Luas Line E (Christchurch Rathfarnham Dundrum)

markpb

Victor wrote: »

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.

The downside is the political element. Politicians aren't going to spend money on a bus lane, not the kind of serious money needed to build a decent one. Even if they did, every whinger in the country would complain that it was money wasted, it should be trains because they're better, quieter, cleaner, etc.

Victor

I'm not sure, but I think the report is there to say "Its not going to break even, we're going to long finger it. But fair enough, if they want to spend the money then do. Spending more money at the start might improve journey times and profitability.

The advantage of bus lanes would be that it comes from the NRA budget. :pac:

KC61

Victor wrote: »

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.

I'd also add that the cost in property would be far greater for those 121 houses that would have gardens removed than any of the other routes prior to this!

The residences of Terenure-Rathfarnham (especially along Rathfarnham Road) are not exactly small or cheaply priced and this stopped SDCC from putting a full INBOUND (let alone in both directions) QBC along Rathfarnham Road between Rathfarnham and the Dodder bridge!

While it would appear to be mainly gardens that are being discussed, they wouldn't come cheap!

murphaph

KC61 wrote: »

While it would appear to be mainly gardens that are being discussed, they wouldn't come cheap!

and this is irritating for the majority-a handful of property owners would get a double windfall-lose a few feet of garden for a lot of money and then gain a fancy tram right outside your door!

However....we live in a country with strong property ownership rights and we respect one's right to their land. Build this damn thing underground.

Munich still builds U-Bahn extensions using cut and cover tunnels following city streets. I wonder might this corridor be a candidate for this given the relatively straight alignment of the roads. Building a Luas means diverting all the utilities anyway as they cannot be built over-remember how slowly Luas was built in the city as nothing appeared to happen for months on end while they were diverting utilities then when they started laying the foundations it all started to move much quicker.

Would the disruption to traffic really be that much worse for cut and cover tunneling over a tram given the above? I believe there would be fairly significant disruption for either but the long term benefits for th tunnel are obvious.

paulm17781

murphaph wrote: »

Would the disruption to traffic really be that much worse for cut and cover tunneling over a tram given the above? I believe there would be fairly significant disruption for either but the long term benefits for th tunnel are obvious.

I don't think the disruption would be much but I think it would be a major task. The water table is quite high in that part of the city, especially when the tide is in. I don't know the level of the work involved but I would think it would be a major job to keep the water out.

I know this is not an issue as such but I'm just assuming if it is being touted as a Luas line, I don't see it being upgraded to metro.

Victor

paulm17781 wrote: »

especially when the tide is in.

Erm, the alignment is well above the Liffey, Poddle (not so much) and Dodder. Do you mean the tide on the Grand Canal?

paulm17781

Victor wrote: »

Erm, the alignment is well above the Liffey, Poddle (not so much) and Dodder. Do you mean the tide on the Grand Canal?

No, I mean if it goes underground. The water goes to atleast 10ft below ground quite frequently, I can't say for how far. If this were to be put underground I think there would be a chance of this happening.

steve-o

Victor wrote: »

Erm, the alignment is well above the Liffey, Poddle (not so much) and Dodder. Do you mean the tide on the Grand Canal?

It's global warming. Haven't you heard that we'll have beachside properties in Rathfarnham village in 10 years time?

DWCommuter

steve-o wrote: »

It's global warming. Haven't you heard that we'll have beachside properties in Rathfarnham village in 10 years time?

Nah. Only caravans. The property market is shagged.:D

Victor

Map of northern section of route. http://localhostr.com/files/ea159a/harolds+cross-terenure2.jpg (click on image for enlargement).

I think more can be fitted in than the RPA have been suggested

Red - building that could be acquired for the project.
Green - site that could be acquired for the project.
Yellow - other buildings
White - other sites
Blue - water bodies

Victor

Oops, I put the last post in the wrong thread.

spacetweek

There's a comment made about how the Luas through this corridor would displace buses from their buslanes. Couldn't we have shared running? There aren't enough buses entering the lanes that it would slow the Luas down.

Victor

Luas would take all the customers away from the buses.

Ones thing struck me. Relatively inexpensively, they could extend the green line from Dundrum (unfortunately not Dundrum stop) west towards Rathfarnham, avoiding the complication of going though Terenure and Harolds Cross, but gaining a lot of customers.

It would however be reliant on longer trams to maintain capacity from Dundrum to St. Stephen's Green.

KC61

Victor wrote: »

Luas would take all the customers away from the buses.

Ones thing struck me. Relatively inexpensively, they could extend the green line from Dundrum (unfortunately not Dundrum stop) west towards Rathfarnham, avoiding the complication of going though Terenure and Harolds Cross, but gaining a lot of customers.

It would however be reliant on longer trams to maintain capacity from Dundrum to St. Stephen's Green.

Victor, with the increases in Green line passengers that the extensions to Cherrywood and Bray will bring, how would you manage to fit the numbers from a Rathfarnham spur onto the Green line? With these extensions the line is going to be operating at near capacity both in pax numbers and tram numbers!

The idea of on-street LUAS to Rathfarnham is just not going to work. The two existing lines (with the exception of their routing in the city centre) are off-street in the main and that delivers reliability. That cannot be guaranteed by the proposal through Terenure.

The sheer volume (and cost) of property that would require a CPO, the enormous disruption that the construction would cause (far more than either of the two other lines) as it is along a core bus and traffic route into/out of town for its entirety (that cannot, except north of Harolds X maintain two lanes of car traffic and two lanes of bus/tram traffic) and the lack of any guarantee of reliable journey times once built mean that it is doomed from the start.

I cannot see that volume of property acquisition ever being a runner Victor on the map you've linked in. You've got most of the retail part of the west side of Terenure Road North down for acquisition, along with the removal of virtually every front garden along the route! That to my mind is not realistic, and you cannot expect people to accept that. The sheer cost alone would be horrific, and I would have to query whether that much demolition is desirable? While I am a passionate advocate of public transport, I think that this is just going too far. I would imagine, on further reflection, that the legal actions that would ensue would cause any such plan to be derailed for years.

As Murphaph says, the only viable option here is underground. Otherwise, based on the existing proposal, we would be building a monolith that will be the greatest transport white elephant this city has ever seen.

Victor

I see you point in that people would object, however the current situation is also objectionable. The northwest corner of Terenure is dominated by derelict sites, surface carparking, a car dealership and single storey buildings - now the best land uses for the location.

Sure, joining it to the green line would have its problems, butlonger trams and connecting it to Metro North is the solution there. Dundrum-Nutgrove can be done with no demolition, although property acquition would ease things.

spacetweek

Victor wrote: »

I see you point in that people would object, however the current situation is also objectionable. The northwest corner of Terenure is dominated by derelict sites, surface carparking, a car dealership and single storey buildings - now the best land uses for the location.

Sure, joining it to the green line would have its problems, butlonger trams and connecting it to Metro North is the solution there. Dundrum-Nutgrove can be done with no demolition, although property acquition would ease things.

Maybe if the Rathfarnham line only ran Dundrum - Future Metro West Tallaght to Ranelagh line? Most of that route is 4 lanes. North of there, the Rathfarnham line would start having major difficulties with tight spaces.

KC61

Victor wrote: »

I see you point in that people would object, however the current situation is also objectionable. The northwest corner of Terenure is dominated by derelict sites, surface carparking, a car dealership and single storey buildings - now the best land uses for the location.

Sure, joining it to the green line would have its problems, butlonger trams and connecting it to Metro North is the solution there. Dundrum-Nutgrove can be done with no demolition, although property acquition would ease things.

There are some derelict buildings, true, (some of which have planning permission granted for develpment), but not in the village itself, where you've highlighted all of the retail parts of Terenure Village (west side of Terenure Road North) for acquisition and demolition! The problem is not just in Terenure village, but quite simply the amount of property along the entire route that would need to be acquired to transform the route into a four-lane road. That to me is a price too far, along with every house on the route losing its front garden.

I'm not trying to be negative here Victor, but this idea truly is a non-runner. The route from Nutgrove to Christchurch cannot deliver regular predictable (and fast) journey times into the city, and would have at least twenty sets of traffic lights to pass through en route, plus potential traffic hazards along the entire route. That is frankly a nonsense.

The chaos that would be caused in its construction, with more than likely much of the route having to be closed (at least in one direction) would be catastrophic.

I have to disagree with you regarding the green line capacity. The Green line is going to be near capacity as it is with tram extensions after the current planned extensions to Cherrywood and Bray take place - there will be no more room to fit the extra thousands of people from Rathfarnham onto it.

Logic determines that a metro is the only way to go - it can deliver rapid, and more importantly, predictable transit times, together with delivering high capacity and is a long term solution rather than an on-street white elephant.

strassenwolf

KC61 wrote:

Logic determines that a metro is the only way to go - it can deliver rapid, and more importantly, predictable transit times, together with delivering high capacity and is a long term solution rather than an on-street white elephant.

In this context, it is useful to remember that Dublin City has a higher density than cities like Munich, where there is a developed underground system.

The densities of many areas through which such a metro line would pass are quite respectable, and similar to suburbs in cities like Munich which are served by underground rail.

I think, however, it would be sensible to see this idea as one which would eventually combine two lines. One, for example, between the city and Rathfarnham via (perhaps) Rathmines, Rathgar and Terenure. And the other which would run, for example, between the city and Walkinstown via Harold's Cross and Crumlin.

These two lines could share tunnel in the most central areas (i.e. within the canal). Making good use of the most expensive parts of tunnel.

There are plenty of places with a respectable density along such routes and it might be possible (particularly on the second of the above lines) to have quite lengthy overground sections.

Unfortunately, in Ireland, the focus is often on lines which are easy to build but do not run through high density areas.

The LUAS to the Point, the Cherrywood extension of the LUAS, the Bray extension of the LUAS and the Citywest extension of the LUAS - in other words the only projects currently happening - illustrate this perfectly. Not forgetting, of course, the current focus on the absurd metro west. (Come to think of it, is that expected to make money?:mad:)

KC61

strassenwolf wrote: »

In this context, it is useful to remember that Dublin City has a higher density than cities like Munich, where there is a developed underground system.

The densities of many areas through which such a metro line would pass are quite respectable, and similar to suburbs in cities like Munich which are served by underground rail.

I think, however, it would be sensible to see this idea as one which would eventually combine two lines. One, for example, between the city and Rathfarnham via (perhaps) Rathmines, Rathgar and Terenure. And the other which would run, for example, between the city and Walkinstown via Harold's Cross and Crumlin.

These two lines could share tunnel in the most central areas (i.e. within the canal). Making good use of the most expensive parts of tunnel.

There are plenty of places with a respectable density along such routes and it might be possible (particularly on the second of the above lines) to have quite lengthy overground sections.

Unfortunately, in Ireland, the focus is often on lines which are easy to build but do not run through high density areas.

The LUAS to the Point, the Cherrywood extension of the LUAS, the Bray extension of the LUAS and the Citywest extension of the LUAS - in other words the only projects currently happening - illustrate this perfectly. Not forgetting, of course, the current focus on the absurd metro west. (Come to think of it, is that expected to make money?:mad:)

Well put Strassenwolf!

Colm R

Can't agree more. There is a ridiculous focus on bringing quick delivery of easily build projects. Smacks of photo ops and patting on the back without actually delivering anything substantive and benificial.

The Luas extension to Bray may be warranted, but I'm afraid priorites have to be made.

Now for Rathfarnam. Lets be honest, its not going to work is it! The only option would be a priortised bus route. And no I'm not talking about slapping down about a bit of white paint in broken up segments. I'm talking about making the road a real on street bus way.

But what could we do with all the cars?

donvito99

I got a feasibility letter from the rpa about this new luas line and they declared that it wouldnt be feasible, cos they would have to take out the rathfarnham qbc in harolds x. would the lana tram not give busses some extra space?

and the route would probably be better off going from high street(connection with dart interconnecter) to tallaght, therefore availing of the red line,and metro west.

monument

There was a thread about this before (a few months back I think).

As for being feasible or not, I have to wonder if they are using the same kind of modelling for predicting passenger numbers as was used for the red and green lines.

Because that modelling was great. :rolleyes: :pac:

markjbloggs

Any updates on Luas Line E over the summer .... er, recently?

KC61

markjbloggs wrote: »

Any updates on Luas Line E over the summer .... er, recently?

None, and if there's any common sense left in DoT (although I am sceptical about that more and more), there won't be another word spoken about this nonsense.

markjbloggs

I heard some rumours about a public meeting to discuss Luas Line E tonight but could find no details - can anyone shed some light or was I being misled?

Zebra3

KC61 wrote: »

None, and if there's any common sense left in DoT (although I am sceptical about that more and more), there won't be another word spoken about this nonsense.

Don't worry, there's some (better late than never) in the Department of Finance.

Propellerhead

KC61 wrote: »

None, and if there's any common sense left in DoT (although I am sceptical about that more and more), there won't be another word spoken about this nonsense.

Because the bus service from Rathfarnham is so wonderful? I spent quite a few nights in Rathfarnham up to February of this year and it took over an hour to get into town. If Luas isn't a runner then radical solutions that may involve Luas-like restrictions on traffic will be necessary to make the bus service work in a section of the city that is notorious for gridlock. I pity anyone in particular who is dependent on the 74's to get to and from work.

GreeBo

Propellerhead wrote: »

Because the bus service from Rathfarnham is so wonderful? I spent quite a few nights in Rathfarnham up to February of this year and it took over an hour to get into town. If Luas isn't a runner then radical solutions that may involve Luas-like restrictions on traffic will be necessary to make the bus service work in a section of the city that is notorious for gridlock. I pity anyone in particular who is dependent on the 74's to get to and from work.

Commuting from the Rathfarnham/Firhouse/Knocklyon area is stupidly hard.
Take the 15's for example. Bus lane is on again off again and then you get to spend a good few pages of the Metro trying to cross through Terenure village.
Those 2 roads are too narrow to take proper traffic and should both be made 1 way in my opinion.

KC61

Propellerhead wrote: »

Because the bus service from Rathfarnham is so wonderful? I spent quite a few nights in Rathfarnham up to February of this year and it took over an hour to get into town. If Luas isn't a runner then radical solutions that may involve Luas-like restrictions on traffic will be necessary to make the bus service work in a section of the city that is notorious for gridlock. I pity anyone in particular who is dependent on the 74's to get to and from work.

Not because of the bus service (although it depends on where you're coming from - most parts of Templeogue/Knocklyon now have a very good bus service), but refer to the various posts that I have made in this thread already.

Simply put:

• As the planned route is completely on street and due to the large number of junctions en route and lack of road width (there are many pinch points where you cannot fit 2 lanes of traffic and 2 bus lanes), operational reliability could not be guaranteed unlike the other two routes. Consequently the amount of time saved by operating a LUAS over the existing bus service is not going to be substantial.
• The amount of property that would have to be acquired to build this is boarding on the ludicrous (virtually every front garden south of Terenure) and would be extraordinarily expensive.
• The disruption to traffic during construction would be phenomenal - none of the parallel routes have very much spare capacity for additional traffic and are completely clogged up already.

What I am saying is that if Government want a rail based solution for the south central area of Dublin, then it should be looking at a Metro, and not a LUAS that really causes more problems than it solves. It is a half-baked plan that is pandering to the notion that just because it is based on rails that it will solve all the problems!

Some radical thinking regarding traffic is needed due to the numerous pinch-points on both the Templeogue and Rathfarnham QBC routes (and I use the term QBC advisedly), as that is what cripples the bus service. The level of bus frequency is excellent on the Templeogue route, having been upgraded last year, but the buses can take forever to get through Terenure and Rathmines. The 16/16A need extra buses, but again suffer from congestion en route.

Giblet

The 17 is the only bus that services Rathfarnham to Dundrum, and it is one of the most unreliable buses I have ever encountered. Surely there is a demand for a link up from Rathfarnham to the green line Luas? Don't even get me started about Rathfarnham to Sandyford. If the 16 was extended an extra 2km past Kingston Drive, along College Park Way towards Sandyford, it would be a reliable way to get from the northside to the Sandyford industrial estate (and through Rathfarnham). That route is long enough at this stage thoiugh.

Tabnabs

The Hitcher wrote: »

The 17 is the only bus that services Rathfarnham to Dundrum.

Nope, 75 does this run too.

KC61

The Hitcher wrote: »

The 17 is the only bus that services Rathfarnham to Dundrum, and it is one of the most unreliable buses I have ever encountered. Surely there is a demand for a link up from Rathfarnham to the green line Luas? Don't even get me started about Rathfarnham to Sandyford. If the 16 was extended an extra 2km past Kingston Drive, along College Park Way towards Sandyford, it would be a reliable way to get from the northside to the Sandyford industrial estate (and through Rathfarnham). That route is long enough at this stage thoiugh.

The 75 links both Rathfarnham & Dundrum and also Rathfarnham & Sandyford Industrial Estate (in peak hours), and since its new timetable was introduced some months back has become far more reliable, and indeed more frequent.

I'd have to disagree with you on the 17. It is a route that, outside of the morning peak, you do need to check the timetable before going to catch it, given it is not that frequent. However, in saying that I'd have to say that it does generally show up in Terenure heading east between 15 and 20 minutes after leaving Rialto (as per the timetable) based on my observations.

Buses on the 17 can get caught in serious traffic congestion either on Terenure Road West in the morning peak heading east, and similarly on the Upper Churchtown Road, while the Dundrum Road can be a serious bottleneck heading west in the evening. This can cause some disruption, but the 17 is not (by and large) a route that suffers from the problem of departures being missed as it has a realistic running time from one terminus to the other.

The 16 is indeed long enough as it is without any more extensions - what is needed here is for a rebalancing of departures at the southern end between the 16 and 16A so there are more buses to/from Ballinteer and Kingston than to and from Nutgrove.

Giblet

Where does the 75 leave from at 1725 when it goes through Sandyford? Does it leave from Sandyford Industrial Estate or divert from there from somewhere else? Trying to time it at the moment. Not the most reliable bus either, and useless for getting the Green Luas

KC61

The Hitcher wrote: »

Where does the 75 leave from at 1725 when it goes through Sandyford? Does it leave from Sandyford Industrial Estate or divert from there from somewhere else? Trying to time it at the moment. Not the most reliable bus either, and useless for getting the Green Luas

The times are from Dun Laoghaire Station.

In the evening peak hour westbound 75 departures should be in Sandyford Industrial Estate about 25-30 minutes later than the departure times shown in the timetable, which are all from Dun Laoghaire Station.

So there should be buses travelling west through the Estate between 1655/1700, 1750/1755, and 1815/1820. But again, they can get held in traffic in the Estate.

Going east in the morning peak, the 75 usually passes Rathfarnham Church about 20/25 minutes after leaving Tallaght, while the 17 takes 20/30 minutes from Rialto depending on the time of departure and the traffic en route.

donvito99

Cllr. Edie something is doing a public meeting somewhere in the raathmines rathgar area in response to markjbloggs.

markjbloggs

donvito99 wrote: »

Cllr. Edie something is doing a public meeting somewhere in the raathmines rathgar area in response to markjbloggs.

Thank you, DonVito.

Victor

markjbloggs wrote: »

I heard some rumours about a public meeting to discuss Luas Line E tonight but could find no details - can anyone shed some light or was I being misled?

It was organised by fine Gael in the CYM(?) hall in Terenure. You might ask them if they are running another.

markjbloggs

Yesterdays Sunday Indo reported major cuts to Transport 21, including the Luas link-up and Metro North, as part of the budget cuts. Anyone know the implications for Luas Line E - I would assume that since the higher priority projects are sidelined, that Luas E is dead in the water.

But, of course, this is Ireland and what do I know.....

KC61

markjbloggs wrote: »

Yesterdays Sunday Indo reported major cuts to Transport 21, including the Luas link-up and Metro North, as part of the budget cuts. Anyone know the implications for Luas Line E - I would assume that since the higher priority projects are sidelined, that Luas E is dead in the water.

But, of course, this is Ireland and what do I know.....

This line was dead well before now.

As stated umpteen times above, the benefits are negligible given that it would be entirely on-street, and in numerous locations would have to join general traffic, would have tonnes of traffic lights to work through, and at the end of the day would be at an horrific cost in terms of property acquisition.

I'll say it again - if a rail based solution were to be constructed for the South Central part of Dublin, it ought to be a metro where tangible benefits could be delivered.

As it is LUAS line E would be no faster than the existing bus services.