Luas - Why the trams?!!

HelterSkelter

Ok, I'm no traffic expert so perhaps some of you can point out the major flaws in my plan...

I have always wondered why they bothered with the expensive of trams and tram lines. I think it would have been a better idea to build bus only roads instead of the LUAS lines. These roads would be for exclusive use of buses. High frequency buses would run on them, perhaps something like the articulated ones that used to run on the number 10 route. The roads would have lots of cameras that would capture the image of any cars or other vehicles trying to use the road illegally and issue them with high fines.

I think this would have worked out a lot cheaper than the current LUAS and would do the same job. All the messing around with moving the various utilities under the roads before the tracks could be layed would have been avoided. The expense of laying tracks and buying the trams would have been avoided.

What do you think?

Andrew Duffy

Most of the Luas was built on undeveloped land - the former Harcourt St. - Bray train line, the former Grand Canal spur to James Gate, the central reservation of the N7, reserved alignments around Belgard and Tallaght - and major structures such as the bridges over the crossroads in Dundrum, two over the Grand Canal and one over the M50 would have to have been built anyway. Buses with a similar capacity to trams are not readily available, meaning more staff would have to have been hired. Imagine the uproar if €800m had been spent to produce nothing but a few bus (and taxi, cycle, hackney, BMW and Michael O'Leary) lanes?

BrianD

I don't mean to be rude but this arguement is about 3 years too late!

John R

Andrew Duffy wrote:

(and taxi, cycle, hackney, BMW and Michael O'Leary) lanes?

That's the real reason why it wouldn't have worked.

In theory a dedicated busway would have been a fraction of the cost and provided a much more flexible solution that could have been of benefit to many more areas. However in this country there is no way a roadway could have been built just for buses without every other important person (ie everyone with a car, bike, van, truck, hearse, etc) demanding their right of way.

John R

BrianD wrote:

I don't mean to be rude but this arguement is about 3 years too late!

It is relevant to the building of new tram lines.

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

I don't mean to be rude but this arguement is about 3 years too late!

Yeah, but I was not available for the consultation process at the time!! Do you think they would have listened to me anyway? Nice new shiney trams are gonna look better and bring in more votes for our corrupt politicians in power :rolleyes:

Actually it is not too late because I heard representitives from the IFSC say the same thing. They don't want the LUAS because it will cause too much distruption when being built, they want a dedicated bus service instead.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1013/ifsc.html

enterprise

Ah yes but the benefits trams bring far outweighs what a bus service could ever do.

enterprise

Short Term Pain For Long Term Gain

blorg

Buses don't have as high a capacity as trams. They are also wider, and not don't follow fixed tracks - this means that the busways would have to be substantially wider than the tramways. They also couldn't safely travel at the speed the LUAS gets up to on its dedicated off road section, particularly not when passing each other (due to not being on fixed tracks - two LUAS can pass each other safely at speed, while two buses would not be able to do this.)

HelterSkelter

blorg wrote:

Buses don't have as high a capacity as trams. They are also wider, and not don't follow fixed tracks - this means that the busways would have to be substantially wider than the tramways.

Why can't they design a bus version of the current LUAS?

blorg wrote:

They also couldn't safely travel at the speed the LUAS gets up to on its dedicated off road section, particularly not when passing each other (due to not being on fixed tracks - two LUAS can pass each other safely at speed, while two buses would not be able to do this.)

ok good point!

fiachs

regarding the IFSC section (I know slightly off topic) I remember when they were campaigning for the extension a while back they said on the radio that all the services were already only on one side of the street on mayor street! anyone know if this is true?

hawkmoon269

HelterSkelter wrote:

Ok, I'm no traffic expert so perhaps some of you can point out the major flaws in my plan...

I have always wondered why they bothered with the expensive of trams and tram lines. I think it would have been a better idea to build bus only roads instead of the LUAS lines.

Ever cycle behind a bus and been practically choked by a plume of exhaust fumes? I have.

The reality is that buses are slow, noisy, polluting vehicles. In no way are they environmentally friendly.

No offense to you, but I really truly wish these people who keep advocating buses as the solution to every transport problem would do some travelling, visit some other European cities and basically check out how the experts do it.

HelterSkelter

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Ever cycle behind a bus and been practically choked by a plume of exhaust fumes? I have.

The reality is that buses are slow, noisy, polluting vehicles. In no way are they environmentally friendly.

No offense to you, but I really truly wish these people who keep advocating buses as the solution to every transport problem would do some travelling, visit some other European cities and basically check out how the experts do it.

What about those gas powered buses that were on trial a few years ago? Wouldn't they be less polluting?

Alun

Why can't they design a bus version of the current LUAS?

They have a system something like this in Eindhoven in the Netherlands called Phileas. See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_7_70/ai_n6142379.

blorg

There are electric buses in some cities (Salzburg is where I saw them) which are non-polluting but still need the whole overhead electricity supply infrastructure to be put in place on their routes. These buses still have all the other disadvantages other than that they are non-polluting.

HelterSkelter

Alun wrote:

They have a system something like this in Eindhoven in the Netherlands called Phileas. See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FZX/is_7_70/ai_n6142379.

Very interesting article, sounds exactly like what I was thinking of.

blorg

Slightly off topic but I'd really like to see this developed and put into operation...

John R

enterprise wrote:

Ah yes but the benefits trams bring far outweighs what a bus service could ever do.

Such as?

John R

blorg wrote:

There are electric buses in some cities (Salzburg is where I saw them) which are non-polluting but still need the whole overhead electricity supply infrastructure to be put in place on their routes. These buses still have all the other disadvantages other than that they are non-polluting.

They are called trolleybuses, AFAIR Dublin had them in the pre-war years.

Fuel cell buse are being trialled in cities across Europe now, in a few years I expect they will be in production for regular use, no emissions and no electricity distribution system required.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/fuel-cell-buses.asp

Zaph0d

This is BRT- 'bus rapid transit'. Curitiba in South America is always quoted as the example of using buses on dedicated routes instead of trams. The buses are 25m articulated and carry up to 270 passengers. The bus stops are raised to the height of the buses for reduced dwell time. Their bus routes were built for sod all and could be upgraded to light rail if they ever get the cash together.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

wikipedia wrote:

Operational Factors
Opponents of bus rapid transit initiatives argue that BRT is not an effective replacement for light rail or subway services. They argued that in order for BRT to have greatest effect, it must have its own right-of-way; in many cases, BRT does not, and share the road with cars and other local buses. As a result, BRT operating in mixed traffic is subject to the same congestion, delays, and jarring and swaying rides as do ordinary city buses. Furthermore, signal priority systems, which are often the sole factor differentiating BRT from regular limited-stop bus service (most notably in Los Angeles' extensive "Rapid" system), might cause severe disruptions to traffic flow on major cross streets. Opponents argued that this merely redistributes, rather than reduces, the traffic congestion problems that BRT systems are designed to alleviate. On the other hand, many light rail systems also utilize signal priority system and railroad-style crossing gates to speed up service as well.

[edit]
Perceptions
BRT also suffers from a serious image problem. In many places (and particularly in the United States), buses of any kind are far less attractive to middle- and upper-class riders than light rail and subway systems, suffering from resultingly low ridership among segments of the population that prefer travel by automobile to using any sort of public transportation whatsoever. (The fact that the overwhelming majority of bus riders in many U.S. cities is composed of blacks and Latinos serves as a further deterrent to bus ridership by middle-class whites.) While many BRT systems utilize state-of-the-art buses that differ substantially from traditional buses, BRT opponents insist that "a bus is still a bus." Routes that have been converted from BRT to light rail have often seen very large ridership gains. Even Curitiba's pioneering BRT system has seen ridership fall since the mid-1990s as its city's middle class has burgeoned, with resulting increases in traffic congestion. Mindful of how traffic has choked commerce in São Paulo, the city has begun construction of a subway system. In the view of some, advocacy for BRT among the lower classes contributes to the socioeconomic unattractiveness of BRT. For example, in California, a 1996 lawsuit by the Los Angeles-based Bus Riders Union, and litigation initated in 2005 by related groups in the Bay Area, have sought to force transit agencies to shift funds from rail and highway construction to BRT projects.

John R

blorg wrote:

Buses don't have as high a capacity as trams. They are also wider, and not don't follow fixed tracks - this means that the busways would have to be substantially wider than the tramways.

A dedicated busway has a much higher potential capacity than a tramway as the buses can be run safely much closer to each other. The wheelbase of a tram is much narrower than a bus but the bodies of each are of a similar width. Very little extra space would be needed, maybe a foot and a half.

They also couldn't safely travel at the speed the LUAS gets up to on its dedicated off road section, particularly not when passing each other (due to not being on fixed tracks - two LUAS can pass each other safely at speed, while two buses would not be able to do this.)[/QUOTE]

You mean the way buses/other large vehicles pass each other safely at speed on single carriageway roads all over the country every day, if a busway is constructed from scratch then there is no element of doubt over the width of the road, the drivers can pass close safely because they would know that the roadway is wide enough.
Besides for dedicated sections like that you can have guided busways, the road has a concrete lip on each side of the lane and the bus has guide wheels attached, for that section the steering is automatic. A very narrow gap can be maintained between both lanes and the buses can be run up to their maximum speed which easily equals that of urban trams.

Buses are also far quicker on shared road sections and junctions where trams must travel very slow to be able to stop in an acceptable distance in case of emergencies.

MarkoP11

The original plan for the Harcourt Street line in the mid 1980's and I think it was in the DRRTS study of 75 was a guided busway

On the capacity front the railed solution wins out as Luas showed one single line can shift 100,000 in a day, the entire Dublin Bus carryings on a normal day are of the order of 500,000. The Dart record is 125,000, after the upgrade it would take 300,000 easy. A single Luas takes 300, bus its 100 tops, Dart is 1400, so you need a lot more drivers and higher frequency, Could you operate a bus every minute how do you cope with traffic interfaces in that case

There is a speed issue, a city bus is limited to 40mph (or 40 msu as in the Irish version of mph as you see printed clearly). Luas gets up to close to 50mph and feels as if it could out acclerate a bus by a margin, DART is happy to hit 62mph

The QBC concept was never done right it was a half hearted attempt, the Stilorgan Rd one is about the only one which is done correctly and it has shown results

No one idea is the silver bullet to solve the problems we face

We need

1) A high capacity radial rail network with 6 to 8 tph in the rush hour, possibly more
2) A decent system for those corridors with low to medium demand, i.e LUAS
3) A very high capacity on those corridors where it is required, be it Metro or dedicated DART alignment
4) A matrix of integrating services, mainly bus, some Luas
5) A circle line of some kind to link the outer suburbs
6) High quality bus priority where nothing else fits

HelterSkelter

MarkoP11 wrote:

...A single Luas takes 300, bus its 100 tops, Dart is 1400, so you need a lot more drivers and higher frequency, Could you operate a bus every minute how do you cope with traffic interfaces in that case

One of the buses in the Eindhoven case mentioned earlier can carry 180 passengers.

MarkoP11 wrote:

There is a speed issue, a city bus is limited to 40mph (or 40 msu as in the Irish version of mph as you see printed clearly). Luas gets up to close to 50mph and feels as if it could out acclerate a bus by a margin, DART is happy to hit 62mph

The LUAS only reaches 50mph for relatively short periods of time, it is a lot slower than a bus when taking sharp bends like the ones on the Tallaght line. I don't think the 10mph faster maxumum speed of the LUAS would make that much difference

SeanW

Well the Tallaght line wasn't too well built unfortunately

philologos

well the reason that these bus lines werent considered is because they have looked at other major European cities with these systems like the trams in Madrid, Marseilles, Frankfurt, Munich and many more and they have proven to be more successful than the buses. The reason Dublin does not have an effective transport system as yet is because they do not cover all areas of the city effectively. I think that LUAS should have been planned as a city wide scheme instead of just two tram lines

dowlingm

Ottawa has a BRT, partially right of way (Transitway) but it looks like this will be replaced in part or totally by diesel light rail. The buses are two-section articulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DSC01291.JPG (BRT bus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Rapid_Transit#Transitway (BRT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_O-Train (diesel light rail)

cdebru

MarkoP11 wrote:

The original plan for the Harcourt Street line in the mid 1980's and I think it was in the DRRTS study of 75 was a guided busway

On the capacity front the railed solution wins out as Luas showed one single line can shift 100,000 in a day, the entire Dublin Bus carryings on a normal day are of the order of 500,000. The Dart record is 125,000, after the upgrade it would take 300,000 easy. A single Luas takes 300, bus its 100 tops, Dart is 1400, so you need a lot more drivers and higher frequency, Could you operate a bus every minute how do you cope with traffic interfaces in that case

Which single Luas line carries 100,000 passengers a day

the figures I have found suggest it may be carrying up to 70,000 people a day between the two lines averaged over a week it is about 50,000 passengers a day between both lines

Articulated Buses carry upto 145 passengers with dedicated Bus way many of the seats could be removed as in the LUAS and increase capacity would result

MarkoP11 wrote:

There is a speed issue, a city bus is limited to 40mph (or 40 msu as in the Irish version of mph as you see printed clearly). Luas gets up to close to 50mph and feels as if it could out acclerate a bus by a margin, DART is happy to hit 62mph

A City Bus is limited by law to 40 mph in a dedicated Busway there is no reason why the law could not be changed to allow the buses to travel faster when they were not in amongst cars, bicycles , motor bikes etc
Buses are well capable of going faster than 40 mph




There is a certain snobbishness about not using Buses that somehow if you are using a bus it is because you cant afford a car as a current car insurance ad insinuates.
Whereas if you are using Light rail it is because you have decided to save the environment.
Although how these people think the luas is powered and electricity is produced I dont know!

MarkoP11

The bendy bus didn't work out here, why too many sharp corners and the fact it took up a heap of space on the road. That only applies inthe city centre area but thats where we are all going

Should bear in mind the road speed limit is generally 50kph / 31mph., maybe 60kph if you are lucky. On the Green line the speedometer gets to the red line quite a bit.

One thing we can solve is the dwell time on buses. The time wasted picking people up, ticket vending machines people. Too many bus stops, the 46A is a classic example.

The bus solution will remain the backbone of the public transport system for some time to come. If you are going to hassle of segragation you might as well go Luas otherwise go for proper QBC's

Chipboard

We got the Luas back in from Dundrum SC a few weeks ago and it took 12 mins to get from Dundrum to Stephens Gn - there isn't a bus in existence that could do that.

I still think the Luas should have been put underground in the city centre. It would have been financially painful but its the only decent long term solution to the gridlock. Even Moscow has a fantastic Underground - why cant Dublin manage it.

I read somewhere that rail based vehicles are more fuel efficient, so that might explain why they chose trams over trolley buses.

Hagar

In the good old days buses had conducters who collected fares while the bus was moving!!! Imagine that.
Now we have a system where the bus stays put at the the stop until the driver collects the fares. A brilliant step forward, I don't think.

A pre purchase ticket system like the Luas might speed the buses up. Ok I accept it would be a little more complex but surely the madcap fare system now employed could be streamlined?

cdebru

MarkoP11 wrote:

The bendy bus didn't work out here, why too many sharp corners and the fact it took up a heap of space on the road. That only applies inthe city centre area but thats where we are all going

The subject is in the context of dedicated Busways so sharp corners would not be a problem and since it is dedicated the road space arguement is null and void as well

MarkoP11 wrote:

Should bear in mind the road speed limit is generally 50kph / 31mph., maybe 60kph if you are lucky. On the Green line the speedometer gets to the red line quite a bit.

I know what the road speed limit is in the context of dedicated road space the speed limit for buses on the dedicated road space could be increased just as the LUAS seems to have a higher speed limit

MarkoP11 wrote:

One thing we can solve is the dwell time on buses. The time wasted picking people up, ticket vending machines people. Too many bus stops, the 46A is a classic example.

that Could all be operated in a similar manner to the way the LUAS is operated in a dedicated Busway

MarkoP11 wrote:

The bus solution will remain the backbone of the public transport system for some time to come. If you are going to hassle of segragation you might as well go Luas otherwise go for proper QBC's

the arguement is that Busways would be a lot cheaper to implement and be more flexible in the outer suburbs
the QBCs we have got are half arsed measures in general also the lack of investment in increasing the fleet for the last 3 years has made a lot of the work on QBCs a waste of time

Lennoxschips

blorg wrote:

Slightly off topic but I'd really like to see this developed and put into operation...

Yes! I thought of this years ago, I'm glad other people in the world are on the same wavelength as me.

Thomond Pk

cdebru wrote:

the QBCs we have got are half arsed measures in general also the lack of investment in increasing the fleet for the last 3 years has made a lot of the work on QBCs a waste of time

A QBC only works when the entire route is a QBC; the situation at Donnybrook Garda Station is a perfect example of why QBC's are totally inferior to trams. The reality in driver behaviour that motorists subconsciously dislike buses can be observed any peak morning in Donnybrook when motorists do not allow buses out despite the fact that they will return to the bus lane 50m later and not copmpete for the roadspace in real terms for any more than a fleeting moment.

Thomond Pk

cdebru wrote:

The subject is in the context of dedicated Busways so sharp corners would not be a problem and since it is dedicated the road space arguement is null and void as well

Dublin is in many parts a historically contrained urban space; you can dedicate many roadways but you can't dedicate your way through important protected structures. Bendy buses failed essentially because they provided little more capacity than double deckers, were constrained in the routes they could operate, were lethal for cyclists due to much reduced visibility on corneringand took up significantly more road space than was necessary.


The trolly bus network referred to in South America is in Quito Ecaudor, is one linear route 7kms North and 6kms South and is 20 years old, despite multiple opportunities to extend; it has remained on a similar scale and only works because it is fully segregated.

cdebru

Thomond Pk wrote:

A QBC only works when the entire route is a QBC; the situation at Donnybrook Garda Station is a perfect example of why QBC's are totally inferior to trams. The reality in driver behaviour that motorists subconsciously dislike buses can be observed any peak morning in Donnybrook when motorists do not allow buses out despite the fact that they will return to the bus lane 50m later and not copmpete for the roadspace in real terms for any more than a fleeting moment.

And trams would face the exact same problem if the had to fight for road space
That is why we are talking about dedicated Busways

cdebru

Thomond Pk wrote:

Dublin is in many parts a historically contrained urban space; you can dedicate many roadways but you can't dedicate your way through important protected structures. Bendy buses failed essentially because they provided little more capacity than double deckers, were constrained in the routes they could operate, were lethal for cyclists due to much reduced visibility on corneringand took up significantly more road space than was necessary.

Articulated buses are capable of making any turn that a LUAS tram can make no more effort would have to be made to accomodate dedicated Busways for articulated buses than would have to be made for tram lines

There is a significant difference between the passenger capacity of normal double deckers against the articulated buses 85 compared to 145 the new Streetcar articulated bus has capacity for over 160 passengers that is nearly twice the capacity of a double decker

dedicated busways would remove the problem of stupid cyclists coming up the inside of an articulated bus
You seem to be basing all your arguements on Buses in amongst normal traffic as opposed to trams on dedicated tram lines
The question is Buses on dedicated space compared to trams on dedicated space

I find it laughable that you even raise the issue of roadspace when you are arguing in favour of on street trams

Capt'n Midnight

MarkoP11 wrote:

A single Luas takes 300, bus its 100 tops, Dart is 1400, so you need a lot more drivers and higher frequency, Could you operate a bus every minute how do you cope with traffic interfaces in that case

There is a speed issue, a city bus is limited to 40mph (or 40 msu as in the Irish version of mph as you see printed clearly). Luas gets up to close to 50mph and feels as if it could out acclerate a bus by a margin, DART is happy to hit 62mph

The QBC concept was never done right it was a half hearted attempt, the Stilorgan Rd one is about the only one which is done correctly and it has shown results

I think you may find that the 40mph limit is for double deckers or buses with standing passengers.

Isn't the LUAS the equilivant of 6 QBC's and all it cost was about several times the annual running cost of Dublin Bus. Imagine all that money going into QBC's, subsidised European priced bus tickets, park and ride at bus termini.

The LUAS is like the space shuttle - for a bit of extra money up front they could have got something much better. In the case of the shuttle they saved about 1/3 of the cost of a fully reusable solution and instead got something that costs more to launch than the russian disposable system. In the case of the LUAS they could have laid standard gauge rail - yes it would be messier at bends and in the city centre ( stilts ? ) but it would handle an awful lot more people. And the DART has shown that people will use Rail if it is done properly.

yes the LUAS works, but it don't seem to be worth the investment ( cf. the original M50 was built for 300m and the toll bridge for 30m )

Thomond Pk

cdebru wrote:

Articulated buses are capable of making any turn that a LUAS tram can make no more effort would have to be made to accomodate dedicated Busways for articulated buses than would have to be made for tram lines

I'd like MarKo's opinion on the length of the longest articulated section of a Luas tram. I suspect that they would be close if not lesser than the longest section of an articulated bus. There are three critical points that you miss or fail to address in your analysis:

1> Accuracy; Luas routes can be designed with 100% accuracy on turns; bus sweep paths cannot due to human error.

2> Internal vehicle circulation dynamics; LRT can accomodate far more pasengers per square metre than any bus due to multiple entry and exit point on the vehicle as opposed to buses which are still designed along the gatekeeper principle which reduces passenger loadings dramatically and route times.

3> Network design; the entire network is designed to accomodate double decker buses with bridge clearance provided on all key routes.

An Integrated transport urban transport hierarchy would comprise:

1> Dart
2> LRT
3> Double Decker Buses
4> Feeder Buses
5> Taxis
6> Delivery vehicles
7> Cars

I find bendy buses to be inferior to LRT and also road hogging in comparison to double deckers as well as being over specified in relation to feeder buses.

John R

Thomond Pk wrote:

I'd like MarKo's opinion on the length of the longest articulated section of a Luas tram. I suspect that they would be close if not lesser than the longest section of an articulated bus. There are three critical points that you miss or fail to address in your analysis:

The length of the sections is not the only technical constraint on turning circles. The design of the running gear is equally as important.
a bogie based tram cannot come close to a 4 or 6 axle bus in ability to take tight corners.

The idea that bendy buses didn't work here because they cannot take tight corners is incorrect, they are as capable as other buses. The biggest difficulty was the amount of road space they took up particularly at city centre bus stops. This would not be a problem on a dedicated busway.

Thomond Pk wrote:

1> Accuracy; Luas routes can be designed with 100% accuracy on turns; bus sweep paths cannot due to human error.

Buses negotiate more confined roadways every day than a scratch-built busway would provide. Besides a guided busway would remove any human steering error.

Thomond Pk wrote:

2> Internal vehicle circulation dynamics; LRT can accomodate far more pasengers per square metre than any bus due to multiple entry and exit point on the vehicle as opposed to buses which are still designed along the gatekeeper principle which reduces passenger loadings dramatically and route times.

That is a function of operation not design. A bus, particularly a multiple-door articulated one can just as easily be operated on the pre-pay/random checking model as a tram can.

Thomond Pk wrote:

3> Network design; the entire network is designed to accomodate double decker buses with bridge clearance provided on all key routes.

Double deckers are designed to fit in with the clearences provided, that is why they are unknown in many countries, the roads were already built with low clearances. Not sure what this has to do with anything though.

Thomond Pk

John R wrote:

The length of the sections is not the only technical constraint on turning circles. The design of the running gear is equally as important.
a bogie based tram cannot come close to a 4 or 6 axle bus in ability to take tight corners.

The idea that bendy buses didn't work here because they cannot take tight corners is incorrect, they are as capable as other buses.

I'm sure that bogeys would have an effect but the bogies are based upon the length of the articulated sections they are not rigid from front to back or even half way in the case of the buses.

In moving traffic perhaps they do but in heavy traffic these buses take up two lanes, any rush hour this caused a major pinch point at the Junction of Baggot St and Pembroke St.

John R wrote:

Buses negotiate more confined roadways every day than a scratch-built busway would provide. Besides a guided busway would remove any human steering error.

There are too many politics involved in removing road space to waste it on guided busways there would also be major heritage implications in removing much of the City's protected paving and the costs of segregation on a busway are higher than those on Luas lines.

John R wrote:

That is a function of operation not design. A bus, particularly a multiple-door articulated one can just as easily be operated on the pre-pay/random checking model as a tram can.

Buses come in standard formats I've yet to see a bus anywhere that has a door arrangement that vaguely resembles that used on modern LRT.

John R wrote:

Double deckers are designed to fit in with the clearences provided, that is why they are unknown in many countries, the roads were already built with low clearances. Not sure what this has to do with anything though.

Precisely Dublin has an advantage that many other cities do not; articulated buses work very well in new Cities with medium density plaza development patterns like Miami. They are not necessary here, my idea of segregation is the arrangement on Stephens Green West, if this set up and fully enforced it would be ideal once seperate cycle paths are included and ample loading bays provided. What I would love to see introduced would be similar poles that could work on a timed system and simply dissapear into the ground outside designated times.

Zaph0d

Thomond Pk wrote:

Buses come in standard formats I've yet to see a bus anywhere that has a door arrangement that vaguely resembles that used on modern LRT.

Buses in Curitiba, Brazil use 3 articulated sections and have 5 doors along a length of 25m. Fares are prepaid and boarding is from a platform raised to the level of the tram floor. Dwell time is 15-19 seconds. Capacity is 270 per bus. Looks pretty much like el cheapo LRT to me.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/7694_7697_ENG_HTML.htm
http://www.lrta.org/facts116.html

Thomond Pk

Never been beyond Manaus in Brazil, it looks interesting and sound similar to those in Quito which in fairness were a good user experience. The ticketing arrangement in Quito is based on segregated stations, with turnstiles that take cash (like toll plaza buckets) they had glass shelters to prevent people hopping the wall and TVs with MTV. But critically the buses require much more regular replacement than LRT and are less suitable to refit than LRT, there is also something quite uncool about a 25 year old bus unlike say DART which many purists would say that the 1984 stock is a better user experience which can only improve with the refit than the newer stock introduced.

The issue here for me is segregating the roadspace through minimal physical intervention and real enforcement to protect the fleet operating the existing QBCs as opposed to investing in a technology that appears to have passed its sell by date by 15-20 years.

HelterSkelter

Thomond Pk wrote:

There are too many politics involved in removing road space to waste it on guided busways...

Can you explain why removing road space to "waste" on guided busways is any different than removing road space to "waste" on a tramway?

Thomond Pk wrote:

...there would also be major heritage implications in removing much of the City's protected paving

Again, please explain. If it has to be removed for a busway it will have to be removed for a tramway.

Thomond Pk wrote:

and the costs of segregation on a busway are higher than those on Luas lines.

Why does it cost more for a busway?

Thomond Pk wrote:

Buses come in standard formats I've yet to see a bus anywhere that has a door arrangement that vaguely resembles that used on modern LRT.

If they don't exist already I'm sure they can be designed and built. It can't be that difficult

Thomond Pk

HelterSkelter wrote:

Can you explain why removing road space to "waste" on guided busways is any different than removing road space to "waste" on a tramway?

Capacity Capacity Capacity

HelterSkelter wrote:

Again, please explain. If it has to be removed for a busway it will have to be removed for a tramway.

Not necesarrily rails provide a very visual physical presence and LRT is regarded as a rail line and not a competitor for road space. Quito is extremely problematic in this regard.

HelterSkelter wrote:

Why does it cost more for a busway?

Because rails have a visual physical presence and LRT is regarded as a rail line and not a competitor for road space. Quito is extremely problematic in this regard.

HelterSkelter wrote:

If they don't exist already I'm sure they can be designed and built. It can't be that difficult

Can you please provide something that actually exists as opposed to a concept; it is reasuring to see a City that put money down and what they did to build on that investment as opposed to a vague outdated concept being re-hacknyed yet again.

Zaph0d

Thomond Pk wrote:

HelterSkelter wrote:

Can you explain why removing road space to "waste" on guided busways is any different than removing road space to "waste" on a tramway?

Capacity Capacity Capacity

So I take it you believe that BRT has a lower capacity than LRT? Why?

Check out Bogota with its dedicated dual carriageway bus lanes. frequency as high as 240 buses per hour. Bus stops are all off-road with capacity for up to 3 stopped buses. All fares prepaid. Raised stops to allow level loading.

Over 30,000 passengers per direction per hour at peak time. This beats LRT and is close to commuter rail capacities.

http://www.itdp.org/programs/dar/dar/McKinsey-TM.pdf

HelterSkelter

Thomond Pk wrote:

Not necesarrily rails provide a very visual physical presence and LRT is regarded as a rail line and not a competitor for road space. Quito is extremely problematic in this regard.

What are you talking about? You said "there would also be major heritage implications in removing much of the City's protected paving", I said if the paving has to be removed for a busway, it would have to be removed for a tramway. And this is your answer?? I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

Thomond Pk wrote:

Because rails have a visual physical presence and LRT is regarded as a rail line and not a competitor for road space. Quito is extremely problematic in this regard.

You originally said "the costs of segregation on a busway are higher than those on Luas lines".I asked why are the costs higher for a busway. This is your answer???

Thomond Pk wrote:

Can you please provide something that actually exists as opposed to a concept; it is reasuring to see a City that put money down and what they did to build on that investment as opposed to a vague outdated concept being re-hacknyed yet again.

A vague outdated concept??? Isn't that what Dublin thought of trams when we decided to get rid of them last time??

Thomond Pk

HelterSkelter wrote:

What are you talking about? You said "there would also be major heritage implications in removing much of the City's protected paving", I said if the paving has to be removed for a busway, it would have to be removed for a tramway. And this is your answer?? I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

It would have to be removed but is generally replaced exactly as was with no other additions to the streetscape other than the mortar used to bed it, however experience indicates that busways are not as segregated as tramways and that a second layer is required on the roadway to stop cars driving partially down bus lanes and then turning off. To prevent this a second often cheap concrete rim is used at the opposite edge of the bus lane as it is in Quito, the visual effect is negative on the existing paving and is still often ignored by drivers who simply cannot get around the psychology of a bus and a private vehicle being very much different.

HelterSkelter wrote:

You originally said "the costs of segregation on a busway are higher than those on Luas lines".I asked why are the costs higher for a busway. This is your answer???

The second paving layer used and hold ups to the buses as drivers ignore the designation for the reasons outlined above, I suggest that you visit Quito and report back.

HelterSkelter wrote:

A vague outdated concept??? Isn't that what Dublin thought of trams when we decided to get rid of them last time??

Do you really expect an answer to that?

cal29

Thomond Pk wrote:

It would have to be removed but is generally replaced exactly as was with no other additions to the streetscape other than the mortar used to bed it, however experience indicates that busways are not as segregated as tramways and that a second layer is required on the roadway to stop cars driving partially down bus lanes and then turning off. To prevent this a second often cheap concrete rim is used at the opposite edge of the bus lane as it is in Quito, the visual effect is negative on the existing paving and is still often ignored by drivers who simply cannot get around the psychology of a bus and a private vehicle being very much different.



The second paving layer used and hold ups to the buses as drivers ignore the designation for the reasons outlined above, I suggest that you visit Quito and report back.



Do you really expect an answer to that?

Basically none of your answers make any sense and you are clutching at straws trying to convince yourself and the rest of us that trams are better

Be honest what you really mean is that trams are sexy now Buses at the moment are not

the reverse of the situation 50 or 60 years ago when Buses were the best thing since sliced bread and we could not rip up the tram tracks fast enough

How long before it is no longer sexy and Dubliners see through the limitations of fixed line on street Public transport and we start ripping up the tram line again

Victor

Snobby drivers don't want to use busses, but are more likely to transfer to rail-based public transport.

Thomond Pk

cal29 wrote:

Basically none of your answers make any sense and you are clutching at straws trying to convince yourself and the rest of us that trams are better

Have you read anything I've said? On specific technical grounds I have dealt with the facts as the reality on the ground reflects.

cal29 wrote:

Be honest what you really mean is that trams are sexy now Buses at the moment are not

No that is not what I meant, trams are superior because they carry more passengers and have longer service lives than trolley buses, the actual subject of discussion.

cal29 wrote:

the reverse of the situation 50 or 60 years ago when Buses were the best thing since sliced bread and we could not rip up the tram tracks fast enough

There were people at the time who argued against it and I am on the record in this thread of taking the long term view.

cal29 wrote:

How long before it is no longer sexy and Dubliners see through the limitations of fixed line on street Public transport and we start ripping up the tram line again

Never say Never but trams are the equivelent to the last mile of cable in telecoms they have limited application and do not work well beyond 10kms in route length. They are ideally suited to City Centres on multiple alignments as most German Cities will show. They do however have a limited capacity and therefore are not appropriate to all situations. In highish density areas or longer routes heavy rail i.e. DART is most appropriate and in Urban Sprawl like Ballyogan buses are most appropriate.

HelterSkelter

Thomond Pk wrote:

It would have to be removed but is generally replaced exactly as was with no other additions to the streetscape other than the mortar used to bed it, however experience indicates that busways are not as segregated as tramways and that a second layer is required on the roadway to stop cars driving partially down bus lanes and then turning off. To prevent this a second often cheap concrete rim is used at the opposite edge of the bus lane as it is in Quito, the visual effect is negative on the existing paving and is still often ignored by drivers who simply cannot get around the psychology of a bus and a private vehicle being very much different.

Ok point taken, but that's why I said to put cameras all along the busway with very high fines (and possibily penalty points) for anyone who drives in it. People will soon get the message then.

Thomond Pk wrote:

The second paving layer used and hold ups to the buses as drivers ignore the designation for the reasons outlined above, I suggest that you visit Quito and report back.

Yeah right, hold on and I'll book a two week trip and get back to you then

You are talking about the cost of segragation being higher on a busway but that is only one cost. Overall the cost of a busway would be much cheaper than a tramway and do the same job. Your arguement of buses not holding enough passengers are a red herring. That is something that can be overcome. Trains 20 years ago didn't hold as many people as they do now. The same can happen with buses. Remove a lot of the seats, allow more people to stand, use space more efficiently, etc etc.

Gotta agree with cal and Victor. People prefer trams cos they are more trendy and look nicer.