Luas Finglas

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Well they aren't going to put another motorway junction 500m before the M50 so that point is moot. It would have to be mid way between the existing junctions and obviously there will be the cost of extending the track out to there. And if TII don't want another motorway junction at all then the whole idea is out the window.

You're overthinking this a touch:



Green is existing on/off slips from the M2. Blue is where you could add additional slip roads if you wanted. But this wouldn't necessary, as Elm Road is only 2km from M2 Junction 2, and the existing volumes on this old N2 are extremely low.

So - no additional M2 junction needed really.

The red area is all non-functional space, potentially usable as park and ride, without having to extend the Luas track very far at all.

I had a look at the proposed emerging route for Finglas luas. The emerging route is direct, efficient avoiding the major roads and makes the most of available open spaces for luas tracks. Only four points where it crosses a road.

I would be surprised if the final route deviated far from the emerging route. I agreed there is potential problems with capacity at charlestown (P and R) and potential road congestion.

The NTA design team have done their best to make the project feasible. It is a political decision now if the current route extended beyond m50. People should lobby their politicians to give the NTA team permission to improve and extend the route further.

NTA design team have delivered a efficient route that they believe has the best chance of being approved without the least amount of objections. There has been great suggestions here on how to improve it. Current design is probably around 300 million to build. (same cost as opening the schools in a few weeks)

So good work NTA design team. So lobby the politicians with improvements folks during the months and years ahead.

MJohnston wrote: »

You're overthinking this a touch:



Green is existing on/off slips from the M2. Blue is where you could add additional slip roads if you wanted. But this wouldn't necessary, as Elm Road is only 2km from M2 Junction 2, and the existing volumes on this old N2 are extremely low.

So - no additional M2 junction needed really.

The junction (or more accurately half a junction) was laid out like that for a reason. If TII (NRA at the time) wanted a full junction, they could have built one, or at least made provision for it in the numbering of the junctions. Whats there serves the DALP and future sewage solids facility, lots of HGV and other vehicle movements, understandable if they don't want to add hundreds of commuter cars movements as well, particularly with it between existing junctions so lots of merging in a short space.

But really, light rail systems should be left do what they are good at, not trying to have them serve small towns many kms away.

It's interesting how, with this proposal together with Metrolink plans, the Green line will be a completely different line once both projects are delivered (in comparison to when services first began). Has any urban transit line anywhere changed so drastically over the course of its history?

veryangryman wrote: »

Yeah and by then the Greens will be out of power again as the political cycle goes, so you can likely add another 5 to it.

This project has basically nothing to do with the greens. If BC, ML and DE go ahead in the next 5 years the optics of that will give these projects a green stamp but the bulk of the work was completed long before the greens came to power and in the case of Ryan, despite his actions.

roadmaster wrote: »

3 years for public consultation seems very long

It’s a three year design (as in detailed EIS etc.) and consultation process to Railway Order being granted.

I think the NTA are learning from their earlier wildly optimistic timelines on other projects.

Apologies if this has been covered. Does anyone know how they plan to get the Luas tracks across the rail line and the canal?

I told ya wrote: »

Apologies if this has been covered. Does anyone know how they plan to get the Luas tracks across the rail line and the canal?

looks like a new bridge East of the existing bridge

https://www.luasfinglas.ie/#/map

L1011 wrote: »

Another north-south corridor will be needed in time too. Manchester Metrolink had to add a second core recently enough so its a normal enough growth phase.

You do realise that there's already plans for that in the form of Metrolink, right?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The junction (or more accurately half a junction) was laid out like that for a reason. If TII (NRA at the time) wanted a full junction, they could have built one, or at least made provision for it in the numbering of the junctions. Whats there serves the DALP and future sewage solids facility, lots of HGV and other vehicle movements, understandable if they don't want to add hundreds of commuter cars movements as well, particularly with it between existing junctions so lots of merging in a short space.

But really, light rail systems should be left do what they are good at, not trying to have them serve small towns many kms away.

As I said (please read the whole post that you’re replying to!) no need to touch the junction I highlighted when most P&R traffic can just use the existing M2 J2.

As for “not trying to have them serve small towns many kms away” - that’s obviously at odds with TFI’s intention, given that they’re providing a 600 space P&R at the M50. They’re just putting it on the wrong side of the M50, is my point.

MJohnston wrote: »

As I said (please read the whole post that you’re replying to!) no need to touch the junction I highlighted when most P&R traffic can just use the existing M2 J2.

As for “not trying to have them serve small towns many kms away” - that’s obviously at odds with TFI’s intention, given that they’re providing a 600 space P&R at the M50. They’re just putting it on the wrong side of the M50, is my point.

To back this up, here's the newly released Park and Ride report (emphasis mine):

1.2 Main Objectives of the P&R and Assessment Criteria
The main objectives of the Luas Finglas P&R will be:
1. To provide a minimum of 500 parking spaces,
2. Allow the potential for expansion in the future, to accommodate up to over 1,000 spaces,
3. Ease of access from the primary road network particularly from the N2 to the north of the M50,
4. Ease of connectivity with Luas Finglas,
5. Compliance/compatibility with planning/zoning,
6. Potential future serviceable catchment (for example potential for residential development).

At this early stage, and pending a more detailed assessment of the demand, it is reasonable to assume that
the Luas Finglas P&R will most likely be serving the demand coming from the N2 north of the M50, with some
limited demand coming from the M50 Northbound. Demand from the M50 Southbound and the R135 (south
of the M50) are both expected to have a negligible contribution.
Figure 3 Luas Finglas P&R – likelihood of traffic demand flows towards the P&R
Therefore, it is important that the location of the P&R is optimised in terms of connectivity with the strategic
road network, with priority given to the connection from/to the N2 outside the M50.

crushproof wrote: »

10 years to plan and construct 4km of light rail, which was originally planned over 20 years ago.

That could be partly to do with the fact that it's not currently on the governments Transport Strategy - hopefully this gets amended next year when that's reviewed.
Bare in mind that the Sandyford-Brides Glen GL extension (which is also mostly off road & around 7km long) only took about 3 years to built iirc

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well that pretty much seems to be saying that they expect the major demand for the park and ride to be coming south down the N2 corridor. But that they have to do a more detailed traffic demand study.

If that study bears out what already seems to me to be obvious then the P&R simply has to go outside the m50. They even speak of an initial 500 car spaces but it having capacity for 1,000 in future. You would not be able to fit 500 extra cars into Charlestown during rush hours right now dont mind fitting 1,000 cars into that traffic chaos sometime in the future.

Theres no point having a P&R outside the shopping centre if at 5pm everyone trying to get out of it cannot because the road is wedged with traffic. They could fiddle around with the traffic light sequences all they want but it would be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Check out the second Park and Ride report, which confirms what we've been saying:

A site outside the M50 would avoid significant congestion and maintain
lower journey times accessing the site, particularly from the N2.
Some potential P&R users, having already passed through the M50/N2 junction, may not be willing to use the P&R inside the M50

Disappointingly, they have costed the "outside the M50" option only with an unnecessary road bridge across the M2. That cost is essentially what rules out this option, for them.

MJohnston wrote: »

Check out the second Park and Ride report, which confirms what we've been saying:

Thats pretty eye opening. So they are basically admitting that locating a P&R inside the M50 will result in
1) More traffic congestion
2) Longer journey times
3) Because of 1&2 less people using it the P&R and just driving on to the city centre anyway

You would wonder what is the point, they are saying a P&R inside the m50 will end up in a mess (and they're right on that) but the plan is to plough ahead anyway

Disappointingly, they have costed the "outside the M50" option only with an unnecessary road bridge across the M2. That cost is essentially what rules out this option, for them.

I wonder what their reasoning is for not examining the current bridge at the top of St.Margarets Road for the Luas to then go across the m50. It would have to be stengthened to carry the weight of trams but it is there and it gives access to green fields which are right up against the hard shoulder of the southbound N2 just before it intersects the m50.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

It's a big leap to say "just use the existing road bridge".
They spent a fortune upgrading the bridge beside Heuston to make it strong enough for the red line trams.

Trams are heavy, a road bridge is not necessarily able to carry them. Unless I'm missing a study somewhere that says that hridge can?

I would say at a minimum that upgrading a Victorian bridge and ensuring the period features aren't damaged in the process would be quite different to upgrading a decade old motorway bridge.

I'm not claiming its feasible but I can see the costs being lower if it is possible.