Luas Line E (Christchurch Rathfarnham Dundrum)

luckat

I see from the papers today that the Government has announced a study for a Luas going up through Harold's Cross and Terenure to Rathfarnham.

Praise Jesus!

If only it'll happen fast, now.

El Stuntman

luckat wrote:

If only it'll happen fast, now.

this would be excellent but I'd advise you to not to hold your breath!

luckat

Damn, and I'd just thrown away my inhaler.

stiofanD

I'd be very curious to see what sort of route they will propose. To my mind there's not a whole lot of free road space along that route, so the luas would be as prone to getting stuck in traffic as a bus!!!

strassenwolf

This is the section of the article relevant to the LUAS investigations (there's other stuff in the article about the buyout of the west link bridge and new buses in Dublin).

Today's Irish Times wrote:

Feasibility study into south Dublin Luas line planned
Ronan McGreevy

A feasibility study is to be carried out into a possible new Luas line in south Dublin. It would link Rathfarnham, Terenure and Harold's Cross with the city centre and run roughly parallel to the existing Luas line between St Stephen's Green and Sandyford.

The study will be carried out by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) and will begin in April. Minister for Transport Martin Cullen said a new line could serve an area of south-central Dublin that does not have access to the Luas or the Dart.

"It is vital that the workforce in the area and its residents have access to a range of public transport options if we want to get people out of their cars and on to public transport," he said.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0131/1169681046374.html

(subscription required, I think)

luckat

Luasanna take priority on the roads. They propose bringing it up Clanbrassil Street, along Harold's Cross Road, up through Terenure to Rathfarnham.

I don't know if they plan to link it to the O'Connell Street crossing of the Red Line or the Stephen's Green terminus of the Green Line.

The only problem I can see is at Emmet Bridge over the canal, which would have to be widened.

It would take so many cars off the road, anyway, that traffic would not be a problem. An *awful* lot of people drive in from Rathfarnham/Terenure/Harold's Cross who wouldn't bother if there was a fast, timely, clean public transport available.

HelterSkelter

Is there an election coming up soon???!!

wwhyte

luckat wrote:

It would take so many cars off the road, anyway, that traffic would not be a problem. An *awful* lot of people drive in from Rathfarnham/Terenure/Harold's Cross who wouldn't bother if there was a fast, timely, clean public transport available.

This seems a bit optimistic. I'd be much more in favour of investigating putting it underground at least as far as Harold's Cross and ideally as far as Terenure, rather than permanently reducing road capacity.

Trotter

Being from the south east, I've often been disappointed by the government spending disproportionate amounts of money on Dublin and leaving little or no public transport options in the remainder of the country.

HOWEVER... Having spent a year living in Rathfarnham and enduring the trek to Dublin city every morning and back in the evening, I understand completely why this is needed, and it'd have my full support.

Thankfully Im back in da coontry now, but God it'd be nice to have a luas in my city (Waterford) without having to drive everywhere and clogging up the city with needless traffic.

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

Is there an election coming up soon???!!

Yes, you'd never guess would you. Especially since Olivia Mitchell (obviously not personally!) circulated postcards to houses in the Rathfarnham area and perhaps beyond detailing how there's a gap in the Transport 21 plan for the Rathfarnham & Terenure area.

Here's her spiel (DOC): http://www.finegael.ie/downloads/reps/OMitchell/AdjournmentDebate-LightRailProjects.doc

MarkoP11

What is strange is the RPA seem to know nothing about a Luas on that route

What they do know about is the Tallaght Harolds Cross St Stephen's Green metro, which is the much better solution. And there is money in T21 to look at doing that

Cullen and Mitchell are possibly the worst people you want anywhere near transport matters

steve-o

wwhyte wrote:

This seems a bit optimistic. I'd be much more in favour of investigating putting it underground at least as far as Harold's Cross and ideally as far as Terenure, rather than permanently reducing road capacity.

Assuming that Luas Green Line will never be "upgraded" to Metro, then continuing Metro North out toward Rathmines/HX/Terenure would seem to make some sense (but obviously would be far more expensive). Even though passengers prefer nice shiny trams, I don't think on-street trams out that direction would be much faster than the bus.

Luckycharm

Don't suppose any chance them extending it to Knocklyon/Firhouse - the public transport up there is a joke!!

KC61

Luckycharm wrote:

Don't suppose any chance them extending it to Knocklyon/Firhouse - the public transport up there is a joke!!

Ah, but that area is going to get extra buses, particularly to Ballycullen in the next couple of months as part of the Dublin Bus fleet expansion programme, so things should improve!

strassenwolf

steve-o wrote:

Assuming that Luas Green Line will never be "upgraded" to Metro, then continuing Metro North out toward Rathmines/HX/Terenure would seem to make some sense (but obviously would be far more expensive). Even though passengers prefer nice shiny trams, I don't think on-street trams out that direction would be much faster than the bus.

I agree. Upgrading the Green line to metro status is probably not the most important issue for transport on the Southside, when other areas of the southside don't have a LUAS anywhere close by. It might be good for it to happen, well into the future, when/if there is decent coverage of the southside with trams.

Continuing metro north out towards Harold's Cross probably would make sense, in conjunction with construction of a LUAS/metro overground service to/from areas of the south-west of the city. That way, you make use of the fact that you're tunnelling anyway, so you might as well continue on a bit further (or start a bit further south), and you're also bringing trams to whole new areas of the city. Tunnelling as far as, say, Beechwood, does not make sense at the moment, as it won't make a world of difference to the Green line and won't bring the LUAS/metro to any other parts of the Southside.

I'm not sure that tunnelling out as far as, say, Harold's Cross, would be much more expensive than tunnelling out as far as Beechwood. Is it a much greater distance? And once you're out past HX it should be possible to fashion some kind of an arrangement where there is decent overground segregation between trams and cars.

I'd like to see this study look at the possibility of any new LUAS line from Rathfarnham (or wherever) actually being planned as two LUAS lines, which would meet and share track when they get closer to the city centre. Possibly sharing a tunnel in the more central areas, if it is actually decided to continue the metro out towards Harold's Cross.

I fear that the congestion on the Green line is now so bad, even from places as far out as Sandyford, that the trams will have to be run more frequently out that far. Reduction of the intervals between trams to, say, every three minutes, is at this stage almost inevitable. This would ensure that a future split of this line into two, as is very common in other tram/rail networks, could probably not happen, as the consequent (necessary) reduction of service to/from Sandyford would be very difficult to deal with.

I hope that the eventual possibility of having two lines, merging into one closer to the city, is a big factor in the planning of this proposed new LUAS.

KC61

MarkoP11 wrote:

What is strange is the RPA seem to know nothing about a Luas on that route

What they do know about is the Tallaght Harolds Cross St Stephen's Green metro, which is the much better solution. And there is money in T21 to look at doing that

Cullen and Mitchell are possibly the worst people you want anywhere near transport matters

This feasibility study was included in the original Transport 21 presentation. Nothing is included in the T21 envelope for building etc., so yes it's safe to say that there is electioneering going on.

This route, ie. the N81 to Terenure and then following the 16A bus route thereafter to Nutgrove Avenue does present serious challenges as at many points there is insufficient space to fit four traffic lanes, hence only inbound bus lanes at many points and none at others - it does make me wonder how feasible putting LUAS onto the route is.

luckat

wwhyte, I completely agree with you that an underground is the sensible solution for Dublin - in fact I've heard that a Japanese company offered to build one for free and was refused, though this sounds too insane even for Fianna Fail.

spacetweek

luckat wrote:

wwhyte, I completely agree with you that an underground is the sensible solution for Dublin - in fact I've heard that a Japanese company offered to build one for free and was refused, though this sounds too insane even for Fianna Fail.

Amazingly, that actually happened.

MarkoP11

The Japanese metro deal (It was a consortium) is not quite as simple, it was subject to some conditions (total bypass of the planning rules seemed to be required) and it since transpired that it wasn't possible anyway. It was only one line and the rolling stock was to be more or less the same as the Japanese DART coaches

But Mary O'Rourke was the guilty party in stalling it but on paper it wouldn't work out anyway both the route and on the money, it was to good to be true

luckat

The Japanese generally can build more cheaply - and also, their quotes don't balloon the way Irish quotes do when the job is actually on!

Is there information on the Japanese offer online anywhere, Marko?

BrianD

It's amazing how the Governmnet have got it so wrong. A Swords-Airport-City-Tallaght line is a sensible route as it fulfills many requirements - proper rail links to major population areas, cross city, serves the city centre and also the airport. This is what they should have built in the first place and the red line should have been the one servicing the Rathfarnmham areas.

Any new tram lines that share street space will also raise public comment. The bif problem with Dublin is that we have so many cars coming into the city from outside of the city. These cars will still be there no matter how many new tram lines we build.

mackerski

strassenwolf wrote:

Tunnelling as far as, say, Beechwood, does not make sense at the moment, as it won't make a world of difference to the Green line

But it would. What the Green Line needs more than anything else is extra capacity, as you seem to realise:

strassenwolf wrote:

I fear that the congestion on the Green line is now so bad, even from places as far out as Sandyford, that the trams will have to be run more frequently out that far. Reduction of the intervals between trams to, say, every three minutes, is at this stage almost inevitable.

(What it needs after extra capacity is something that will inhibit substandard extensions that will only overload it further, and a Metro upgrade might help here, but I digress...)

The existing (insufficient) capacity on the Green Line is the result of two things:

• vehicles that are too small (and can't readily be extended as long as on-street running remains)
• contention with road traffic on on-street sections, especially from Charlemont to the Green. This contention is an obstacle to the kind of tram frequency a segregated line could sustain.

Upgrading the line to full Metro (or to the half-arsed version intended for Swords) will address these issues. I'm not sure what else can.

This isn't to say that the Green Line upgrade is more important than other projects - but it will have to happen if the congestion is to be resolved.

strassenwolf

mackerski wrote:

But it would. What the Green Line needs more than anything else is extra capacity, as you seem to realise

Of course, you're entirely correct. It would make a world of difference to the Green line. I suppose what I meant to convey was that upgrading to a metro wouldn't make the world of difference that the actual construction of the Green line made, or the world of difference that construction of a line to the south west of the city could make for areas in the south west of the city.

One of the problems here is that, strictly speaking, we remain in the dark about the performance of a LUAS/metro to/from the south west of the city until it is actually built. The Green line passenger numbers have exceeded expectations, as far as I know, and I'd be inclined to think that a line to the south west would also perform well.

I do think that the possibility of such a line actually being two lines should be examined, maybe Swords-Rathfarnham and Swords-Crumlin, or something like that. I suspect that the catchment area of the Green line is actually much wider than would be common for tram lines in cities with a network of tram lines - it might well have been better to have planned the development of this line as two lines, perhaps branching at Windy Arbour or somewhere, so that more areas could be served and something like a 6-7 minute service might have been achieved on both branches, with a service every 3-4 minutes on the common section. (I don't know whether this would have been feasible).

I'm just not entirely convinced that there is any location in suburban Dublin which should actually need a more frequent tram service than, say, a five minute service, if there were a number of tram lines into the city in place and the catchment areas for those lines were of a similar size to those found in other cities.

Upgrading the line to full Metro (or to the half-arsed version intended for Swords) will address these issues. I'm not sure what else can.

I don't know either.:( Obviously it would be good to upgrade it to a metro, but it might make more sense, when building the Swords metro, to tie it in with new LUAS/metro lines to other parts of the city. It is a hunch, I'll concede, but I'm not sure that just because LUAS/metro lines out towards Rathfarnham, Crumlin, etc., don't currently exist, that it means that demand along such routes would not be comparable to that currently seen along the Green line.

This isn't to say that the Green Line upgrade is more important than other projects - but it will have to happen if the congestion is to be resolved.

It's a tough one, alright.

InFront

Not that he really needs it, but this will really cement Seamus Brennan into a seat for Dublin South, probably top of the list again.

Unfortunately.

KC61

I think some posters are getting ahead of themselves here. Let's examine the practicalities.

The very basic question is....How is this line going to fit and how is it going to have any more priority than buses currently do? This line will be entirely on-street.

The proposal is for it to follow the 16A bus route from Clanbrassil Street to Lower Rathfarnham - now beyond Harolds X Green there is no part of that road wide enough to take four lanes of traffic (other than the Rathfarnham by-pass) and in some it is wide enough to fit four lanes. At present this QBC has (in the main) bus lanes only in the inbound direction due to the space constraints and I really cannot see how a prioritised tram service is going to fit into the traffic mix.

GreeBo

And a tram line that ends in rathfarnham/nutgrove is going to cause chaos due to park&riding...
Everyone from just outside these areas will attempt to drive to this luas but there will be no parking facility nearby (Nutgrove Shoping Centre?)...
Ballyboden, Knocklyon, Firhouse, Rathfarnham, Ballinteer..what are these people supposed to do?

dowlingm

Metronorth should be extended through. Forget about LUAS - it can't compete with LUAS Green given the lack of a protected alignment as in Harcourt, and it will congest Stephen's Green if that is the terminus. Continuing the TBM on southwards might also avoid the need to dig up one of the most well-known areas in Dublin for a period of years?

luckat

An underground would be fabulous - even an inner-city one just covering the 5km circle from the GPO. Imagine being able to travel around Dublin with no worries about traffic whatsoever - just pop down in Rathmines or Harold's Cross or East Wall or Ballymun and popping up in the Green or Henry Street or Dominic Street. Bliss! And it could be a beautiful design like other cities' subways, those beautiful Russian 1930s halls and the lovely French and English and New York stations.

GreeBo

dowlingm wrote:

Metronorth should be extended through. Forget about LUAS - it can't compete with LUAS Green given the lack of a protected alignment as in Harcourt, and it will congest Stephen's Green if that is the terminus. Continuing the TBM on southwards might also avoid the need to dig up one of the most well-known areas in Dublin for a period of years?

Could it hook up with it somewhere though?
As was said earlier, we dont need separate lines for every suburb, they can fork off to suit more areas and meet up at some sort of central artery to enter the city centre.

Though I really cannot see where this Rathfarnham luas will run, maybe follow the M50 with feeder buses to bring you home

dowlingm

luckat - unfortunately transit as public art is rather out of favour. I understand Moscow Metro is suffering from lack of maintenance of the stations these days.

What is needed is to relieve pressure on LUAS Green to cope with extensions. I don't think another LUAS will do that adequately with on street running - it will merely create and fill its own demand rather than having room to accommodate people who can't get on LUAS Green. Underground is a non-runner if you want to link since there will already be two underground platforms in metro and interconnector - tunnelling would be very tricky indeed.

I also don't think a city centre is the place to terminate a metro - it should run through to somewhere where you can have a terminus with 3 platforms and proper tail tracks to ensure 90 sec service. Running it past interconnector and south and leaving LUAS Green as LUAS for now would be the best option I think.

GreeBo

dowlingm wrote:

I also don't think a city centre is the place to terminate a metro - it should run through to somewhere where you can have a terminus with 3 platforms and proper tail tracks to ensure 90 sec service. Running it past interconnector and south and leaving LUAS Green as LUAS for now would be the best option I think.

Under Stephens Green?
Arent a lot of the major subway terminii under city "squares"?

Victor

GreeBo wrote:

Under Stephens Green?
Arent a lot of the major subway terminii under city "squares"?

Stations, yes. Terminii, generally no. Its long been known that running straight through the centre is the best option.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/12760492?view=Eircomnet

Proposed Luas line would not meet running cost
From ireland.comSaturday, 3rd May, 2008

A STUDY on a proposed new Luas line from Dundrum to Dublin city centre via Rathfarnham has found that delivery of its most feasible route would have "considerable adverse impacts" and would fall short of covering its operating costs by €2 million a year.

The Rathfarnham "E line" would also require the purchase of 150 private gardens and 10 buildings along the route.

The feasibility study, produced by the Railway Procurement Agency for the Minister for Transport, was presented to local representatives at a meeting yesterday. The 8.4 kilometre route "most likely to be feasible" begins at Christchurch and travels down Patrick Street and Clanbrassil Street before crossing the Grand Canal into Harold's Cross.

The line includes a single track loop between Harold's Cross and Terenure; the outbound track would travel down Brighton Square and on to Brighton Road and the inbound track would follow Terenure Road North, linking in with the outbound track at Rathfarnham Road. It would then travel on to Grange Road and Churchtown Road, terminating at The Oaks in Dundrum, where an interchange with the Luas Green would be built.

A section of the route which would have carried the line from Christchurch over O'Donovan Rossa Bridge to Constitution Hill at Broadstone on the north side of the city, was assessed as not feasible. The study found that there were too many engineering difficulties, including the vertical clearance for a tram at Christchurch Arch, the unsuitability of the bridge and the steep decline at Winetavern Street.

The "E line" would have considerable negative impact on traffic, the study found, and would require the removal of the Rathfarnham Quality Bus Corridor.

It also found that, based on current and projected population figures, passenger demand would not cover the running costs of the line and there would be a shortfall of €2 million a year.

Substantial property acquisition would be required: 150 private gardens would need to be purchased including some on Clanbrassil Street, Harold's Cross Road and at the Terenure Cross and Brighton Square junction. Some 112 gardens along the Rathfarnham to Dundrum section would be affected, including 50 on Grange Road and Nutgrove Avenue. Some 10 buildings would also have to be purchased.

As part of the study, an archaeological desktop report found that any route section located within the city's medieval town walls, "may have direct and indirect impact on a number of protected structures and national monuments, with an additional potential for impact on previously undiscovered archaeological remains".

Fianna Fáil TD Chris Andrews welcomed the report, but said a lot more detail and consultation would be required before a final decision on the line could be made.

Fine Gael spokeswoman on transport Olivia Mitchell said she was "bitterly disappointed" that the study looked at only one route.

"The plan is to build a Luas network in Dublin, and expanding areas including Rathfarnham, Templeogue and Knocklyon should be serviced as part of the overall network," she said.

Victor

Links:

ABOUT POSSIBLE LUAS LINE E http://www.rpa.ie/?id=381

Maps http://www.rpa.ie/?id=382

May 2008 - Luas Line E Rathfarnham to Dublin City Centre Residents News Letter.pdf(0.41MB) http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=705 (link currently broken)

Feasibility Study of Possible Luas Line from Rathfarnham to Dublin City Centre (Line E) http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=685

monument

Fine Gael spokeswoman on transport Olivia Mitchell said she was "bitterly disappointed" that the study looked at only one route.

"The plan is to build a Luas network in Dublin, and expanding areas including Rathfarnham, Templeogue and Knocklyon should be serviced as part of the overall network," she said.

For once I'm really agreeing with Mitchell.

invincibleirish

an annual 2 Million Euro subvention is hardly the end of the earth is it? surely as the LUAS network develops in the years to come that figure might change as the city gets used to travelling around by Trams.

Vorsprung

Have there been any plans to continue this to UCD?

monument

From the RPA feasibility study...

Operating Costs. The project falls short of covering its operating costs by approx €2 million per year.

... which is it €2 or €1.5?...

The operation cost for Line E comes to approximately €8.33 million annually.

The forecast of the annual demand is 7.11 million passengers per year in 2016. The annual revenue corresponding to the demand is 6.84 million which corresponds to 82% of the operation cost. This implies that in terms of covering operating costs, Line E may not be feasible as it could need an additional €1.5 million a year in funding based on current assumptions regarding operating costs and revenues.

GerardKeating

invincibleirish wrote: »

an annual 2 Million Euro subvention is hardly the end of the earth is it? surely as the LUAS network develops in the years to come that figure might change as the city gets used to travelling around by Trams.

And we know how accurate the passenger predictions for the first two luas lines were...

D.L.R.

GerardKeating wrote: »

And we know how accurate the passenger predictions for the first two luas lines were...

exactly. any luas line following a half-decent corridor in dublin would be used, no matter what any half-baked study says.

a couple of million loss per annum is nothing, and it would probably become profitable soon enough. stupid reason to NOT build it.

mind you, another luas line in south dublin is probably not the most balanced approach in a city-wide context. north dublin needs another radial route besides metro north (ie finglas). build em all, i say.

murphaph

D.L.R. wrote: »

exactly. any luas line following a half-decent corridor in dublin would be used, no matter what any half-baked study says.

a couple of million loss per annum is nothing, and it would probably become profitable soon enough. stupid reason to NOT build it.

mind you, another luas line in south dublin is probably not the most balanced approach in a city-wide context. north dublin needs another radial route besides metro north (ie finglas). build em all, i say.

+1. The route is direct and if it interferes with private motorists then so be it...............BUT! better all round to build this as underground metro and be done with it. It is the centre north-south route on the southside and densification along the route is almost assured IMO if metro was the chosen method. Let's face it-if Dublin is ever in a position to say we have a comprehensive network, this route must be serviced in some shape or form.

Schuhart

I'm not clear from the article - are they simply saying that there's a two million loss or are they saying that passenger numbers would be too low to justify a two million loss? I mean, if the line doesn't cut the mustard, then it doesn't cut the mustard and investment should go elsewhere.

The bottom line (which I don't see clearly explained in the linked article) is whether a Luas on this route would carry enough punters quicker to make us feel 2 million was an acceptable cost.

steve-o

So, for an outlay of hundreds of millions, we'd get an on-street tram that is not much faster than a properly built QBC. It will also displace traffic, including buses and existing bus lanes. It doesn't sound to me like a value-for-money investment. On the other hand, if Metro could be extended south-west from Stephen's Green (even only to Terenure), then that could add real value without messing up the bus network.

Instead of scrapping the northside section, maybe that's the bit they should build. If a feasible segregated route could be found between Broadstone and the Civic Offices, that would would create a new connection from Maynooth Dart to Red Line Luas and Interconnector Dart along a route that doesn't have the duplication issues and bus dispacement issues of Luas BX/D.

ofjames

steve-o wrote: »

So, for an outlay of hundreds of millions, we'd get an on-street tram that is not much faster than a properly built QBC. It will also displace traffic, including buses and existing bus lanes. It doesn't sound to me like a value-for-money investment. On the other hand, if Metro could be extended south-west from Stephen's Green (even only to Terenure), then that could add real value without messing up the bus network.

Instead of scrapping the northside section, maybe that's the bit they should build. If a feasible segregated route could be found between Broadstone and the Civic Offices, that would would create a new connection from Maynooth Dart to Red Line Luas and Interconnector Dart along a route that doesn't have the duplication issues and bus dispacement issues of Luas BX/D.

here, here!

the broadstone alignment should not be wasted on a low-capacity public transport service like luas. the lesson of the harcourt line should be heeded.

Metrobest

steve-o wrote: »

So, for an outlay of hundreds of millions, we'd get an on-street tram that is not much faster than a properly built QBC. It will also displace traffic, including buses and existing bus lanes. It doesn't sound to me like a value-for-money investment. On the other hand, if Metro could be extended south-west from Stephen's Green (even only to Terenure), then that could add real value without messing up the bus network.

Instead of scrapping the northside section, maybe that's the bit they should build. If a feasible segregated route could be found between Broadstone and the Civic Offices, that would would create a new connection from Maynooth Dart to Red Line Luas and Interconnector Dart along a route that doesn't have the duplication issues and bus dispacement issues of Luas BX/D.

Luas to Tallaght is very slow and once you get past Heuston passenger numbers drop substantially. The Rathfarnham luas would be equally slow if not slower; just imagine all the traffic intersections and the limitations imposed by running through established residential streets like Brighton Road. This is a non-runner in my opinion.

The only way to do this properly is underground.
There was a plan to have a metro line to Tallaght via Kimmage in the DTO´ Platform for Change. But it has proven hard enough to get metro North off the ground, no pun intended, in the context of it serving two universities, a city centre and an airport. Some serious new planning would be needed to justify a metro that would extend past existing areas to serve a new high density area past Rathfarnham. That might entail building on the mountain. But the conservationists will be angry so the project will stall. What will happen is that when metro North is finally up and running people will suddenly realise that what we need is more metro lines, not luas lines. No doubt new metro lines will be built, and I hope this Rathfarnham line is one of them. A luas would be a costly white elephant with little advantage over a bus due to lack of segregation. Metro is the only way to go.

murphaph

The Tallaght Luas is painfully slow BUT only from James's in to Connolly and back. The stretch from James's to Tallaght is actually pretty fast as it is mostly off street apart from the short stretch from Black Horse Inn (Davitt Road) to Bluebell (however this bit runs in the middle of the road and is not affected by conflicting traffic movements so effectively it is segregated).

When the Luas is re-routed through the Red Cow Interchange and can run without stopping it will speed it up even further. In my fantasy world they'd tunnel from Rialto under the city and link up with the Green line at Charlemont and future line to Finglas at Broadstone and metro North, creating a network closely resembling a decent metro. The on street bits should be kept to a minimum IMO-Dublin just isn't suitable for trams as the blocks are too small and the trams never get a decent run before a set of lights. Surface running is fine (and indeed better in many instances) out in the 'burbs.

KC61

This report really is reinforcing my own belief from the start that an "on-street" LUAS for the central south Dublin area is a non-runner, and politicians such as Ms. Mitchell need to get real here.

There is not a single route through this area that is capable of maintaining two bus lanes and two traffic lanes for its entirety, so how could it maintain a LUAS line?

The sheer amount of private property that would have to be purchased is excessive and really could not justify this.

IF this is ever going to be served by rail, it would need to be a METRO or off-street alignment, and there's no space for that anywhere that I'm aware of.

Victor

I got a copy of the letter through the door today.

It says 121 of the about 150 houses that they want to take gardens from are in the Rathfarnham-Dundrum section and that 10 properties would need to be acquired outright (code for demolished). That leaves about 30 houses on the Rathfarnham-Clanbrassil Street section. Given the scope for improvement on Terenure Road North alone, I think the scheme is under ambitious.*

About Christchurch, I think the solution is to go under the hill, not over it.


* Look at the amount of demolition that went into widening Christchurch-Clanbrassil Street.

aliveandkicking

Cut and cover?

KC61

Victor wrote: »

Look at the amount of demolition that went into widening Christchurch-Clanbrassil Street.

Do we really want to go through something like that again?

I really still believe that with more buses (double) on the core route (16/16A) that this area can be served by a decent public transport.

Victor

KC61 wrote: »

Do we really want to go through something like that again?

It wouldn't be a 1970s job. Selective removal of end of terrace houses on cross streets and the some commercial units north of Terenure would sort it. There are lots of over-sized gardens and commercial sites.

I had a look at some maps last night, building a proper QBC would probably be a better solution, although it would need the same property acquisition. Flip side is no need to install tram equipment and there would be route flexibility on the suburban end.