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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Council seeks 'wire free' city centre for new Luas line

  • 02-07-2011 9:34pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭


    This is unbelievable. One set of public sector wasters arguing with another set of public sector wasters, while their employer teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.

    Dublin City Council have consistently show themselves to be clueless when it comes to managing Dublin City.
    DUBLIN CITY Council has urged Bord Pleanála not to permit the use of overhead power cables on the proposed Luas Broombridge line through Dublin city centre.

    In its submission to the hearing on the plan to link the existing red and green Luas lines, the council said the area from St Stephen’s Green to Parnell Square should be a “wire free” zone.

    The council is also opposing plans to run the Luas on the central median of O’Connell Street from the Spire, which would necessitate the removal of the Fr Matthew statue.

    The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) wants to use the same overhead power supply system on the new line, which will link the Sandyford and Tallaght lines before continuing on to Broombridge in Cabra, as it does on the existing lines.

    Dublin city planner Dick Gleeson yesterday told the hearing the proposed use of overhead cables would be “visually intrusive” on the sensitive streetscape of the historic core of the city which included the Mansion House, St Ann’s Church, Trinity College, the Bank of Ireland at College Green, O’Connell Bridge, the GPO and the Rotunda Hospital.

    The council was particularly concerned about the effect such a cable system would have on College Green, Mr Gleeson said. The buildings, including Trinity College and the Bank of Ireland, were of such architectural quality and rarity that they should not be compromised, he said.

    “While College Green currently suffers from an excess of hostile traffic and from various aspects of clutter including over-scaled planting, the relationship of buildings and space constitutes a dramatic urban composition and is the city’s most important urban space.”

    The RPA plans to run the line on the road until it reaches the Spire on O’Connell Street where it would be moved on to the paved central median of the road until Parnell Square.

    This plan is unacceptable to the council.

    The proposed alignment would “detrimentally affect the integrity” of the street which was redeveloped over a four-year period by the council from 2001.

    “The erosion of the median to the degree proposed will radically undermine the visual legibility and symmetry of the street,” Mr Gleeson said.

    The RPA should instead keep the line on the road until after the Fr Matthew statue, which sits opposite the former Carlton cinema, where it could then join the median in order to enable it to turn on to Parnell Square, said Mr Gleeson.

    The council had initially wanted to attach 109 conditions to the granting of permission for the line, he said, but following discussions with the RPA it had reached an agreed position on all but the two matters above.

    If Bord Pleanála attached conditions which would order the use of an alternative power source for the line in the city centre, and change the alignment of the route through O’Connell Street, the council would be “fully supportive” of the Luas Broombridge, Mr Gleeson said.

    Wireless LUAS... thinking ahead as they do I'm sure the dimwit councillors are thinking maglev LUAS.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,528 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    how are cables any more visually intrusive than the trams, or rails, or buses other street furniture or any of the ugly buildings that dominate the centre of Dublin?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    how are cables any more visually intrusive than the trams, or rails, or buses other street furniture or any of the ugly buildings that dominate the centre of Dublin?
    I wouldn't be surprised if there was some religious involvement with the councils objections, and the line would reduce the number of vehicles including busses on it's route so can only be beneficial to any buildings along the route.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,528 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I wouldn't be surprised if there was some religious involvement with the councils objections

    :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Varadkar sure is vacillating on these projects. Luas to Broombridge is a tram to nowhere; may as well merge that project with "Metro North" or whatever they're calling it nowadays, and get that particular Luas line off the streets altogether. Can't see the wires if they and the tracks are underground, right?

    Of course, that's aside from the fact that there already exist current collection systems that don't involve overhead wires. One is the "conduit" system, which utilised former cable vaults in the road for a sort of third rail operation (Washington DC, sorry about the picture size):
    img_46021.jpg

    The other is the Bordeaux Tramway (France), which uses its own unique version of ground-level power supply (Citadis trams there bear "family" resemblance to Luas of course):
    4842a.jpg

    So when are we going to see a re-gauge of either the Luas or the general railway network, and the use of "Regio-Citadis" tram-trains so that you can have run-through of the two systems? If you're really going to build a tram to Broombridge, may as well extend it to Maynooth on the general railway network, even if it requires separate low platforms for Regio-Citadis or the use of dual-platform tram-trains by different manufacturers, right? (Oh sorry, wrong decade...)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭CommuterIE


    Will the LUAS stop at Broombridge not be burned out? Like Broombridge train station?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Wireless Luas is DCC trying to close the barn door but that particular horse bolted long ago.

    We already have 2 rail systems in the capital that are incompatible, we don't really need a third.

    Altho I do think MN and Bridge of the Brush Luas haven't a snowball's chance in hell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭PseudoFamous


    Is a wireless Luas not.. a bus? We already have those...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    CommuterIE wrote: »
    Will the LUAS stop at Broombridge not be burned out? Like Broombridge train station?
    Most likely. Weren't they supposed to rebuild Liffey Junction station along with this, in one proposal?
    n97 mini wrote: »
    Wireless Luas is DCC trying to close the barn door but that particular horse bolted long ago.

    We already have 2 rail systems in the capital that are incompatible, we don't really need a third.

    Altho I do think MN and Brush Bridge Luas haven't a snowball's chance in hell.
    I'm surprised DCC can keep track of all the horses they let out of their now-imaginary barn.

    As for incompatible rail systems, I'm big on elimination of that; it wastes the taxpayer's money via duplicate facilities for storage and repair, plus many duplicated spare parts inventories aside from the unique fleets. A bit too late to think of Maynooth-Bray DART via a lower-level Broadstone to a new underground line stopping at the GPO, then onto Harcourt Street underground and to Bray via Shanganagh Junction, eh? then you'd have the possibility of connecting to diesel-powered commuter and intercity trains via a reopened Broadstone upper level. (How's that for "Dart Underground", punters.)

    And yes, the opportunity for the "metro" has probably been let slip.
    Is a wireless Luas not.. a bus? We already have those
    Nope, not even if the tram is diesel-powered. Remember, we used to have steam-powered trams in this country as well. A bus has a steering column and rubber tyres. A tram is defined by running on tramway tracks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    I've lived in Bordeaux and the wireless tram system was a nightmare to get up and running. It causes a lot of problems and there were (and still are) frequent disruptions to services due to technical problems with the system.

    There were quite frequent problems with the power system that would result in the non-overhead line sections becoming unusable for 24+ hours at a time.

    Also, they problems seemed to be made worse by rainy weather in winter, which is a bit worrying for Dublin.

    The other problem is that existing Luas stock would not be compatible with any ground-based power system, meaning that you'd have a fleet of trams dedicated to this new line and an inability to swap stock over from the current lines in the event of any need to do so.

    If the wires are done neatly, i.e. like on Harcourt Street, I can't really see the issue tbh. Dublin is not THAT architecturally sensitive!

    I can't think of any part of Dublin where a couple of architecturally minimalist thin wires would be much of an issue at all. The trams are as much a part of the urban environment as the buildings in my opinion.

    They're far less ugly than many of the City Council's own pieces of street furniture, lights, cameras etc shoved up in most of the city.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,577 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Hand on heart I've never actually noticed that the Luas has overhead wires, so they must be a really unintrusive 'visual intrusion'.

    Please don't ask me how I thought they were being powered, magic possibly.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    This could be a case of spending vast amounts of extra money on an excessively complicated and unnecessary solution to a problem we don't actually have.

    I thought we were trying to get away from this kind of stuff?!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    In Nice, as I've said before, the whole idea behind the "no line squares" was that it was part of a city beautification thing. OCS is not exactly a beaut. Nor do DCC have any plans on making it so. I am forever haunted by the awful pink building on the corner of OCS and Henry St.

    But, like, if they really want a wire-free city, why not pony up the money themselves? That's the problem in Ireland, everything comes in the form of a handout from Central Govt, so noboy stops to think if it makes sense or not, economically or otherwise. They get a whiff that something might be comin' their way and it's gimme gimme gimme.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Surely a certain Journalist is partly responsible for this??????????

    Misinformed and thick media combined with a verifiably thick political establishment usually equals national ineptitude.

    Do I dare say that "here we go again" or that we will manage to "reinvent the wheel" and make a complete and absolute mess of public transport.......AGAIN.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Hand on heart I've never actually noticed that the Luas has overhead wires, so they must be a really unintrusive 'visual intrusion'.

    Please don't ask me how I thought they were being powered, magic possibly.
    The pantograph was a magic wand, then...?

    Well really, there's not too much difference between Luas' single-hung OHLE and the old DUTC electrification, other than the use of pantographs versus trolley poles and some other details related to that…
    luas.jpgDublin+tram+car.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Perhaps as well as having no overheads wires they could go the full hog and have a different gauge of track between St.Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street. I still don't see the point of the link anyway - there aren't going to be through services and it will only encourage skangers onto the Green Line.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    The link has never been to create an actual link of the tracks (although such would be inevitable if it were done); rather it's to allow an interchange between the two lines. It would mean that people landing in Connolly or the Docklands could get southside easily enough.

    Maybe I've misinterpreted, but nobody is suggesting through-services such as Sandyford-Heuston or anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    Perhaps as well as having no overheads wires they could go the full hog and have a different gauge of track between St.Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street. I still don't see the point of the link anyway - there aren't going to be through services and it will only encourage skangers onto the Green Line.


    The link up would be good and its omission is actually the single biggest cock up example of all that is wrong in Ireland. Read the history and look at the potential.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 558 ✭✭✭OurLadyofKnock


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Surely a certain Journalist is partly responsible for this??????????

    Yep and all the other Bloomsday fruits from the Irish Georgian Society who seem to have a selective notion of historic value. Powdered wigs not required.

    This is a non-issue and it won't go anywhere. Like the Luas ironically enough.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 558 ✭✭✭OurLadyofKnock


    it will only encourage skangers onto the Green Line.

    On the other hand I would pay money to see Henrietta from Shankhill arrive in Jobstown though. Don't say you wouldn't either.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 558 ✭✭✭OurLadyofKnock


    n97 mini wrote: »

    Wireless LUAS... thinking ahead as they do I'm sure the dimwit councillors are thinking maglev LUAS.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOILKHmZBwc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 116 ✭✭Son of Stupido


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Wireless Luas is DCC trying to close the barn door but that particular horse bolted long ago.

    We already have 2 rail systems in the capital that are incompatible, we don't really need a third.

    Altho I do think MN and Bridge of the Brush Luas haven't a snowball's chance in hell.

    Have a look at Bordeaux...the wires are not used in the historic city centre...and it makes a huge difference.

    Basically the tram gets power from overhead wires until it reaches the city centre, then gets power from the 'third rail' in the ground.

    It is not a different system, and the existing dublin trams (made by the same company btw) could be easily upgraded to do this.

    This is an old arguement, and has been around for a while.

    I think the city are dead right on the cables, and we need some strong political leadership on this otherwise some of our historic buildings are going to be badly affected.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭markpb


    It is not a different system, and the existing dublin trams (made by the same company btw) could be easily upgraded to do this.

    It's a completely different system. In Bordeaux, the trams were built to support the combination of overhead and ground level power packs from the start. In Dublin, all the in-service trams would need to be modified to support it. It's not clear if that's possible or how much work (and cost) is involved. Presumably, it would also require some of the trams to be taken out of service while they're being upgraded.

    That said, I do like the idea and I'd love if RPA would consider it.
    n97 mini wrote: »
    Wireless Luas is DCC trying to close the barn door but that particular horse bolted long ago.

    I can't understand this attitude. Yes, DCC have been shoddy with architectural standards but that doesn't mean that they should be shot down whenever they try to improve things. It's a very negative outlook to say something is crap so we shouldn't bother to improve it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    Why not go the whole hog and get rid of those visually intrusive lamp posts, bus stops etc. Jesus Christ, do these gob****es have nothing better to do? God forbid public interest should ever enter into their thinking. I'm sure if you dig deep enough, vested interests will be at work, as always.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    markpb wrote: »
    I can't understand this attitude. Yes, DCC have been shoddy with architectural standards but that doesn't mean that they should be shot down whenever they try to improve things. It's a very negative outlook to say something is crap so we shouldn't bother to improve it.
    I don't understand how you don't understand that insisting we have one wireless line when we already have two wired lines makes DCC look a little silly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭markpb


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I don't understand how you don't understand that insisting we have one wireless line when we already have two wired lines makes DCC look a little silly.

    The Green line doesn't pass through city centre streets with the exception of Harcourt St (which isn't of much architectural value) and St Stephens Green (West). With the exception of O'Connell St and Heuston, the Red line is the same. A line passing through Grafton St, College Green and around Trinity is very different.

    In any case, I'm not saying we definitely should do it or that I disagree with people who object on cost or technical grounds. I'm objecting to people who say we shouldn't try to improve the city centre because we haven't done in the past.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    markpb wrote: »
    I'm objecting to people who say we shouldn't try to improve the city centre because we haven't done in the past.
    I totally agree, and in this case I think the best improvement would be a unified tram system.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,218 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    n97 mini wrote: »
    This is unbelievable. One set of civil service wasters arguing with another set of civil service wasters.

    Dublin City Council have consistently show themselves to be clueless when it comes to managing Dublin City.



    Wireless LUAS... thinking ahead as they do I'm sure the dimwit councillors are thinking maglev LUAS.

    Any chance that folk like you would actually learn the difference between the Public Service and the Civil Service?

    Dublin City Council are NOT Civil Servants. If you're going to have a rant then at least try and be factually correct when you do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    markpb wrote: »
    In any case, I'm not saying we definitely should do it or that I disagree with people who object on cost or technical grounds. I'm objecting to people who say we shouldn't try to improve the city centre because we haven't done in the past.
    Just in case this is directed at my comment, I wouldn't object in the least to improving the city centre -- quite the opposite really. It's just that in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that most people notice the wires. How often would somebody look up? Only tourists really do that. When I've been a tourist in other cities with trams, it really never crosses my mind that the wires could have been avoided.

    In terms of beautification, I'd wish their efforts were spent on something more noticeable. Road-markings and signage are far more obtrusive imo than overhead wires.

    You mention too around Trinity. Tbh, there's a lot worse going on there than lines bringing down the tone of the area. Ironically enough, the sheer number of double decker busses going by is enough to obscure a lot of the good in the area. Take a look at this: http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.345364,-6.258388&spn=0.00766,0.027466&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.345341,-6.258408&panoid=KfHe_NKrDwZs8aHfTO6Y_w&cbp=12,253.68,,0,-0.28 What should be a fantastic entrance to the heart of Dublin and a great view of the old Parliament, is a scene of five signs, two bollards, railings enlosing a useless area, and two phoneboxes. Just in this little example, if you took away the railings, (re)moved the signs and phoneboxes, and put down a couple of informal benches, it would be far better than the area being wire-free. At any rate, even if it was wire-free there's still so much other clutter as to render the feat useless.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,222 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    This whole problem can easily be avoided if the RPA switch to one of it's original alternative routes for LUAS which completely avoids O'Connell St and College Green, instead going both up and down Marlborough St and around the back of Trinity.

    They could build this route with wires as it doesn't pass any important historical buildings and we can work towards turning O'Connell St and College Green into attractive tourist attractions.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    bk wrote: »
    This whole problem can easily be avoided if the RPA switch to one of it's original alternative routes for LUAS which completely avoids O'Connell St and College Green, instead going both up and down Marlborough St and around the back of Trinity.

    They could build this route with wires as it doesn't pass any important historical buildings and we can work towards turning O'Connell St and College Green into attractive tourist attractions.

    Yes, this route is the best imo. It allows link up with the dart at Pearse. The majority of Trinity students are at the back of the college anyway so this route would suit them better.

    Luas%20City%20Centre%20Link%20Up%20Line%20BX%20Route%20Option%20B.map.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    ^ Problem with that it leaves where the people are (from Westland Row to the city limits) without a service.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    But it pretty much links it with the Dart, which can only be a good thing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,212 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    It also blocks up the alternative main traffic artery to College Green.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,979 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    It also avoids the duplication of the MN route.



    Yeah, I know...... :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Agree that this option is the best for the Luas link-up. Leaving aside the problems with Marlborough St, it circumvents Dublin Bus' problem with Nassau St./front of Trinity, it links with Pearse which IMO is a huge advantage for it, and it gets rid of this ridiculous "wire-free" nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    -Chris- wrote: »
    But it pretty much links it with the Dart, which can only be a good thing.

    That's what Connolly is for.

    And someone on Dame St or in Temple Bar is going to use Tara cos the Luas will be soooo far away.

    First rule of public transport: It has to be convenient.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    mgmt wrote: »
    bk wrote: »
    This whole problem can easily be avoided if the RPA switch to one of its original alternative routes for LUAS which completely avoids O'Connell St and College Green, instead going both up and down Marlborough St and around the back of Trinity.

    They could build this route with wires as it doesn't pass any important historical buildings and we can work towards turning O'Connell St and College Green into attractive tourist attractions.
    Yes, this route is the best imo. It allows link up with the dart at Pearse. The majority of Trinity students are at the back of the college anyway so this route would suit them better.
    Wow...judging by that map, how slow would this route be if they did implement it, eh?

    This one should be left well enough alone, because Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street are just too important to buses that run to North Strand and Ranelagh/Ballsbridge respectively. You can't widen those streets to accommodate both trams and buses (i.e. it'll be another situation like Middle/Upper Abbey Street), and you're removing a long-standing set-down location. Hate to think of what they'll charge for a new bridge connecting Hawkins Street with Marlborough Street as well (why wasn't a road bridge built that connected those two streets ages ago?)...never mind the (already-implied) cost of relocating bus set-down termini yet again...and of course, using Pearse to get to Hawkins means ripping up more carefully-placed concrete islands such as the one that directs road traffic up Tara Street and "protects" the double parkers across from the bus stops (how much did that one cost?)...

    And of course, even building a Luas extension parallel to the Metro North route "duplicates" it. Never mind the traffic chaos on Stephen's Green North, Westland Row and especially Pearse Street...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Journey time on Option B is 14 minutes.

    Journey time on the Luas Interconnector (sic) is 8 minutes.

    Walking will probably be quicker than both.

    http://www.dublinluasbroombridge.ie/Downloads/EIS/BXD_EIS_Book_5_Annexes/BXD_EIS_Book_5_Annex_O.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    n97 mini wrote: »
    That's what Connolly is for.

    Except the DART Underground proposals will make Pearse into the hub where both DART lines will pass, so it makes more sense to link there rather than relying on Connolly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭D'Peoples Voice


    CIE wrote: »
    Wow...judging by that map, how slow would this route be if they did implement it, eh?.
    completely agree,
    i know the Government is broke, but building second-rate solutions that would be slow is not the answer!
    Commerical property is cheap (relatively speaking to the boom years), buying a few properties and knocking them to the ground to widen a few streets wouldn't do any harm (in the long-term interests of commuters - think of the positive effect the Italian quarter has made to Dublin).
    Bringing the Green line luas around by the gaiety theatre/Break for the Border and down Drury Street before flatening some buildings on Wicklow street to get to Dame Street and down Westmoreland street is perhaps the most direct and quickest route.
    Seriously its not as if we don't have enough vacant commercial premises that retail outlets could relocate to. Why are people in Ireland so transfixed by maintaining our streets in their current state?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    mgmt wrote: »
    Journey time on Option B is 14 minutes.

    Journey time on the Luas Interconnector (sic) is 8 minutes.

    Walking will probably be quicker than both.

    http://www.dublinluasbroombridge.ie/Downloads/EIS/BXD_EIS_Book_5_Annexes/BXD_EIS_Book_5_Annex_O.pdf
    Option B, according to that, is estimated to have an average speed of 5.8 mph. That's somewhere between really brisk walking and jogging, but since one can walk shorter routes than any of the proposed ones, even a 3-mph walk would outdo it.

    The "preferred" Option F also necessitates a bridge between Marlborough and Hawkins Street. Passengers would get aggravated by a tram that would serve the GPO in one direction only. Furthermore, Option F turns around at Cathal Brugha Street, leaving Broombridge as a "future extension".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    It also avoids the duplication of the MN route.

    Probably time to give up the ghost on that one.

    Doesn't DCC have more to worry about with street clutter than Luas lines? Since it was reported that unused signage poles were 'cluttering' the city DCC haven't hesitated in contributing to the 'visual pollution' by erecting new tourist signage across the city centre pointing the way to main (and not-so-main) Dublin attractions. They also kept silent when Dublin Bus put up real time bus screens at every major bus stop in town. I've watched with growing disbelief as these additions go up without any effort to take down many of the redundant poles mentioned in the above article, which is now nearly a year old.

    I'm not one to go in for the conspiracy theories but totally agree that there's more to this DCC objection than meets the eye.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭xper


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Probably time to give up the ghost on that one.

    Doesn't DCC have more to worry about with street clutter than Luas lines? Since it was reported that unused signage poles were 'cluttering' the city DCC haven't hesitated in contributing to the 'visual pollution' by erecting new tourist signage across the city centre pointing the way to main (and not-so-main) Dublin attractions. They also kept silent when Dublin Bus put up real time bus screens at every major bus stop in town. I've watched with growing disbelief as these additions go up without any effort to take down many of the redundant poles mentioned in the above article, which is now nearly a year old.

    I'm not one to go in for the conspiracy theories but totally agree that there's more to this DCC objection than meets the eye.
    Actually the RTPI signs are being put in place by DCC themselves on behalf of the NTA. Dublin Bus is just the first of multiple potential data providers. Stir that into your conspiracy soup!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,212 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    I cannot believe that several posters are talking seriously about both re-routing the LUAS via option B and then pedestrianising College Green.

    Again I have to point out that the only alternative route to College Green for traffic and buses from southeast Dublin is via Westland Row and Pearse Street.

    From a public transport of view, this idea coupled with putting LUAS into that mix as well would be a disaster in my mind.

    1) Journey times would be longer for everyone
    2) Reliability would go out the window with trams sharing road space with public and private traffic
    3) All public transport would be removed out of an area that people actually want to travel to

    Given that the number of cross-city routes is increasing (as that is what passengers want) this to my mind is a complete non-runner.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,222 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    But lxflyer we should be aiming to reduce cross city routes, not increase them.

    Frankly private cars should be banned from the city center completely.Buses could potentially share with the Luas, but on the whole we should be reducing the number of cross city bus routes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,212 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    But lxflyer we should be aiming to reduce cross city routes, not increase them.

    Frankly private cars should be banned from the city center completely.Buses could potentially share with the Luas, but on the whole we should be reducing the number of cross city bus routes.

    Totally the wrong perspective.

    People want more cross-city routes - not less and professional transport wisdom backs that up with both of the recent reports on Dublin's bus service state that expanding the number of cross-city services is the best way to improve the service.

    That idea is completely unworkable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,528 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    bk wrote: »
    but on the whole we should be reducing the number of cross city bus routes.

    +1

    but until there is a single central usable mass terminus in the CC the above can't happen in a way that will work, you also need a proper fare system that's not limited to a single, one vehicle journey as people will simply not pay twice for one journey


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I have more of a problem with the use of the centre medium, wires are a non-issue and DCC talking about clutter makes me think pot, kettle, black.

    lxflyer wrote: »
    Totally the wrong perspective.

    People want more cross-city routes - not less and professional transport wisdom backs that up with both of the recent reports on Dublin's bus service state that expanding the number of cross-city services is the best way to improve the service.

    + 1


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    bk wrote: »
    we should be aiming to reduce cross city routes, not increase them.

    Not everyone wants to travel to the city centre. The availability and widespread use of Travel 90 tickets says that you're wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,212 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Also, for example the numbers of people leaving other routes to pass by and instead catching the 128 from Charlotte Way heading north, tells me that people do actually want through services.

    Look at any 145 heading south from the North Quays in the morning peak - they are still heavily loaded - should those passengers not be allowed have a through service to the Leeson Street/Stephen's Green area?

    The reality is that there are vast numbers of cross-city commuters and simply saying that they should all have to change buses in the city centre, or have a longer journey by avoiding College Green is not the solution.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement