely open a newspaper without reading about how much it was going to cost. Then when it finally opened to passengers, it became a story of "shiny silver bullets." The reporting went from irresponsibly negative to irresponsibly positive. And the minister realised that the Luas was a sexy story that wins him votes.

Bill McH

murphaph wrote:

The DTO will shortly be releasing a revised version of 'Platform for Change'. I'd expect to see the Luas link up in there.

Any ideas what will be in the revised version, which of the original plans won't be, which new plans will be there, etc. etc?

A lot of messing and interference by politicians (Mary O'Rourke, in particular) has left us with a silly pair of tram lines that don't join up. This needs addressing.

What advances have been made that the link-up can be achieved now, when it couldn't be a few years ago? Or did we really just chicken out, hiding behind the whole issue of the corner of Nassau Street, etc.?


I'm a bit concerned that the newspaper clip at the beginning of this thread refers to running the LUAS down Dawson Street and "Suffolk Street". I can only presume that the journalist means Nassau Street. I can't see two LUAS lines fitting down Church Lane.

Traffic

The join up referred to in the newspaper article is:
St Stephens Green North, Dawson St, Nassau St, Right onto Grafton St, College Green, Westmoreland St, O'Connell St.

I think MOR wanted to wait and see if they wld build METRO therefore converting the green line to a metro and continueing it undergound through the city centre onto the airport with pax being able to transfer at a point in the city centre between the two lines

murphaph

Bill McH wrote:

Any ideas what will be in the revised version, which of the original plans won't be, which new plans will be there, etc. etc?

I'd expect the DRP to be much higher on the priority list, seeing as IE have given presentations on it and how the rail network we have is going to reach a point of saturation by 2009 and it's much closer to a reality than the airport metro, which hasn't even got a definitive route selected yet. Apart from that I'd expect it to be more realistic with obviously adjusted timelines!

Metrobest

Instead of connecting the two luas lines, I would favour the construction of the Stephen’s Green-Airport metro line which serves Trinity and O’Connell Street, connects with the Green Luas at Stephen’s Green and the Red Luas at O’Connell Street (subject to modification) – this proposal is less disruptive to the city and means that each luas line can maintain optimum point-to-point frequency. Connecting the two luas lines could turn into a messy white elephant.

As regards the review of PFC, I imagine it will be more realistic about metro proposals, coming down in favour of a extending the Stephen’s Green-Airport metro out to Swords and the Interconnector tunnel.

murphaph wrote:

I'd expect the DRP to be much higher on the priority list, it's much closer to a reality than the airport metro, which hasn't even got a definitive route selected yet. !

Whatever the plan, in the abscence of a Critical Infrastrucure Bill it will have to go through the full rigours of the planning process, causing delays. The proposals for the interconnector tunnel have yet to be subjected to the same scrutiny (Cost/benefit analysis, route selection, etc) as the metro, so I think the metro will be operational in a shorter timeframe.

enterprise

Metrobest wrote:

Connecting the two luas lines could turn into a messy white elephant.

Why?

I think it would be a massive sucess. It would allow me to take 1 tram to reach work, 1 tram to reach Heuston. The benefits are HUGE!!!

Of course Metrobest is anti everything except a Metro. God your worse than the Road lobby :mad:

weehamster

Anyway back to reality and the original post topic.

Heres a copy of the original Luas O'Connell St crossing that was supposed to happen before the FF idot called Mary O'Rourke decided we didnt need it as well as the Dundrum to Ballymun Luas line.

If she didnt make thoses terrible choices we TODAY would have a Tallaght to Sandyford and a Drundrum to Ballymun Luas lines.

PS sorry for the upsidedown PDF, thats how I got it. :rolleyes:

Victor

weehamster wrote:

Heres a copy of the original Luas O'Connell St crossing that was supposed to happen before the FF idot called Mary O'Rourke decided we didnt need it as well as the Dundrum to Ballymun Luas line.

Got anymore like that mister?

Bill McH wrote:

Perhaps someone on the board could answer a couple of queries I have.

The Minister wants to proceed with linking the two LUAS lines.

The DTO didn't have this as part of their Platform for Change plan.

That map is diagrammatic only. There was an assumption for some link.

Thomond Pk

I really feel that is is premature to say that that the original luas link up route is the preferred route until all six potential routes are seen. The College Green/O'Connell St routing would prove extremely problematic on a number of grounds and as the objective is simply to link the lines at a central location there will probably be an easier way of acheiving this.

Getting Luas to Ballymun is a bigger priority for me than having trams run accross O'Connell Bridge at a cost of 100m.

Metrobest

enterprise wrote:

Of course Metrobest is anti everything except a Metro. God your worse than the Road lobby :mad:

Don't pigeonhole me! I'm absolutely in favour of a link-up; here's what I suggest:

A "blue" luas line from under the Ranelagh stop westbound on-street via the canal, right over Harolds Cross bridge, Clanbrassil Street, Patrick Street, Christchurch, linking up with the Red line at Church Street, onwards to Phibsboro, Glasnevin, Whitworth Road, and terminating at Drumcondra Rail station. This line would run point-to-point, so the Green and Red lines could maintain their frequency levels.

Why this route? Because there is huge untapped demand for public transport along the canal (slowest traffic speeds in Dublin!) and this link-up would benefit a huge number of new customers, not just the existing ones!

SeanW

Well, you're anti DRP, that plan WILL bring DART services to people who currently do not have ANY heavy rail services at all. Dublin Airport for one, Southern Dublin City Centre, and possibly Dunsaughlin or maybe even Navan.

Your latest proposal has some merit though ...

weehamster

Victor wrote:

Got anymore like that mister?

Sorry Victor, Im afarid i dont. I cant even remember where I got this map.

Bill McH

I know we may have lost some of our appetite for discussion of public transport after yesterday's atrocities.

However, this did look like an interesting idea.

Metrobest wrote:

....
here's what I suggest:

A "blue" luas line from under the Ranelagh stop westbound on-street via the canal, right over Harolds Cross bridge, Clanbrassil Street, Patrick Street, Christchurch, linking up with the Red line at Church Street, onwards to Phibsboro, Glasnevin, Whitworth Road, and terminating at Drumcondra Rail station. This line would run point-to-point, so the Green and Red lines could maintain their frequency levels.

Why this route? Because there is huge untapped demand for public transport along the canal (slowest traffic speeds in Dublin!) and this link-up would benefit a huge number of new customers, not just the existing ones!

There are a couple of things to point out.

There would be difficulties between Ranelagh and Harold's Cross Bridge. The obvious route would be along Canal Road and Grove Road, but this would probably mean removing all cars from these roads. Feasible, of course, but it would drastically reduce the usefulness of the whole canal route as an artery.

Patrick Street to Church Street. It sounds like you are suggesting bringing the tram along High Street and Bridge Street. The problem I would identify here is the gradient on Bridge Street. My information is that there is a climb of about 10 metres between the Bridge Street/Cook Street junction and the Bridge Street/High Street/Cornmarket junction. This is a distance of less than 100 metres. Can this be done? Certainly if there is a "category one" climb in Dublin City, Upper Bridge Street is it.

Metrobest

Bill, do you mean Bride Street?

Removing traffic from Canal Rd and Grove Rd is part of an overall vision of making central Dublin a public transport friendly, people-friendly city. I think it would be a wonderful boost for that area of the city to see cars removed on a tram/bike only section, with people able to enjoy the canal and appreciate it, instead of its current use as an (extremely slow) rat run.

Bill McH

No, I was thinking of Bridge Street. I mean, if you're building a tram line between Patrick Street to Church Street it is most likely to go either

(i) Patrick Street, Nicholas Street, across Christchurch Place to Winetavern Street, over the river and around the side/back of the Four Courts somehow; or

(ii) Patrick Street, Nicholas Street, turning right into High Street, along High Street for a couple of hundred metres, right down Bridge Street, over the river and into Church Street.

There are probably other options, e.g. going from Nicholas Street along Back Lane. However, all of them do involve a very steep gradient, either along Bridge Street or along Winetavern Street.

I just don't know if our trams would be capable of doing such climbs. I've never been to San Fransisco, but the pictures I've seen show trams climbing pretty steep hills - but I don't know how steep these are.


You are right that it would be nice to rejuvenate the canal. But something like Charlemont Mall, Portobello Road, etc, on the north side of the canal, where there's never any traffic to speak of anyway, would probably make more sense.

jd

Bill McH wrote:

I just don't know if our trams would be capable of doing such climbs. I've never been to San Fransisco, but the pictures I've seen show trams climbing pretty steep hills - but I don't know how steep these are.

You mean the cable cars and the electric buses, i assume? Nothing like the luas.
jd

Bill McH

jd wrote:

You mean the cable cars and the electric buses, i assume? Nothing like the luas.
jd

That's probably what I was thinking about!

The thing is - they seem to be able to climb pretty steep hills. Can our trams do that? I've been told that the climb on Steeven's Lane is the steepest on the system - but I don't know how much more our trams, or any trams we could get, would be capable of doing.

And Steeven's Lane would be a doddle to Lance. But he'd certainly be getting out of the saddle on Bridge Street!

Victor

In San Francisco there is a cable strung between pulleys on each section. Motors turn the pulleys, which draw the cable. The cable car operator uses his controls to grip this cable to pull the car along. On downhill sections he can use it to slow the car to a specific speed in conjuction with the brakes.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

A "blue" luas line from under the Ranelagh stop westbound on-street via the canal, right over Harolds Cross bridge, Clanbrassil Street, Patrick Street, Christchurch, linking up with the Red line at Church Street, onwards to Phibsboro, Glasnevin, Whitworth Road, and terminating at Drumcondra Rail station. This line would run point-to-point, so the Green and Red lines could maintain their frequency levels.

Why this route? Because there is huge untapped demand for public transport along the canal (slowest traffic speeds in Dublin!) and this link-up would benefit a huge number of new customers, not just the existing ones!

This route won't work in it's current form without significant changes to the inner and outer orbital routes. This is highly unlikely given DCC's overall vision for removing private vehicles from the city centre and the orbitals are a key element in doing this.

Orbital Routes

There is also the issue of duplicating service along Whitworth road (there's an unused railway line running all along Whitworth road between Glasnevin Junction and Drumcondra. This line has been fully relaid and resignalled for use by passenger services but owing to capacity constraints at Connolly it lies idle today.

Personaly I'd advocate extending the Luas Green line to O'Connell Street (as looks the likely route) and just continue up O'Connell (soon to be car free public transport only) street the street to Parnell Square (also to be completely cleared of private cars!). From there to Western Way, via Granby Row and veer right onto the old Royal Canal bed (this was filled in in 1956, and would be similar to the filled in spur of the canal that the Luas Red Line currently uses around Rialto) continuing completely off street to Phibsboro, under the NCR (the bridge carrying the NCR already exists!) and along the canal bed to Cross Guns Bridge, emerging onto Glasnevin Road right at the bridge, crossing the bridge and splitting the line here to run on to Finglas (the N2 is dual carriageway from only a few hundred metres away all the way to Finglas) in the central reservation of the N2 dual carriageway. The other branch would run on to Ballymun (IKEA) or possibly the airport as an additional service assuming the DART will run as the main public transport passenger carrier to the airport.

This route has been debated at length on P11 with plenty of aerial shots of the disused canal in particular, this would form an express route from the North inner city to Glasnevin Junction (where a station simply must be located longer term, it would be crazy not to build one here, just 5 mins walk from Phibsboro Cross!). Check it out here;

Express Route North for Luas?

Registration for the site just takes a moment, it's worth it.

D'Peoples Voice

Metrobest wrote:

from under the Ranelagh stop westbound on-street via the canal, right over Harolds Cross bridge, Clanbrassil Street,

I remember looking at this route before,
but the problem I had with the stretch from the Ranelagh stop westbound on-street via the canal, right over Harolds Cross bridge is its population density. Also I couldn't help thinking that I'd be moving traffic from a low populated area to a higher one, which goes against the theory.
That is why I thought it would be better to bring the Luas down Rathmines road, Camden street georges street dame street etc, or even turn at Kevin Street and go from there to Christ Church.
Anyway the reason why I say Rathmines is because it is RELATIVELY densely populated( as indeed is Harolds Cross as you said).
If there was someway of getting a spur off the Luas at the Cowper Stop, along the side of the park there in Dartry and bring it down through Rathmines, I feel this would be more viable than a stretch along the canal, but the cost would be prohibitive.

Bill McH

murphaph wrote:

Personaly I'd advocate extending the Luas Green line to O'Connell Street (as looks the likely route) and just continue up O'Connell (soon to be car free public transport only) street the street to Parnell Square (also to be completely cleared of private cars!). From there to Western Way, via Granby Row and veer right onto the old Royal Canal bed (this was filled in in 1956, and would be similar to the filled in spur of the canal that the Luas Red Line currently uses around Rialto) continuing completely off street to Phibsboro, under the NCR (the bridge carrying the NCR already exists!) and along the canal bed to Cross Guns Bridge, emerging onto Glasnevin Road right at the bridge, crossing the bridge and splitting the line here to run on to Finglas (the N2 is dual carriageway from only a few hundred metres away all the way to Finglas) in the central reservation of the N2 dual carriageway. The other branch would run on to Ballymun (IKEA) or possibly the airport as an additional service assuming the DART will run as the main public transport passenger carrier to the airport.

An interesting suggestion, though not without its problems. You would have to get rid of the park (and little soccer pitch) that is currently present on the Royal Canal bed. And Western Way and the Royal Canal Park are a little bit off the beaten track.

I realise that the LUAS is more effective off-street than on-street, but -and I know the area quite well- I would imagine that Cavendish Row, Parnell Square East, North Fred, Blessington Street, Berkeley Street and Berkeley Road would be comfortably able to carry two LUAS tracks and varying amounts of other traffic. And these are all pretty busy streets. Then you can continue your LUAS tracks through the soon-to-be former Mountjoy Prison and continue on as you suggest to Glasnevin Junction and beyond.

This way keeps your trams going in pretty much a straight line between the Canal and O'Connell Street and doesn't involve removal of a public open space.

(And it might also help to put some manners on that dreadful junction at Mountjoy Street, Blessington Street and Berkeley Street)


just a thought.

murphaph

Well, the route does capture O'Connell Street, The Rotunda, Broadstone (this is crucial-it will pass right outside Broadstone Station which WILL at some point see rail again, possibly as part of the metro. It will also be the site for the WHOLE DIT CAMPUS, well a hundred metres west in Grangegorman) and the heart of Phibsborough.

It is crucial that the green line extension north would mirror as closely as possible the segregation of the existing stretch south of the river. Remember that DCC wis to completely remove cars from the entire Parnell Square - Stephen's Green axis to link the two 'Georgian' areas in a pedestrianised north-south spine. This is a perfect environment for emission free and quiet trams with no idiot motorists to spoil the party. So that means fromDawson Street to Parnell Square would be tram and perhaps bus only, guaranteeing predictable journey times with few intersecting streets that cannot be closed (the quys primarily).

The canal bed section allows complete segregation, which is pretty impressive for a city without going underground. The loss of the linear park doesn't have to be a certainty, it would be possible to put the tracks in a trench and put a concrete roof on it (Cut & Cover tunnelling), replacing the grass afterwards. It even retains the bridge carrying the NCR through Phibsboro.

Mountjoy Jail is to close so that area will be developed into a massive residential customer base without a doubt and this route passes right by.

Only at Cross Gunns bridge do we interface with road traffic again and as far as the Finglas branch goes, only for a few hundred metres because then we can use the central reservation of the dual carriageway.

Ok, I'll attach the aerial shots from the P11 thread starting from Glasnevin Junction (map a) and working south (to map d), just to give folks an idea of the untapped potential in the old canal bed as a continuing transport solution! Please ignore the route chosen in the last map upon exiting the canal bed.

Note in map c that the North Circular Road passes OVER the proposed Luas line, maintaining segregation! The bridge already exists but may need strengthenning.

John R

Is the central reservation of the Finglas dual carriageway wide enough as is for two tram lines?

I have driven the road enough times and would guess that it is too narrow but have never really looked at it.

murphaph

John R wrote:

Is the central reservation of the Finglas dual carriageway wide enough as is for two tram lines?

I have driven the road enough times and would guess that it is too narrow but have never really looked at it.

All you need to get is 4 lanes width out of the entire width of road,two outside lanes for private cars and a central pair of lanes containing twin track buried in the pavement to allow both buses and trams to use it. Buses would stop at tram stops too and the number of existing bus stops would be drastically reduced (this approach of buses behaving like trams on shared sections i very common in Germany and works a treat).

This would leave a route between Finglas and Cherrywood with few shared stretches of track, giving a very reliable journey time IMO.