Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Future Luas expansion in GDA strategy 2016-2035

1235»

Comments

  • #122
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    It is right 9900/30 tphpd gives 330. Capacity of individual teams will be in and around the 369 mark

    I honestly don't believe that number is accurate. How can a 60 meter, wider Metro carry less people per train then a 43 meter Luas?

    I honestly believe that the linked image has it incorrect or is underestimating


  • #123
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Ok now I think I get where all the confusion with different numbers is coming from.

    It seems previously the trams max capacity was measured as 6 persons per meter square

    It seems they now measure it as 4 persons per meter square.

    So you can't really directly compare the figures for the the older trams with the new longer trams or the metro!

    I suspect the old figures where less realistic in the real world and the new figures are probably more realistic.


  • #124
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    bk wrote: »
    I honestly don't believe that number is accurate. How can a 60 meter, wider Metro carry less people per train then a 43 meter Luas?

    I honestly believe that the linked image has it incorrect or is underestimating

    54.6 metre


  • #125
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,539 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    Ok now I think I get where all the confusion with different numbers is coming from.

    It seems previously the trams max capacity was measured as 6 persons per meter square

    It seems they now measure it as 4 persons per meter square.

    So you can't really directly compare the figures for the the older trams with the new longer trams or the metro!

    I suspect the old figures where less realistic in the real world and the new figures are probably more realistic.

    A bit like the displayed number of maximum passengers allowed on a KC single deck originally - 35 seated & 50 standees

    The latter was physically impossible.


  • #126
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    54.6 metre

    60 > 54.6
    2.6m wide > 2.4m wide

    54.6 x 2.4 carries 369, yet somehow 60 x 2.6 will only carry 330!

    Doesn't add up.

    And I actually read through the Aecom report into the proposed New Metro North and it turns out that the 60m trams will have a capacity of 440:

    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Fingal_North_Dublin_Transport_Study__Final__June_2015.pdf

    Page 63, now that makes a lot more sense.

    Also according to this report it actually says 30 trains per direction per hour or more. 30 tphpd is just the starting point and is expected to increase in future!

    So at least there is some overhead for expansion.

    BTW interestingly in the same report, they say that the capacity of the BRT buses is 150 and they expect a frequency on them of every 2 minutes (peak)!


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    bk wrote: »
    60 > 54.6
    2.6m wide > 2.4m wide

    54.6 x 2.4 carries 369, yet somehow 60 x 2.6 will only carry 330!

    Doesn't add up.

    I'm aware it doesn't just pointing out the fact of the matter the new trams will be 54.6 .Also my figures for NMN where guess work hence why I said circa before and when I divided expected capacity by trams it was a guesstimate


  • #128
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Just to add for future reference. When measured by 4 people per meter squared, Luas capacity is:

    30m - 190
    40m - 265
    54m - 369

    Not stated, but guestimate, based on above figures:
    43m - 290

    The 30 and 40m figures from RPA here:
    https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/project-management/luas-and-metro-plans.pdf?ext=.pdf


  • #129
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-..._June_2015.pdf

    makes for farcical / infuriating reading now!

    original MN had 20,000pphpd, "optimized" 12,000pphpd! A ha ha ha ha ha! airport, m50 busier than every , housing crisis worse than the boom! Take a look a their bull**** figures in 2014, airport numbers to hit 33,000,000 by 2033, they are going to hit as good as 30,000,000 this year, they will hit 33,000,000 year on year, mid way through 2019 I reckon!

    I mean is this a joke, should we just review things every year, lets review things next year, we can then go for a larger scheme than the originally planned metro north, based on next years figures :rolleyes:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/lack-of-infrastructure-spend-poses-threat-of-recession-1.3119380

    funny that as soon as they can find an excuse to downsize based on the recession, they can cut the arse out of it, yet we hear about strongest growth in Europe etc from FG, funny how they scheme cant just be brought back to the original...


  • #130
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-..._June_2015.pdf

    makes for farcical / infuriating reading now!

    original MN had 20,000pphpd, "optimized" 12,000pphpd! A ha ha ha ha ha! airport, m50 busier than every , housing crisis worse than the boom! Take a look a their bull**** figures in 2014, airport numbers to hit 33,000,000 by 2033, they are going to hit as good as 30,000,000 this year, they will hit 33,000,000 year on year, mid way through 2019 I reckon!

    I mean is this a joke, should we just review things every year, lets review things next year, we can then go for a larger scheme than the originally planned metro north, based on next years figures :rolleyes:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/lack-of-infrastructure-spend-poses-threat-of-recession-1.3119380

    funny that as soon as they can find an excuse to downsize based on the recession, they can cut the arse out of it, yet we hear about strongest growth in Europe etc from FG, funny how they scheme cant just be brought back to the original...

    Your link doesn't work and it's down to 9900pphpd now

    <alternativefact>
    Sure who needs to future proof something that will exist basically till matter transporters are invented. If I recall correctly the original tube was built to accommodate a gentleman, his man servant and his bloodhound and they've been increasing the capacity ever since.
    </alternativefact>


  • #131
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    <alternativefact>
    Sure who needs to future proof something that will exist basically till they matter transporters as invented. I've I recall correctly the original tube was built to accommodate a Gentleman, his man servant and his bloodhound and they've been increasing the capacity ever since.
    </alternativefact>

    and sure begob, a toll plaza on the busiest road in the state was not going too cause traffic congestion and the junctions were fine as signal controlled roundabouts !!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Your link doesn't work and it's down to 9900pphpd now

    <alternativefact>
    Sure who needs to future proof something that will exist basically till matter transporters are invented. If I recall correctly the original tube was built to accommodate a gentleman, his man servant and his bloodhound and they've been increasing the capacity ever since.
    </alternativefact>


    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Fingal_North_Dublin_Transport_Study__Final__June_2015.pdf

    sorry there is the link. Also 9900pphpd I read, but the frequency can be upped a bit from that they were saying, to the 12,000pphpd figure...


  • #133
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Fingal_North_Dublin_Transport_Study__Final__June_2015.pdf

    sorry there is the link. Also 9900pphpd I read, but the frequency can be upped a bit from that they were saying, to the 12,000pphpd figure...

    A recent (last month) email I received from the minster said 9900, but sure who knows on the magical mystery train :rolleyes:


  • #134
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,175 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    bk wrote: »
    Ok now I think I get where all the confusion with different numbers is coming from.

    It seems previously the trams max capacity was measured as 6 persons per meter square

    It seems they now measure it as 4 persons per meter square.

    So you can't really directly compare the figures for the the older trams with the new longer trams or the metro!

    I suspect the old figures where less realistic in the real world and the new figures are probably more realistic.

    Having spent 5 months commuting from Ranelagh to town on the Green Line, I can safely suggest that passenger densities could increase by 20% if passengers took off backpacks and sought less personal space. The level of space taken far exceeds that of the London Underground for similar short journeys.


  • #135
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Can anyone explain why the LUAS moves so slowly from Cowper to Beechwood. Usually 40km/h, this morning driver was doing 30km/h. It is a straight segregated stretch. I don't get this.


  • #136
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,484 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why the LUAS moves so slowly from Cowper to Beechwood. Usually 40km/h, this morning driver was doing 30km/h. It is a straight segregated stretch. I don't get this.

    Could be slowing up for a stop signal ahead?


  • #137
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Could be slowing up for a stop signal ahead?

    Definitely not. It just rolls through between both stops at a slower pace than the rest of the Ballaly to Charlement stretch. There's no obvious reason as to why. No intersections where cars or pedestrians can cross.


  • #138
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,539 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    As far as I'm aware Beechwood is an official timing point along the line - if they're ahead of schedule they can either wait there or ease off as they approach it. Ultimately it has the same result.

    Maintaining headways is part of their performance criteria.


  • #139
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    There is a pedestrian crossing between Cowper and Beechwood.


  • #140
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    would there be any merit in extending the luas from Broombridge to Blachardstown via Connolly hospital?


  • #141
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,237 ✭✭✭markpb


    roadmaster wrote: »
    would there be any merit in extending the luas from Broombridge to Blachardstown via Connolly hospital?

    Surely any extension would be better going to a part of the city not already served by rail?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,484 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    markpb wrote: »
    Surely any extension would be better going to a part of the city not already served by rail?

    Arguably the Maynooth line doesn't provide an adequate frequency to enable 'shopping journeys', which you'd want to be very frequent indeed.

    I've also made the argument before that a slight extension to BXD, with a Park and Ride somewhere just outside or inside the M50 would be a significant addition to our transport network. It's a real shame the new line stops at Broombridge with no P+R designed into it at all, imo.


  • #143
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,539 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Arguably the Maynooth line doesn't provide an adequate frequency to enable 'shopping journeys', which you'd want to be very frequent indeed.

    I've also made the argument before that a slight extension to BXD, with a Park and Ride somewhere just outside or inside the M50 would be a significant addition to our transport network. It's a real shame the new line stops at Broombridge with no P+R designed into it at all, imo.

    If and when the Maynooth line were converted to DART operation, that argument would vanish.

    I think that's a better use of capital expenditure.


  • #144
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,484 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    lxflyer wrote: »
    If and when the Maynooth line were converted to DART operation, that argument would vanish.

    I think that's a better use of capital expenditure.

    Yes, it would be, and in that case I'd rather the BXD line extended through Finglas and provided an N2 corridor Park and Ride instead.

    Problem is that nothing seems likely to happen, and any single one of them would be a tremendous improvement.


  • #145
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    markpb wrote: »
    Surely any extension would be better going to a part of the city not already served by rail?

    i fully agree but what is the most economic and beneficial route to the public would you go via the broombridge line or could you go by a spur at heuston up through the park via dublin zoo considering the crowds that use the zoo and then on to blanchardstown


  • #146
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Yes, it would be, and in that case I'd rather the BXD line extended through Finglas and provided an N2 corridor Park and Ride instead.

    Problem is that nothing seems likely to happen, and any single one of them would be a tremendous improvement.

    Talking about park and ride, in the next 5/10 years there will be substantial residential development in the Rathoath/ Ashbourne area so could you run a luas line from the broombridge line up the N2 as you suggested but actually bring it to Ashbourne/Ratoath area and have a park and ride there to service this future development or would that be to far to run a light rail system?


Advertisement