Luas Development

John R

murphaph wrote:

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.

That is a no to the question then.

I agree that it would work well but last I heard the RPA maggots were dead against sharing alignments with buses.

murphaph

John R wrote:

That is a no to the question then.

I agree that it would work well but last I heard the RPA maggots were dead against sharing alignments with buses.

Yeah, it is too narrow to maintain the road as a dual carriageway but such is life-quality public transport at the expense of two lanes of mostly single occupant vehicles is only right.

The RPA maggots have a lot to answer for-including bus snobbery. The bus is, and always will be the most flexible form of public transport, in any city. The bus can easily share a Luas route, including Luas stops. It works very well elsewhere (certainly Munich) and caould work really well along the N2 stretch of this Luas line.

Thomond Pk

Who says that the tracks need to be beside each other?

Once on a trip to Ecaudor I travelled on a guided busway which had overhead wires and mixed engine buses being run predominently on electricity and only used diesel back up on very steep hills. The most interesting part was that on most sections of the City Centre routes the buses operated on different streets as opposed to the lines running parrallel for the entire alignment.

Whilst I am not advocating downgrading Luas to buses I dofeel that as opposed to completely re-engineering existing road layouts the segregation model adopted on the Stephens Green South for buses should be examined.

The only question I would raise in relation to a Finglas routing is; would this alignment not make an airport destination very long?

murphaph

Thomond Pk wrote:

The only question I would raise in relation to a Finglas routing is; would this alignment not make an airport destination very long?

The route to Finglas would not serve the airport. Another branch just north of Glasnevin Junction could head towards the Ballymun Road and on to the airport perhaps. I would not advocate serving the airport with a tram alone. The primary service to the airport must be heavy rail of some description. I prefer the DART from the Northern Line. Plenty of room for luggage and could integrate 100% with ALL intercity rail routes into/through Dublin. This assumes the DRP is implementated of course.

Victor

Thomond Pk wrote:

Once on a trip to Ecaudor I travelled on a guided busway which had overhead wires and mixed engine buses being run predominently on electricity and only used diesel back up on very steep hills. The most interesting part was that on most sections of the City Centre routes the buses operated on different streets as opposed to the lines running parrallel for the entire alignment.

Trolley busses. On low frequency routes where the overhead power isn't financially viable, the disel can also be used.

Bill McH

murphaph wrote:

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.

On reflection, it seems a very good idea – great photos too - and only about 250 m longer than the “straight” route through Parnell Square, N. Frederick, Blessington St., Berkeley Street, Berkeley Road and the “former” prison.

You’d also only have to share road space with other users along St. Mary’s Place and Western Way – I don’t know about the situation on the relevant section of Parnell Street*, is that also to be closed to private traffic? In any case the distance from Dorset Street to the Royal Canal is only about 350 m and both St. Mary’s Place and Western Way are pretty wide, so some sort of proper segregation might be possible. (I take it that if Parnell Square is to be closed to private traffic, there’s not much point in keeping Granby Row open to private traffic).

As you say, you would link Broadstone to the busy parts of the city centre and this in itself is a major plus for your plan. Any bridge or underpass linking your route to the station itself, if/when it is reopened, would probably be a pretty short one, at least comparable to the distances involved in changing between transport lines in other cities.

You would increase your costs if you had to cut and cover your tram lines through the park, but I don’t know how expensive doing this kind of thing is.

By the way, I don’t know if anyone on this board has ever seen a photo of the Royal Canal aqueduct across Constitution Hill/Phibsborough Road into Broadstone itself. I think it was demolished in the 1950’s.

*I was at a pub quiz once and there was nearly a riot in response to the question “Which major Dublin square has only three sides?”

Thomond Pk

Bill McH wrote:

*I was at a pub quiz once and there was nearly a riot in response to the question “Which major Dublin square has only three sides?”

Brighton Square in Rathgar it is a triangle

I presume the intended answer was Parnell Square which is not really correct as both the East and West sides have buildings within the space and the South side has a line of buildings on either criteria it fails.

I am only going to make my next point once as I have made it before on other boards, whilst I see a lot of benefit in the route selected in theory there are a number of factors that would hold this alignment up for a long time for the following reasons:

1> The City Council have spent an absolute fortune out of their own budget on the O'Connell St works (The Dept of the Environment never sent the money as agreed) They are opposed and won't give in easily.

2> DCC have recently published a similar Intergrated Area Plan (IAP) for Parnell Square again with no mention of Luas

3> The roads lobby; although route selection alternatives on more trafficked routes could be effective in a climbdown.

4> This alignment is already quite close to the Dart alignment of Pearse,Tara,Connolly

5> How do the lines actually cross each other on O'Connell St? I presume it is not possible to have tracks crossing at 90 degree angles.



The Canal routing from Broadstone on is inspired and this I can see being built as it offers a number of advantages and almost no drawbacks.

murphaph

Bill McH wrote:

You’d also only have to share road space with other users along St. Mary’s Place and Western Way – I don’t know about the situation on the relevant section of Parnell Street*, is that also to be closed to private traffic? In any case the distance from Dorset Street to the Royal Canal is only about 350 m and both St. Mary’s Place and Western Way are pretty wide, so some sort of proper segregation might be possible. (I take it that if Parnell Square is to be closed to private traffic, there’s not much point in keeping Granby Row open to private traffic).

DCC propose closing Parnell Square East to private traffic and making the whole square much more pedestrian friendly. Their vision for the area is imprsessive (and I'm a born cynic!). The proposal here does not exactly fit with DCC's plans but they could be integrated with a bit of enthusiasm for quality public transport. Here's a link to DCC's plans for Parnell Square

Bill McH wrote:

You would increase your costs if you had to cut and cover your tram lines through the park, but I don’t know how expensive doing this kind of thing is.

Indeed you would increase costs and I don't believe it's really necessarry unless there is massive objection to losing the linear park (which could be replaced by parks at Broadstone and at the Mountjoy Prison site when it is closed), indeed it loses one of he key advantages of on street trams (hop on, hop off), but if it is required then it would probably be no more expensive than all the service diversions (ESB, Telecom, Gas etc.) that have to take place when a stretch of road is to have tram tracks laid. I honestly believe that most people will see the increased value in their property owing to proximity to a new Luas line as being more important than the linear park, though elements of the park can remain (tree lined pathway beside tracks and Blessington Street Basin will remain).

murphaph

I know you're just playing devil's advocate Thomond Pk, but to counter the advocate...

Thomond Pk wrote:

1> The City Council have spent an absolute fortune out of their own budget on the O'Connell St works (The Dept of the Environment never sent the money as agreed) They are opposed and won't give in easily.

Yeah, but this is a poor reason for not proceeding with an idea. The DoT should compensate DCC for the works from the Exchequer.

Thomond Pk wrote:

2> DCC have recently published a similar Intergrated Area Plan (IAP) for Parnell Square again with no mention of Luas

Yup, but area plans can and should be adapted as the city's needs change.

Thomond Pk wrote:

3> The roads lobby; although route selection alternatives on more trafficked routes could be effective in a climbdown.

To hell with the roads lobby, even the AA has accepted wholeheartedly that public transport within the M50 has to be given priority over the private car if we're ever to escape the congestion nightmare.

Thomond Pk wrote:

4> This alignment is already quite close to the Dart alignment of Pearse,Tara,Connolly

I disagree. The Luas is most likely to be linked up along the aforementioned alignment (Dawson, Grafton, College Green and Westmoreland Street). From there it is a significant deviation from Connolly as the line heads northwest, the DART heads northeast.

Thomond Pk wrote:

5> How do the lines actually cross each other on O'Connell St? I presume it is not possible to have tracks crossing at 90 degree angles.

It is quite normal for tram tracks to cross at 90 degrees. It's not a problem at all. There should be pints here as well to allow trams to run onto the red line in any direction (this will allow complete operational flexibiity in the future, even if it is not used immediately).

Thomond Pk wrote:

The Canal routing from Broadstone on is inspired and this I can see being built as it offers a number of advantages and almost no drawbacks.

Apparently the canal was considered by the Light Rail office and was dismissed as being less favourable than the old broadstone alignment on grounds of segregation. This was in a different era from today though so at least it's good to know the powers that be are fully aware of the canal bed's existance.

P&L

John R wrote:

RPA maggots

maybe a timely reminder that some employees of the RPA enjoy reading and contributing to boards.ie

(and before you ask, sorry I cant contribute anything to this thread, because I simply don't know)

strassenwolf

From today's Indo:

Decision on second terminal site within weeks, says Cullen

THE location for the second terminal at Dublin Airport should be decided by late August or early September, Transport Minister Martin Cullen revealed yesterday.

(...
etc, etc, etc - other stuff about the terminal which is probably not relevant to this thread
...)

Meanwhile, Mr Cullen dismissed criticism that the cost of the Luas had now trebled.

It has emerged that the final cost of the light rail system has come in at €768m rather than the €279m once budgeted for.

The spiralling cost has been blamed by transport bosses on changes in alignments, inflation, the commissioning of longer trams and the high cost of property acquisition.

But the minister denied the cost had trebled, insisting the only price that mattered was the tender price.

In 1996, the Government had speculated the Luas, planned with a smaller passenger capacity, would cost €279m. But in 2001, the final contract agreed a total price for the project of €675m.

Later that year, the Cabinet gave the Railway Procurement Agency permission to spend another €90m in the event of a cost overrun, bringing it to a total cost of €765m.

In the original estimates, it was thought buying the necessary properties on the Tallaght and Sandyford lines would come to around €30m; but this ended up coming in at close to €125m.

Nicola Anderson


Along with the 10 year plan, this is another decision which will be made "within weeks".

A busy summer ahead for the Minister.

murphaph

P&L wrote:

maybe a timely reminder that some employees of the RPA enjoy reading and contributing to boards.ie

(and before you ask, sorry I cant contribute anything to this thread, because I simply don't know)

No offence is meant to you personally P&L when I say that I have no time for the RPA and their ineptitude, coupled with a large helping of arrogance when questioned on things. You can't seriously expect people here on boards to go easy on an organisation, not it's people if they find that organsisation to be a complete shambles. I'm sure there are many RPA staff who have no decision-making powers (I suspect you're one or you wouldn't be on boards) who do a fine job in whatever they do. I'm sure JohnR meant those at the helm of the RPA when he called them maggots (a sentiment I agree with 100%).

P&L

no explanation needed murphaph, just pointing out that term used is a derogatory, and IMO not helpful in any discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only RPA member who reads this category, and that kind of language wouldnt exactly promote an open discussion, cheers

MarkoP11

What would really help was if the RPA answered the written queries of the public, I personally have had mail ignored (heard of others too) and some responses have contradicted themselves, thats one of the reasons there is such concern in the public about the actions of the RPA, the total lack of transparency

Anyone who has read the plans for the Luas line extension will quickly realise little thought has been appiled to how it will work, its got loads of road crossings its the whole mess of the red line exported to south of Sandyford, no effort to resolve the current operational issues at Sandyford, no provision for later upgrade to metro. Whats the story behind the race course stop ? Why demolish Clonlea House a listed structure, why cross the M50 twice ? Why extend when the current system is already suffering some capacity issues ?

The route is quite clearly motiviated by who is willing to put up cash for a section 49, that is not the best route, there is huge scope for development on the orignal alignment and it can be upgraded to metro, is almost fully grade separated, shorter straighter requires minimal land purchase

P&L

MarkoP11 wrote:

What would really help...

Just for the sake of not ignoring you Marko
Though I do realise the post was probably more a general expression of frustration rather than being directed at me...

Anyway, I'm sorry, there is nothing I can say - if you check the link in my sig, you can see my role in RPA... and I can answer questions about that all day long (but in another place )

SeanW

strassenwolf wrote:

Along with the 10 year plan, this is another decision which will be made "within weeks".

And I'm King Tutankhanum, and I watch pigs fly from my oceanside house in Arizona.

MarkoP11

Not you P&L its just an observation of the organisation a lot of others have the same experience, it could be a policy to keep us in the dark, its reasonable to expect a reply from any government agency to a inquiry, DTO, DoT, IE do, RPA is a little hit and miss

Its really hard to discuss Luas expansion when we can't get answers to simple questions, that said the plans are highly suspect in many ways and will be unable to cope

strassenwolf

Sunday Business Post wrote:

Six Luas link-up routes proposed

31 July 2005 By Niamh Connolly
Six possible routes linking Dublin's two Luas lines will be released to the public for consideration in September, according to the Rail Procurement Agency (RPA), the state body responsible for the city's tram system.

The Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, is expected to bring to cabinet in the autumn plans for a €80 million link-up of the Luas lines as part of a ten-year transport strategy.

The favoured link, which has been referred to as “the central corridor'‘, between the St Stephen's Green-Sandyford and Connolly Station-Tallaght lines would run from the Green via Dawson Street, Nassau Street, College Green and Westmoreland Street to the junction of O'Connell Street and Abbey Street.

Under the plan, motorists would no longer be able to travel eastbound along Nassau Street towards Merrion Square because of a “pinch-point'‘ caused by the Luas rounding the corner of Nassau Street and Dawson Street.

Traffic capacity would be reduced on Westmoreland Street with the Luas expected to take up two traffic lanes.

Concern has been raised by Dublin Bus, which carries 55 million passengers along this route every year. An estimated 6.5 million people are expected to use the link between the Luas lines every year.

The RPA, which is opposed to sharing tracks with other traffic except in exceptional cases, is examining the feasibility of buses using the linkup artery on a “free flow'‘ basis, provided there are no passengers tops along the corridor.

The RPA insisted that a double-track Luas system could be accommodated on Nassau Street and at the lower end of Grafton Street without any structural changes to the walls of Trinity College, provided no lane was created for traffic. However, the agency has said that if the footpath needed to be widened for safety reasons and a general traffic lane was included, then the walls of the college may need to be modified.

A spokesman for the RPA said it was in talks with Trinity College in advance of the public consultation process.

The link-up has been criticised on grounds that it would cause major disruption to traffic, bus corridors and city centre businesses, but offer little in added capacity or urban regeneration.

However, government sources said the strategy behind the link-up was based on making public transport a priority over private cars.

The public consultation process will include the following link-up options, from St Stephen's Green:

via Merrion Row, Merrion Street, Westland Row and Pearse Street to College Green

via South King Street, George's Street, Dame Street, Parliament Street and Capel Street to Abbey Street

via Nassau Street, College Green, Poolbeg Street, D'Olier Street including the possibility of building a new bridge over the river Liffey to Marlborough Street and Abbey Street

via Kildare Street and Exchequer Street over a new bridge across the Liffey between Capel Street and Butt Bridge.

The RPA has rejected an alternative circle route linking the Luas at Connolly Station using the new Macken Street Bridge at Sir John Rogerson's Quay, saying it is too circuitous and expensive.

Plans for an extension of the Tallaght-Connolly Station line to Spencer Dock on another controversial route - through the heart of the IFSC - are at an advanced stage. The RPA said that it hoped to bring a formal application by the end of the year to Cullen.

IFSC companies are challenging the route through Mayor Street, fearing that it will lead to costly disruption to utilities during its construction. The companies are expected to make formal objections to the plan at a mandatory public inquiry to be held early next year.

Cullen's ten-year strategy is also expected to include funding provision for an extension of the St Stephen's Green-Sandyford line to Cherrywood near Dun Laoghaire in south Dublin, with stops at Glencairn, the Gallops, Ballyogan Woods, Leopardstown Race Course and Carrickmines.

I don't know which of these possible routes would be best - but the first option looks like it duplicates the Pearse to St. Stephen's Green bit of IE's interconnector route.

Is there really no possibility that this thing could go either along or under Grafton Street? Whatever disadvantages there are about this, the main advantage is that it's the most direct route.

I do like the bit about about the possibility of a "new bridge over the Liffey between Capel Street and Butt Bridge." Well, can you be a bit more specific? :rolleyes:

murphaph

I prefer the favoured route and always have. It's direct and leaves the very best possibiliy for extending the Luas on to Finglas via the Royal Canal spur. The RPA would have everyone's support on this if they played ball with BAC (who carry the vast majority of public tranport commuters every day!) and worked out a soluton to buses using the small common stretch between Dawson Street College Green. I think it's very arrogant of the RPA to flatly refuse to share the highway with buses, a system that works the world over on a much larger scale than 500m! See a pic from Austria attached. Source: Trams&buses

Victor

I think it's very arrogant of the RPA to flatly refuse to share the highway with buses, a system that works the world over on a much larger scale than 500m!

Sharing with busses mean increasing the alignment width at platforms, seeing as bus drivers aren't as conscientous about how close they get to the platform. That, and congestion were the main blocks agiainst allow DB use the Red and Green lines so far.

murphaph wrote:

See a pic from Austria attached. Source: Trams&buses

All appear to be distinctly less busy than college Green.

Thomond Pk

The RPA have to go,

it is completely clear that their incompetence has reached unprecedented levels with their inability to even get Street Names right, that is assuming that they are not proposing to run a Luas line between Kildare St and Exchequer St.

This makes the 30m tram fiasco on the red line look positively harmless.

Victor

Considered that East-West route an inspirational way to get North-South. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

John R

Victor wrote:

Sharing with busses mean increasing the alignment width at platforms, seeing as bus drivers aren't as conscientous about how close they get to the platform.

If that were the case then there would be carnage in the city as busses sideswiped pedestrians on pavement edges.
If you had ever driven a large vehicle you would know that a keen awareness of the entire length of the vehicle at all times in relation to the road and other objects is vital. That is what the massive mirrors are for. In comparison to threading one through the congested city streets full of other vehicles and jaywalking pedestrians avoiding a platform of passengers on an otherwise empty tramway would be a pice of p!ss.

Victor wrote:

That, and congestion were the main blocks agiainst allow DB use the Red and Green lines so far.

It's my toy and you can't play with it was the only reason I saw given.

strassenwolf

murphaph wrote:

I think it's very arrogant of the RPA to flatly refuse to share the highway with buses, a system that works the world over on a much larger scale than 500m! See a pic from Austria attached. Source: Trams&buses

Indeed it is arrogant. Dublin Bus have stated that about a quarter of all their services into town go down Dawson Street. Given the amount of passengers they carry, if anybody is refusing to share road space it should really be Dublin Bus.

Victor

John, you are missing my point. The platform edge is fixed and the tram on the other side is fixed, the bus / other vehicle isn't. See sketch.

murphaph

Victor wrote:

All appear to be distinctly less busy than college Green.

Yup, i couldn't find one from Munich. I've used buses & trams on common stretches in that city and they are much busier than the stretches I could find pics for. There may not even be a need for stops along the common stretch-it's not that great a distance.

Thomond Pk

Victor wrote:

Considered that East-West route an inspirational way to get North-South. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I knid of thought the idea was avoid Grafton St as much as possible, itself and Henry St/Mary St are the only proper retail streets we have and while they require service this is taking it a little close.

The point I am making is that the RPA can't go into the public enquiry saying that they have adequately assessed alternative routes on the basis that four of the six routes outlined in the article are so obviously flawed.

They have refused to consider the so called figure of eight route devised by Dublin City Council Chief Planner Dick Gleeson on the basis of cost and yet are prepared to select a route that will require wires to be fixed top some of the most expensive real estate in the Country i.e. BT & M&S thereby opening up CPO claims for acquisition (minor) and disturbance (massive).

These monkeys even included Poolbeg St (Mulligans Bar/Department of Health) on a route from College Green to D'Olier St.

Anyone involved in the selection of these routes should be removed from any position that has any exposure to public money. This is not the first time that this organisation has made large scale expensive mistakes one must not forget either the scale or the duration of the mess at Harcourt St.

The 30m trams fiasco should have been enough to clean Parkgate St but even though every tram on the red line must be fully refitted to incorporate an additional 10m section to lengthen them to 40m; which they were told was technically possible before the red line opened.

The next installment of RPA incompetence to be revealed relates to the proposed Cherrywood extension and full details will be available soon. The locations are Murphystown Road and Central Park, the RPA will be caught out by both ends of the wedge on that scheme.

strassenwolf

Thomond Pk wrote:

They have refused to consider the so called figure of eight route devised by Dublin City Council Chief Planner Dick Gleeson on the basis of cost and yet are prepared to select a route that will require wires to be fixed top some of the most expensive real estate in the Country i.e. BT & M&S thereby opening up CPO claims for acquisition (minor) and disturbance (massive).

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the figure of eight route?

Thomond Pk

strassenwolf wrote:

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the figure of eight route?

The figure of eight is so called because it traverses central Dublin in the shape of the number eight on its side when viewed on a map.

It involves the Existing Red line being expanded to Mayor St (with a side spur to the Point Depot) to the proposed Spencer Dock Development, down Guild St accross the proposed Calatrava Macken St bridge to Sir John Rogersons Quay and up Cardiff Lane and Macken St before turning down Grand Canal St to Fenian St, around the back of Trinity to South Leinster St and Nassau St (picking up the green line at Dawson St) before going down Grafton St to College Green, it then continues down Dame St, Lord Edward St, Christchurch Place, High St and Thomas St before meeting the red line at James St.

It wouldn't be my preference as an arial shot of it would look too much like a an over designed train set but it should have been considered as it is a lot more viable than at least 4 of the six options chosen by the RPA.

strassenwolf

Thanks for that, Thomond Pk. It's an interesting suggestion.

I suppose if they do go down Dawson Street in the end, it doesn't rule out Mr Gleeson's suggestion being built in the future, as they'd have already built the Nassau Street/Grafton Street bit of his plan.

One of the things that surprises me about the proposed routes is that (a) South King St., Lower Stephen St. (presumably), George's St., Dame St., Parliament St., Capel St. and Abbey St. is on the list, while (b) South King St., Lower Stephen St., George's St., Dame St., College Green, Westmoreland St. and O'Connell St. is not. I wonder why that is.

If George's St. is to be used, I'd think that York St., Aungier St. would be preferable to Sth. King St., Stephen St. Maybe it might be difficult to move the station on the Green a few metres south. Can't think why, though.