Luas - The Train in the Drain?

DublinWriter

It amazed me to watch the general reaction to the rollout of the Luas today.

You'd swear we just launched a manned-mission to Mars with all the hoopla.

The FFers were literally queuing up to bask in the reflective glory of having single-handidly resolved Dublin’s transport problem. Now they just have to come up with a way of relocating us all to Sandyford or Tallaght.

Am I missing the point here? or did we really pay 1.5 billion for two bus routes?

Personally, I think the Luas was short-termism of the worst kind.

The original argument about this back in 1997 was that if we didn’t agree to the project quickly that we’d lose the €123 million that the EU were prepared to stump up. At the time it was envisaged that this money would cover the entire project.

http://www.gov.ie/debates-97/16dec97/sect2.htm makes interesting reading now BTW

Listening to the news reports today I noticed that all the reporters failed totally to ask the serious questions, such as why the Luas project overrun costs by 12,195% (yes, 12,195%!!!) and has been only partially delivered two years late?

But I think the media can be forgiven as the last time they saw anything so shiny move so fast through Dublin it was when Royston went jogging down Kildare St. wearing the Mayoral chain (true story).

IMHO What Dublin really needs is a metro because statistically Dublin is the most crowded area in the whole of Europe.

And enjoy it while it’s free lads, I worked out that an annual Park ‘n’ Ride ticket on the Sandyford line will cost just over €1,000 a year.

I spent 2 hours with a rhyming dictionary and a copy of Roget's Thesaurus and the best I could do was 'The Train in the Drain'. Don't forget where you heard it first.

chewy

although ff has had the majority in local and national government for years no one government can claim to be responsible for major infrastructural porjects? can they

i mean if not physically how long has the luas been in the running a decade, 2 ?


i argee more buses bus lanes would have been better and it does look pricey

what's the witty dublinese for the dart?

jd

Originally posted by DublinWriter
IMHO What Dublin really needs is a metro because statistically Dublin is the most crowded area in the whole of Europe.

Linkies please?
Dublin is probably the opposite - the largest low density sprawl!

bonkey

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Am I missing the point here? or did we really pay 1.5 billion for two bus routes?

If you think a tram service is nothing but an expensive bus-route, then you most definitely are missing the point.

At the time it was envisaged that this money would cover the entire project.

I believe the project expanded significantly in scope since then, and lets not forget that we suffered some horrid inflation in the past 7 years compared to what was expected.

Listening to the news reports today I noticed that all the reporters failed totally to ask the serious questions, such as why the Luas project overrun costs by 12,195% (yes, 12,195%!!!) and has been only partially delivered two years late?

12.195% of an overrun is - at a guess - a marked improvement in governmental project efficiency. Its certainly not exceptional. Hell, the average IT project typically costs double the estimate, takes twice as long as forecast, and delivers half of what was promised. And thats just of the ones that get completed.

Its also not something that seems any great mystery - every single snag, hiccup, and genuine screwup has been pounced on by detractors of the system (many of whom I would hazard have never lived in a tram-centric city in their lives) since its inception.

IMHO What Dublin really needs is a metro because statistically Dublin is the most crowded area in the whole of Europe.

A) Dublin is not the most crowded. The prevalence of people living in houses (as opposed to flats) means that it has one of the lowest densities of million-population-plus cities in the world. Even Dublin city centre couldn't compare to the likes of Amsterdam.

The cost of a metro system, especially in the city centre area where it would be most beneficial, but where the land is highly unstable (as it is effectively reclaimed from the Liffey estuary) would be staggering in comparison to a tram-based system. Didn't you follow the decision-making process (over the several years that it took) that you are so busy criticising? This was all clearly explained back then, and even if the figures have changed since, applying new information to old decisions would be foolish in the extreme.

And enjoy it while it’s free lads, I worked out that an annual Park ‘n’ Ride ticket on the Sandyford line will cost just over €1,000 a year.

And exactly how much would city-centre parking cost for the same period? Last time I checked, it would be at least double that, unless your employer is supplying you with a free space.

jc

(p.s. To my fellow mods - I'm not back yet - I'm taking a break from TechEd in Amsterdam (which has a tram-centric public transport system), before going back to Switzerland (which has a tram-centric public transport system in Bern, Geneva, and Zurich).

Sparks

Well, that was fast...

LUAS tram involved in minor collision with car

One of Dublin’s new LUAS trams was involved in a minor collision with a car on Harcourt Street this morning.

The collision happened while the car was turning onto the street.

Around 300 passengers were temporarily evacuated from the tram before being allowed to board again a short time later.

Nobody was injured in the incident and it caused no delays to the LUAS service, which began operating at 3pm yesterday.

TwoShedsJackson

According to the front of the Times this morning it cost €775 million, not €1.5 billion.

Of course this is still vastly more than it would have cost elsewhere due to the building industry/corrupt politician brown envelope connection.

As for it hitting a car, that's to be expected until people get used to it:

The collision happened while the car was turning onto the street.

If this person is a typical Dublin driver they most likely weren't watching what they were doing whilst gabbing away on a mobile :rolleyes:

I was thinking of starting a pool in work on when the first person will be killed by a Luas, bit morbid though maybe

Sleipnir

Originally posted by TwoShedsJackson
I was thinking of starting a pool in work on when the first person will be killed by a Luas, bit morbid though maybe

Well if it's me at least I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that someone made a few bucks from my death.
You could come to my funeral and thank my family?
What's if it's you? Oh the irony......


BOT, each tram can carry, what, 300 people? every 15 minutes? Show me a bus that can do that.
You really are missing the whole point of it.

Plus, the trams don't run from Sandyford and Tallaght non-stop to town you know. I've heard they stop at other places on the way too.

por

Originally posted by TwoShedsJackson

If this person is a typical Dublin driver they most likely weren't watching what they were doing whilst gabbing away on a mobile :rolleyes:

What about the typical Dublin pedestrian who walks across the street without looking and with the mobile stuck to their ear, it will not be long before they meet a tram head on.

As for the original topic about it being a waste of money, well yes it is over priced and poorly planned (lines not meeting etc) but it is a step in the right direction, however I am not holding my breath over anyone learning from their mistakes when it come to building the North\Airport line.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by bonkey
If you think a tram service is nothing but an expensive bus-route, then you most definitely are missing the point.

Why is it better? Because it's longer than a bus and can carry more people?

Your argument presumes that the LUAS will run at full capacity all day. Just get on any DART outside the normal rush hours and you'll probably be sharing it with about 20 other people.



I believe the project expanded significantly in scope since then, and lets not forget that we suffered some horrid inflation in the past 7 years compared to what was expected.

12.195% of an overrun is - at a guess - a marked improvement in governmental project efficiency. Its certainly not exceptional. Hell, the average IT project typically costs double the estimate, takes twice as long as forecast, and delivers half of what was promised. And thats just of the ones that get completed.


No...wait....read it again, I didn't say 12.195%, I said 12,195%. Twelve Thousand percent!!!!

The project actually was reduced in scope, it was originally envisaged that the LUAS would partially run underground.

As for IT projects....don't use one wrong to justify another!

If you work in IT then you see project screw-ups and failures everyday and you must get a little desensitised, but it doesn't make failure any more acceptable in the broader world.


(p.s. To my fellow mods - I'm not back yet - I'm taking a break from TechEd in Amsterdam (which has a tram-centric public transport system), before going back to Switzerland (which has a tram-centric public transport system in Bern, Geneva, and Zurich).


Nope...all the cities you mention have combination of metro, tram and bus.

In London, The "City" and Westminster have a similar marshy topographies to Dublin, they just had to dig a bit deeper.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by por
What about the typical Dublin pedestrian who walks across the street without looking and with the mobile stuck to their ear, it will not be long before they meet a tram head on.

...or the typical Dublin cyclist who thinks that red lights and the Rules of the Road only apply to motorists.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by TwoShedsJackson
I was thinking of starting a pool in work on when the first person will be killed by a Luas, bit morbid though maybe

...maybe "The Train that has Slain"

sceptre

Originally posted by DublinWriter
No...wait....read it again, I didn't say 12.195%, I said 12,195%. Twelve Thousand percent!!!!

I can't make 12 thousand percent out of the figures above. Little help?

What I can do is make an overrun figure of one thousand, one hundred and nineteen percent from the figures above

Assuming the figure of 1.5 billion is correct, take 123 million from that figure, divide the result by 123 million and multiply by 100

1500000000-123000000=1377000000
137000000/123000000=11.195
11.195*100=1119.51
Overrun figure = 1119.51
That's 1,119.51%
Still big & I think the above is correct

I suspect bonkey has gone native in chocolateland and sees the comma as a decimal point and regards a space as the thousand divisor. Which is the recommended EU-wide system for the building industry since the late 70s if I remember rightly.

joolsveer

Originally posted by DublinWriter
...or the typical Dublin cyclist who thinks that red lights and the Rules of the Road only apply to motorists.

Red lights don't apply to all motorists do they? As a sometime cyclist/motorist I don't see much difference in terms of lousy road skills.

DublinWriter

Yes, sorry, my apologies. See what happens when you try and do maths after a full bottle of Jagermeister?

The correct formula is (amount ÷ total) × 100 = percentage

The correct over run percentage is 1,219%

Still shocking, nonetheless.

ReefBreak

Hold on a second. Who said the Luas was going to cost EUR123M? I believe the initial estimate was about 775m, with the final figure being 1.5B. I may be wrong on this.

Whatever about the figures, what should be noted is that most critical commentators are comparing the final figure with the initial estimate. This is wrong. The final figure should be compared against the tender amount. Similar to the way a builder doing (say) a kitchen extension will estimate a figure (from his head), but will usually come back a few days later with an actual figure - after he's done his research, made a few calls, etc. The media are simply using the initial estimate to beef up their headlines.

As for DublinWriter's post - I wonder if you've read the reports in today's papers that have glowing review of the first day. The Luas is apparently way faster than using a car, and everybody seems to be happy. I suggest that your criticism reflects a Dublin-style attitude where people are climbing over each other to be as cynical as possible, and where almost nothing gets built without people saying it's crap and unneccessary.

DublinWriter

I'm not beng cynical - I'm being a realist.

Just watch people's attitudes change once they have to start paying for it, and after the first fare increase, and the second, and the third, etc.

It looks great though.

We really need a metro network here.

bonkey

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Why is it better? Because it's longer than a bus and can carry more people?

Because I use trams in cities which have them, and find them vastly faster means of getting from a to b compared to *any* road-based traffic, including buses. Because, yes, they can indeed carry more passengers. Because unlike buses (in Dublin at least), they do not need to return ot the garage several times a day in order to top up on gas, thus wasting time and money.

There are a myriad of reasons. They are simply not the same technology. After all, if I argued that the DART was effectively an above-ground metro, I'm sure you'd tell me I was missing some point because metro and light rail are also not the same thing.

Your argument presumes that the LUAS will run at full capacity all day.

What argument? I said you were missing the point. You provided an inaccurate guess as to why I said that.

And by the way, if you don't think that carrying capacity is significant, exactly why do you think anything is needed? Bragging rights?

No...wait....read it again, I didn't say 12.195%, I said 12,195%. Twelve Thousand percent!!!!

Ah. My apologies.

I wasn't aware that anyone seriously believed 120-odd million would actually solve anything though, if thats what you['re basing the figures on.

My understanding (and maybe I'm wrong) was that the government didn't want to waste 120-odd million of what was effectively free money which was available for a project which was already overdue in necessity.

If there were claims that this would cover all of the cost, I'd say they came long before any serious plans were made, and were more along the lines of typical governmental bull. If I'm wrong on that, I'll quite happily admit it....I'd appreciate some links though.

The project actually was reduced in scope, it was originally envisaged that the LUAS would partially run underground.

Yup....until they discovered how prohibitively expensive that would be.....which is what you are still proposing as a "better" solution. Exactly where do you think the additional billions (cause thats what we'd be talking about) would come for this, in order to give you the metro you want?

It was expanded in scope when they decided not to terminate in Stillorgan, which is what I was thinking of.

Nope...all the cities you mention have combination of metro, tram and bus.

There is no metro system in the Swiss cities I mentioned. None. There are light rail systems, buses and trams.

Amsterdam's "metro" has the following stats :

Amsterdam Metro
The metro in Amsterdam is a combination of underground metro and rapid trams running on the surface (sneltram). Only 3.5 km in the city centre - between Centraal Station and Amstel - are underground.

In other words, Amsterdam's "metro" is an above-ground tram and light-rail system (and they have buses too) which goes underground on part of one line - just like they were going to do with the LUAS until they discovered just how much those few km would cost them.

Dublin has a combination of light-rail (Arrow and DART), bus (Dublin Bus) and now tram (LUAS). Same as Geneva, Zurich and Bern. Same as Amsterdam.

The only difference to Amsterdam is that we don't go underground for a few km in teh city-centre, and that both our light-rail and our tram systems are underdeveloped.

The light rail is underdeveloped mostly because our entire rail system is underdeveloped in comparison to most European-mainland countries, but also for a variety of other reasons (bad choices in the early years of the nation, demographics, the relative lack of money our government had, and where they chose to spend it, inefficiency in the entire CIE structure, etc.)

The Dublin tram system is at this point in time woefully underdeveloped, also, on account of being brand new. That is about the only significant difference between Dublin and the four cities I mentioned. They have an established public transport system which works, and which predominantly works above-ground. Dublin has a fledgling infrastructure, which should work if and when it gets more properly developed.

Had Dublin gone with an underground system, we'd have paid more for less.....and yet the problem you seem to have is how much we paid for how little we got. Counter-intuitive, no?

In London, The "City" and Westminster have a similar marshy topographies to Dublin, they just had to dig a bit deeper.

OK...I'm[ not going and arguing a point which was central to the decisions made on the project. Go back and look at the proposed costings. I never said it was impossible, I said it was prohibitively expensive - and given that cost seems to be your major objection......

You've already argued that volume isn't a significant factor regarding LUAS, I'll assume that you don't consider it to be one on your preferred underground option either

bonkey

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Just watch people's attitudes change once they have to start paying for it, and after the first fare increase, and the second, and the third, etc.

Compare to parking costs, like I said, and its suddenly cheap. Thats not even considering the savings that decreased mileage on your car might bring.

Parking prices go up too, incidentally, before you bring up the price-raises again.

jc

flogen

Originally posted by bonkey

Parking prices go up too, incidentally, before you bring up the price-raises again.

and, of course, so do Petrol prices...:D

You cant criticise the LUAS for being under developed, its only in its infancy. If there are still major problems with it in 10 or 20 years, then you can make valid points. also, as Bonkey has pointed out, a metro would be much more expensive.

I look forward to it being rolled out across the rest of the city, it may take a few years, but it will be truely effective once it links the city up properly. (whenever that may be)

flogen

DublinWriter

Originally posted by flogen
I look forward to it being rolled out across the rest of the city, it may take a few years, but it will be truely effective once it links the city up properly. (whenever that may be)

Er...where? The rest of the city? Off the top of my head I can't think of any two-lane road left in the city, besides the Quays.

flogen

Im not sure where the other lines are going, but there are more besides the 2 so far, and I'm sure that over time it will spread out further, it may be 10 years, but i dont doubt it will happen.

flogen

DublinWriter

Originally posted by bonkey

Yup....until they discovered how prohibitively expensive that would be.....which is what you are still proposing as a "better" solution. Exactly where do you think the additional billions (cause thats what we'd be talking about) would come for this, in order to give you the metro you want?

Billions? Madrid metro €500m
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/04/20/story260878357.asp

On a personal note, I don't 'want' a metro as I don't have plans to stay long term in Dublin. The government could issue us all with roller-skates as far as I care. But I don't want to personalise this arguement.

As for the prohibitive costs - typical Irish attitute - something costs too much or is too hard to do, then don't bother and just stick in the second-best bodge.

I agree that if a metro is going to cost 100billion then that's a prohibitive cost. But the costs of a full metro havn't been worked out yet, so I keep an open mind on the issue rather than just going 'oh...a metro....zillions!'.

Feeling a rant coming on...

Originally posted by bonkey

There is no metro system in the Swiss cities I mentioned. None. There are light rail systems, buses and trams.

Curses, foiled again...
http://www.swissmetro.com/
http://latsis2004.epfl.ch/Jahia/site/latsis2004/cache/offonce/pid/30647
http://www.geneva.ch/SMBern.htm

Originally posted by bonkey

Had Dublin gone with an underground system, we'd have paid more for less.....and yet the problem you seem to have is how much we paid for how little we got. Counter-intuitive, no?

No. Underground good. Overground Bad. LUAS expensive, yet alluringly shiny.

Originally posted by bonkey

OK...I'm[ not going and arguing a point which was central to the decisions made on the project. Go back and look at the proposed costings. I never said it was impossible, I said it was prohibitively expensive - and given that cost seems to be your major objection......

Nope, value for money is my major objection.

My minor objections include safety, impact on the existing road infrastructure and impact on local businesses during construction.

bonkey

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Billions? Madrid metro €500m

So what? That has a relevance-factor to the cost of building a metro in Dublin of exactly nothing.

Curses, foiled again...
http://www.swissmetro.com/
http://latsis2004.epfl.ch/Jahia/site/latsis2004/cache/offonce/pid/30647
http://www.geneva.ch/SMBern.htm

So - a URL to a proposal which would have a pilot track by 2020, a URL to a link about the train line from Lausanne to the major airports, and a link to the city of Geneva also considering building a metro.

Incidentally, if on the Lausanne link you were misled by the term "underground station", I'll take that as an indication that you really don't know the Swiss transport system at all, as it is referring to the train stations at each of the major airports, which are built underground, and which are part of the national train line.

I stand by my statement. Not a single city in Switzerland has (i.e. current tense) a metro system. Not one. None. Nor has any city currently got an approved plan to build one. To do so will first require a cantonal vote to get public approval, so even the fact that they're thinking about it at (cantonal) governmental, or city level means little.

So indeed, "foiled again" would appear to be entirely accurate, even if you didn't mean it that way.

Underground good. Overground Bad.

And until your comments below, you hadn't offered a single reason why. And I'll deal with those comments....

LUAS expensive, yet alluringly shiny.

Underground more expensive, and even more bragging rights, so I fail to see your point.

Nope, value for money is my major objection.

But hold on DublinWriter....

you've already tried to argue that capacity is not the issue. What otherfactor can you base value on? After all, valus is cost-per-something, and if its not per-passenger-carried, then what is it? And if it is per-passenger-carried, the capacity most certainly is far more important than your earlier derision suggests. Furthermore, you'd have to show how it is better value for money, which would apparently be impossible without contradicting your claims that

the costs of a full metro havn't been worked out yet,

Truly amazing. You can claim its better value, despite not being costed.

Exactly what do you base your definition of value on, if not cost?

Incidentally, the original underground costings which were done were for the problem of the reclaimed land around the Liffey. [i}This[/i] was prohibitively expensive. It is only reasonable to conclude that further underground work would have been also more expensive. From memory (if you search previous threads on this topic in this forum, I think I provided the figures before), "simple" underground costs are 3x above-ground, so outside the Liffey-problem, it would "only" have cost us 3x per km more to go underground.

And you know what....if we could afford to throw that type of money at the system, I'd quite happily agree that it was a preferable option.

My minor objections include safety,

Can you show me any figures which actually show that tram-systems are in any way dangerous? (Again, given your ability to provide links on metro systems in Switzerland).

I honestly can't remember the last time I read of someone getting hit by one in Switzerland, or of there being serious injuries (despite reading about and/or witnessing some tram-tram, tram-car crashes, and even some minor derailments occurring).

impact on the existing road infrastructure

All cities which have tram-implementations have managed to reduce congestion in the city-centres where the tram-lines replace car-lanes. Can you offer any reason why Dublin is different, or more correctly, why it will be different once it has a more developed tram system?

and impact on local businesses during construction.

Given that you claim that the cost of a metro hasn't been determined, I think its a reasonable conclusion that the impact on local business during construction of same has also not been determined, so this is an empty statement.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by bonkey
So what? That has a relevance-factor to the cost of building a metro in Dublin of exactly nothing.

Only if you use slow-ass high-cost Irish/UK contractors.

Look at what's happening with the Ennis bypass. The government has started using Turkish contractors who are doing three of the biggest bypass projects in Ireland under budget and ahead of time.

Originally posted by bonkey

you've already tried to argue that capacity is not the issue. What otherfactor can you base value on? After all, valus is cost-per-something, and if its not per-passenger-carried, then what is it? And if it is per-passenger-carried, the capacity most certainly is far more important than your earlier derision suggests. Furthermore, you'd have to show how it is better value for money, which would apparently be impossible without contradicting your claims that

I was talking about capacity in the context of the tram vs. buses argument. Yes, even metro trams before you start up again! It's a complete waste to run six carriages of Luas/Metro/Dart/Whateveryouarehavingyourself at non-peek times.

Originally posted by bonkey

Truly amazing. You can claim its better value, despite not being costed.

Exactly what do you base your definition of value on, if not cost?

How future proof something will be.

I know in the IT world, investments only have a 3 to 5 year lifespan, but look at thinking behind the construction of sewers in London.

The Victorians completely over-engineered when they built a tunnel system way beyond anything they needed in terms of capacity because they knew it would be around for the next 100+ years.

By building a tunnel infrastructure under the city you have something that will last a very long time and can be reused again and again when/if different modes of power become available such as Hydrogen, Fusion, whatever.

This all comes back to my arguement about short-termism.

Originally posted by bonkey

Can you show me any figures which actually show that tram-systems are in any way dangerous? (Again, given your ability to provide links on metro systems in Switzerland).

No, but I heard the screech of brakes coming out of Cafe Sol on Harcourt St. this morning as the first car hit the Luas. Does that count? (no one was hurt thank god!)

Victor

Originally posted by DublinWriter
No, but I heard the screech of brakes coming out of Cafe Sol on Harcourt St. this morning as the first car hit the Luas. Does that count? (no one was hurt thank god!)

Car hit Luas, not Luas hit car. Big difference.

Annual Luas all zone ticket €640 (cheaper annaul tickets are available).
Annual Bus/Luas ticket - €850

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=4321&lang=ENG&loc=1622 (11th March 2003)

The initial budget submitted to the Department by CIE for the project was 466 million Euro in 1999 prices, based on preliminary estimates. This budget was subsequently revised in February 2001 to 675 million Euro to take account of actual competition tender prices received, reflecting high inflation in the construction sector, higher than anticipated property acquisition costs and changes to the scope of the project, mainly related to the provision for upgrading Line B to metro status. Capital funding for construction of the lines, estimated currently at 691 million Euro, is in place and the RPA have also made provision for risk.

So from 1999 to 2004 it's gone ffrom €466 to €775 - a 66.3% increase.

chewy

whats the minimun fare for an adult on the dart and on the luas
thats what i find expensive, when you only going a few stops i usualy don't pay

bonkey

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Look at what's happening with the Ennis bypass. The government has started using Turkish contractors who are doing three of the biggest bypass projects in Ireland under budget and ahead of time.

Again, irrelevant. Apply the same logic to the cost of a tram system and the cost of a metro system, and you'd have the same waste, or lack thereof. The choice of infrastructure has nothing to do with the issue if you're blaming the choice of contractor.

I was talking about capacity in the context of the tram vs. buses argument. Yes, even metro trams before you start up again! It's a complete waste to run six carriages of Luas/Metro/Dart/Whateveryouarehavingyourself at non-peek times.

Nice to see that you included metro in that list of options...again showing that the argument has no relevance....unless you want to say that a metro is also a glorified bus service.

By building a tunnel infrastructure under the city you have something that will last a very long time and can be reused again and again when/if different modes of power become available such as Hydrogen, Fusion, whatever.

Firstly, surface-transit systems are more durable than tunnel-based ones, not to mention less prone to failure, easier and more cost-effective to maintain, etc. etc. etc. After all, the road systems in London are far older than the tunnels. Not only that, but should the road-systems change, or the demographic layout of the city, a ground-level system is far more adaptable to this change than a tunnel system.

Secondly, "modes of power" shouldn't even enter into the disucssion. Both systems would most effectively run off electrical power, through a standard electrical distribution system. That complete abstracts out how the power is generated.

Should the situation in the future arise that made the above scenario incorrect, then there is absolutely no difference between changing the engine-system in a sub-terranian locomotive and an above-ground one.

This all comes back to my arguement about short-termism.

No, it doesn't. It all comes back to you not showing why what you think is better is actually better. You're not applying your logic in a balanced manner to both scenarios, because if you did you'd see that the vast majority of the points you are making apply equally to both. The remainder of the points appear to be based on a lack of accurtate information, often supplanted with assumptions which you are unable to back up. Such as :

No, but I heard the screech of brakes coming out of Cafe Sol on Harcourt St. this morning as the first car hit the Luas. Does that count? (no one was hurt thank god!)

See. No real figures, just an assumption. You know...whenever infrastructure changes there are always adjustment periods. To draw conclusions from a single anecdote which completely ignores this fact is farcical.

At the end of the day, you don't like the tram system. Thats fine by me. Thats your perogative. You're also perfectly entitled to think that a subway/metro system would be better too. No problems with that. But thus far, you have been unable to come up with a single convincing reason as to why this is a logical stance. The more points you make, the more it sounds like your derision of the "shininess" of the LUAS is just transferrence.

jc

monument

Originally posted by bonkey
Amsterdam (which has a tram-centric public transport system)

The first time I looked at Amsterdam’s tram system, all I could think was it’d never work in Dublin – cars would just crash into it.

The feeling of such a car free city was amazing… could a mass tram system the solution to Dublin’s transport problems? – maybe not.

Anyway, back to half reality did anyone see CIE’s alternative proposal for an expanded rail system in Dublin?… (I think it was in the Sunday Tribune a month or two back...).

halkar

I agree with DublinWriter. Luas is total fiasco and rip off though it is very nice to ride on
I posted about this on commuting section sometime ago but here it goes

Estram (Eskisheir Tram Project) 16.2 kms, 26 stops started at 20.06.2002 and finishing in July. Trams are already rolling in some lines. The cost is € 100 million yoyos Check this out, they won some awards . City of Eskisheir has about 500.000 population.



I like nice things but I don't like being ripped off

DadaKopf

But, like, can you really compare the conditions in Dublin with those of a city in Turkey?

Are land acquisition laws the same? Are land prices the same? Are workers's wages the same? Are residents' councils as strong there? The list goes on.

The reason things often cost less in other cities, to my knowledge, are the problems with land acquisition and institutions that hold up and add costs to the project.

The other extra costs are usually other contingencies, which are generally budgeted for.

I found it idiotic, to say the least, when everyone was giving out about the price of the coast-to-coast train line across Australia. Land prices comparable with Ireland? HMMMM.

halkar

Dadakopf, what lands they bought if they did? The one that is running now are on the old disused railway which still took years to re-track and open without little or no demolition. And i don't think they are buying the lands on the roads where most of trams will be running along with cars.