DART+ (DART Expansion)

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

The on-ground transportation in Dublin is going to suffer more and more thanks to the Luas especially, and the increased economic activity in the city centre.

This is isn’t true — car priority is going to suffer but ground transport, in terms of bus and trams are going to be able carry more people.

marno21

monument wrote: »

This is isn’t true — car priority is going to suffer but ground transport, in terms of bus and trams are going to be able carry more people.

Yes, but in the case of trams especially, the drivers of the cars are affected as only a small portion of the drivers will benefit from the new Luas opening.

Needs more than the BXD carrot to encourage these drivers off the roads. No point in a stick without an alternative.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

This is isn’t true — car priority is going to suffer but ground transport, in terms of bus and trams are going to be able carry more people.

I highly doubt that, regarding buses. Until I can take a tram to Coolock, Crumlin, Templeogue etc., there will be lots of bus transport used to go from the city centre to the suburbs. I do get that if private cars could be completely banned then it would give buses more on the remaining road space, but increasingly I see large numbers of taxis and it would take a brave politician to finally clamp down on taxis using any bus lane.

MJohnston

They should though, bus lanes should be reserved for buses or occupied large capacity taxis. This needs to happen sooner rather than later, and it was a massive shame when they backed down on banning taxis from College Green with the plaza plan.

LXFlyer

monument wrote: »

This is isn’t true — car priority is going to suffer but ground transport, in terms of bus and trams are going to be able carry more people.

Whatever about capacity, from my observations, bus journeys in south Dublin are taking longer as a result of traffic diverting away from the Quays.

Journey times are getting longer than I have ever noticed before at peak times, and with little scope for road widening (despite what the NTA claim about continuous bus lanes in their plans), I don't see how they're going to improve.

monument

lucernarian wrote: »

I highly doubt that, regarding buses. Until I can take a tram to Coolock, Crumlin, Templeogue etc., there will be lots of bus transport used to go from the city centre to the suburbs. I do get that if private cars could be completely banned then it would give buses more on the remaining road space, but increasingly I see large numbers of taxis and it would take a brave politician to finally clamp down on taxis using any bus lane.

I said buses too.

The taxi argument might hold some water but not half as much as people seem to think.

LXFlyer wrote: »

Whatever about capacity, from my observations, bus journeys in south Dublin are taking longer as a result of traffic diverting away from the Quays.

Journey times are getting longer than I have ever noticed before at peak times, and with little scope for road widening (despite what the NTA claim about continuous bus lanes in their plans), I don't see how they're going to improve.

Little scope for road widening but still ton of scope for relocation of priority (relocation of existing space and time).

There’s a few points on capacity vs speed — there’s a lot more to do, capacity is overall more important, and speed is relative, and you have to look at the whole network, and not just some routes.

There’s no mistake that these are big changes and such will make some ripples which will need to settle down and the leftover issues fixed.

marno21 wrote: »

Yes, but in the case of trams especially, the drivers of the cars are affected as only a small portion of the drivers will benefit from the new Luas opening.

Needs more than the BXD carrot to encourage these drivers off the roads. No point in a stick without an alternative.

More buses on the way, priority on the quays for existing buses, the Phoenix Park Tunnel now in use, hopefully sometime soon 10 minute Darts etc

LXFlyer

monument wrote: »

I said buses too.

The taxi argument might hold some water but not half as much as people seem to think.

Little scope for road widening but still ton of scope for relocation of priority (relocation of existing space and time).

There’s a few points on capacity vs speed — there’s a lot more to do, capacity is overall more important, and speed is relative, and you have to look at the whole network, and not just some routes.

There’s no mistake that these are big changes and such will make some ripples which will need to settle down and the leftover issues fixed.

More buses on the way, priority on the quays for existing buses, the Phoenix Park Tunnel now in use, hopefully sometime soon 10 minute Darts etc

Not so sure I share your confidence Monument especially in the central south part of the city - most roads simply aren't wide enough for more than three lanes which means there are limits to what priority can be and the notion of CPOing everything in sight is frankly fantasy.

Speed is relative, but with respect Monument if virtually every route in the south central section of the city is now taking longer, with little scope for additional priority, then we have a big problem.

Btw if anyone on this board needed to be told to look at the entire network, I think to be fair I'm not that person!!! ;-)

While the Quays undoubtedly have improved and I very much welcome that, we are now facing a situation where the delays have now shifted further out from the city onto roads where it's going to be much more difficult to implement additional priority.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

I said buses too.

The taxi argument might hold some water but not half as much as people seem to think.

The reasons you've given so far in thinking that bus capacity will improve, haven't convinced me at all. The only avenue I saw was doing something about throngs of taxis, and if that won't do much then I don't see alternatives to creating more space for buses on streets, even by a blanket ban on private motorists. I'm aware you said buses, I'm able to read that for myself, but we have already seen the impact on Dublin Bus since the works began in earnest.

Dublin Bus have had to allocate new drivers and vehicles to routes like the 46A so that the existing frequency of buses could be maintained. Not only does it show that running times increased directly because of Luas BXD and in spite of mitigating actions, but that there is an opportunity cost for improving other kinds of route (orbital) etc as the core bus routes are fundamental revenue generators and pax carriers and need to be supported instead.

antoinolachtnai

Speed and capacity are directly linked. 10 percent more speed will increase capacity by 10 percent, and opposite is true too.

The best way to fix the bus problem it seems to me is to reconfigure cross city bus routes so that each route crosses the Luas in only one place.

Ultimately we are running out of road space. There are only a limited number of north-south lanes and BXD has reduced this number considerably.

MJohnston

I think the new BusConnects network review might lean in favour of utilising the Luas network to distribute passengers cross city, rather than attempting to have the buses themselves make that trip. Ultimately I think that's one of the only workable solutions to congestion heading towards the city centre. Simplified ticketing will obviously need to be part of this.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I think the new BusConnects network review might lean in favour of utilising the Luas network to distribute passengers cross city, rather than attempting to have the buses themselves make that trip. Ultimately I think that's one of the only workable solutions to congestion heading towards the city centre. Simplified ticketing will obviously need to be part of this.

There isn't a snowball's chance of LUAS being able to do that. The Red Line is at crush loadings at peak times in the city centre already, and the Green Line is too.

The cross-city bus network is integral to keeping the city moving and until we get a high capacity rail service in the form of Metro North and DART Underground that isn't going to change.

People are kidding themselves if they think otherwise.

DART Underground is the key to this as it provides an effective mass transit solution from west Dublin through the city.

monument

LXFlyer wrote: »

Not so sure I share your confidence Monument especially in the central south part of the city - most roads simply aren't wide enough for more than three lanes which means there are limits to what priority can be and the notion of CPOing everything in sight is frankly fantasy.

Speed is relative, but with respect Monument if virtually every route in the south central section of the city is now taking longer, with little scope for additional priority, then we have a big problem.

There's still scope for more continuous bus lanes in a good few places without CPO and, as I've mentioned in other threads, there needs to be a greater use of bus gates too.

There's also traffic light priority if they ever feel like getting around to that.

And there's a few larger projects like Harold's Cross Bridge -- a few options there including widening the bridge or putting walking and cycling on seprate bridges at least in one direction

LXFlyer wrote: »

While the Quays undoubtedly have improved and I very much welcome that, we are now facing a situation where the delays have now shifted further out from the city onto roads where it's going to be much more difficult to implement additional priority.

With Luas coming in, things are likely to get worse than they get better. Before more priority measures are put in, but also before motorists get fed up and switch... it always takes time for things to bed down and it'll take time too before the council etc gather information on bus delays and react.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Speed and capacity are directly linked. 10 percent more speed will increase capacity by 10 percent, and opposite is true too.

The best way to fix the bus problem it seems to me is to reconfigure cross city bus routes so that each route crosses the Luas in only one place.

Ultimately we are running out of road space. There are only a limited number of north-south lanes and BXD has reduced this number considerably.

I might have went too far with the speed and capacity thing, but Dublin isn't near out of road space.

The bus reconfiguration, as already suggested by the the NTA process, will also likely try to untangle bus routes so they are not all funneled down the same routes in the city centre, as much as possable at least.

MJohnston wrote: »

I think the new BusConnects network review might lean in favour of utilising the Luas network to distribute passengers cross city, rather than attempting to have the buses themselves make that trip. Ultimately I think that's one of the only workable solutions to congestion heading towards the city centre. Simplified ticketing will obviously need to be part of this.

You have probably seen or read about this happening elsewhere but those are usually smaller cities without cross-city bus routes carrying anywhere near as many people as Dublin Bus does.

lucernarian wrote: »

The reasons you've given so far in thinking that bus capacity will improve, haven't convinced me at all. The only avenue I saw was doing something about throngs of taxis, and if that won't do much then I don't see alternatives to creating more space for buses on streets, even by a blanket ban on private motorists. I'm aware you said buses, I'm able to read that for myself, but we have already seen the impact on Dublin Bus since the works began in earnest.

While there has not been many major bus lane construction in the last say 10 year, bus priority has been slowly added and the space taken from cars shows with the corresponding decrease in numbers of motorists entering the city and increase people moving by sustainable modes.

lucernarian wrote: »

Dublin Bus have had to allocate new drivers and vehicles to routes like the 46A so that the existing frequency of buses could be maintained. Not only does it show that running times increased directly because of Luas BXD and in spite of mitigating actions, but that there is an opportunity cost for improving other kinds of route (orbital) etc as the core bus routes are fundamental revenue generators and pax carriers and need to be supported instead.

At the different times I lived and traveled along the last 3km of the 46A, the route was always close to grid lock, especially at the height of the boom. With or without the quays changes, it was only a matter of time that the traffic on the NCR got as bad as it used to be.

And it's not in spite of mitigating actions, as there's no mitigating actions that I know of covering the NCR.

lucernarian

There's far more to the 46A route than the NCR? What about Parnell Square? O'Connell Street? Dawson Street?

LXFlyer

lucernarian wrote: »

There's far more to the 46A route than the NCR? What about Parnell Square? O'Connell Street? Dawson Street?

Some of the pressure should come off the 46a when the route changes happen on Sunday 1st October - but you are right, many routes have had to have their Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) increased just to maintain the existing schedules despite mitigating measures.

The opportunity cost of this has been that scope for expanding schedules during the LUAS construction period has been very limited.

The changes on the Quays will improve some routes, especially those from the Navan and Lucan Roads, but others are now suffering - especially anything serving the SCR or Rathmines which are encountering the increased congestion in those areas as traffic shifts around.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Some of the pressure should come off the 46a when the route changes happen on Sunday 1st October - but you are right, many routes have had to have their Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) increased just to maintain the existing schedules despite mitigating measures.

The opportunity cost of this has been that scope for expanding schedules during the LUAS construction period has been very limited.

The changes on the Quays will improve some routes, especially those from the Navan and Lucan Roads, but others are now suffering - especially anything serving the SCR or Rathmines which are encountering the increased congestion in those areas as traffic shifts around.

The Luas Xcity is not taking passengers yet. Maybe when the trams are full, maybe things will ease.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Luas Xcity is not taking passengers yet. Maybe when the trams are full, maybe things will ease.

I'm not convinced by that at all - I am more than ever of the opinion that DART Underground is needed and asap.

antoinolachtnai

It doesn’t really open public transport options for that large a proportion of the population. The modal shift won’t be that big. It’ll mainly be a shift from bus to Luas.

I think Luas passengers will go further afield over time and make more journeys on the system. The extension will be a massive success in terms of passenger numbers but won’t do much positive in and of itself for congestion. I just can’t see much migration from car to Luas.

The central roads in the city centre certainly do saturate at the peak times. The quays are like a giant traffic-lit roundabout. All the roads feed into this roundabout. You might find some spare space on some of the spokes off the roundabout but the roundabout’s capacity is fundamentally constrained. Dedicated tram lanes, will make things worse on the whole, not better.

marno21

Deedsie wrote: »

The luas cross city will hopefully discourage people from driving into the city centre. They may move to the bus or cycle to avoid the increased traffic congestion.

Will they ****

If the bus wasn't good enough before why would it be good enough now?

Sam Russell

Deedsie wrote: »

Even further dealys getting to work. More expense. DCC have finally prioritised Public and active transport on the quays to facilitate the luas project and improve the bus network. More buses coming, more efficiency. Why wouldnt at least some of them change?

It's the access to all day parking that is the element that encourages cars to be brought into the city centre. Park and rides outside the canals would help. Also public servants having to pay for their parking slots might help as well.

Making the Arnott's and other such car parks remaining closed till after 10 am might also help.

donvito99

Seeing as DU seems to be very much on the back burner for cost reasons above all else, forgive me a few questions;

- Why the station at Christchurch? Is DU not about connecting the existing infrastructure and allowing people to get into the city and/or change onto another mode quickly and easily? Why try to do what metro/light rail does better?

- Why the SSG -> Pearse alignment? With Luas Green Line now reaching the O'CS/Tara Street area, why not dig a station box between O'Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge? Both future Dart lines, both Luas lines and a future Metro North are all right there, requiring just one change for all modes. That would truly be An Lár.

Now that all presumes that digging up rivers is easier/less costly than digging up SSG.

strassenwo!f

donvito99 wrote: »

Seeing as DU seems to be very much on the back burner for cost reasons above all else, forgive me a few questions;

Cost is certainly one of the reasons. But the earlier version of this proposed underground east-west rail route didn't have anything like the route proposed in the time after the LUAS was to be terminated at St. Stephen's Green. The earlier route was much straighter. Now that the LUAS penetrates much deeper into the city, the circuitous route via St. Stephen's Green becomes harder to justify.

donvito99 wrote: »

- Why the station at Christchurch? Is DU not about connecting the existing infrastructure and allowing people to get into the city and/or change onto another mode quickly and easily? Why try to do what metro/light rail does better?

I think the station at Christchurch makes a lot of sense, as a reasonably busy location somewhere about halfway between a station location on the St. Stephen's Green-Parnell Monument axis and the proposed station at Heuston. It would be a very long gap on the route without it.

While you are quite correct that one of the (two) objectives of the DART Underground project was to integrate all rail-based transport in the city, I think it is unlikely that Dublin is going to do that and then stop. It seems probable to me that the success of the initial metro and the DART Underground project, if they happen, will lead to calls for a similar level of service in other areas of the city. I have stated before on this board that it is thus likely that we will eventually see a second metro line in Dublin, and that this is where a Christchurch station could eventually play another role.

donvito99 wrote: »

- Why the SSG -> Pearse alignment? With Luas Green Line now reaching the O'CS/Tara Street area, why not dig a station box between O'Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge? Both future Dart lines, both Luas lines and a future Metro North are all right there, requiring just one change for all modes. That would truly be An Lár.

Now that all presumes that digging up rivers is easier/less costly than digging up SSG.

I doubt if it's easier, or less costly, to do that. St. Stephen's Green would be a relative doddle, and surely much cheaper, than trying to build a station under the river in the location you suggest.

But where St. Stephen's Green falls down is that it is a compromised location, beside a 22-acre park with no commuters, with another 8/9-acre park (The Iveagh Gardens) almost adjacent, also with no commuters. And getting to St. Stephen's Green would be a longer route, so there would be extra tunnelling expense. It would have very poor passenger uptake from one side of the line for much of the day, and almost none at weekends.

While your river suggestion would not be compromised by the passenger uptake problems of St. Stephen's Green, being right in the centre of the city and surrounded on all sides by potential passengers, it would be a much more difficult project.

donvito99

strassenwo!f wrote: »

donvito99 wrote: »

Seeing as DU seems to be very much on the back burner for cost reasons above all else, forgive me a few questions;

Cost is certainly one of the reasons. But the earlier version of this proposed underground east-west rail route didn't have anything like the route proposed in the time after the LUAS was to be terminated at St. Stephen's Green. The earlier route was much straighter. Now that the LUAS penetrates much deeper into the city, the circuitous route via St. Stephen's Green becomes harder to justify.

donvito99 wrote: »

- Why the station at Christchurch? Is DU not about connecting the existing infrastructure and allowing people to get into the city and/or change onto another mode quickly and easily? Why try to do what metro/light rail does better?

I think the station at Christchurch makes a lot of sense, as a reasonably busy location somewhere about halfway between a station location on the St. Stephen's Green-Parnell Monument axis and the proposed station at Heuston. It would be a very long gap on the route without it.

While you are quite correct that one of the (two) objectives of the DART Underground project was to integrate all rail-based transport in the city, I think it is unlikely that Dublin is going to do that and then stop. It seems probable to me that the success of the initial metro and the DART Underground project, if they happen, will lead to calls for a similar level of service in other areas of the city. I have stated before on this board that it is thus likely that we will eventually see a second metro line in Dublin, and that this is where a Christchurch station could eventually play another role.

donvito99 wrote: »

- Why the SSG -> Pearse alignment? With Luas Green Line now reaching the O'CS/Tara Street area, why not dig a station box between O'Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge? Both future Dart lines, both Luas lines and a future Metro North are all right there, requiring just one change for all modes. That would truly be An Lár.

Now that all presumes that digging up rivers is easier/less costly than digging up SSG.

I doubt if it's easier, or less costly, to do that. St. Stephen's Green would be a relative doddle, and surely much cheaper, than trying to build a station under the river in the location you suggest.

But where St. Stephen's Green falls down is that it is a compromised location, beside a 22-acre park with no commuters, with another 8/9-acre park (The Iveagh Gardens) almost adjacent, also with no commuters. And getting to St. Stephen's Green would be a longer route, so there would be extra tunnelling expense. It would have very poor passenger uptake from one side of the line for much of the day, and almost none at weekends.

While your river suggestion would not be compromised by the passenger uptake problems of St. Stephen's Green, being right in the centre of the city and surrounded on all sides by potential passengers, it would be a much more difficult project.

Looking at it to scale, a station is certainly justified at Christchurch based on distances between GCD, Pearse, Tara St etc.

It would be interesting if an evaluation of the original plan, similar to the infamous abridged version of MN, was conducted for DU.

It seems to me that DU is less about where it goes and more about what it links. A more direct route with one less station (Heuston - Christchurch - perhaps Hawkins St/Tara Street area - Docklands) may well come out not insignificantly cheaper. And cheaper may be what gets DUlite built with its central objectives satisfied.

strassenwo!f

From all the stuff I've read about DART Underground, there were two objectives for the project: to link up all the rail-based infrastructure in the city and to enable the DART system to increase its passenger throughput to up to and perhaps beyond 100 million passengers per year.

antoinolachtnai

The business case indicates that as designed DART Underground would bring 38 million people onto DART/suburban rail per year 15 years after completion. It would attract 36 million of these people from DART and Dublin Bus. It is unbelievable how far the project travelled with such weak justification.

The report summarises the transport modelling as follows:

"As would be expected, there is a substantial increase (of around 55%) in DART demand. Most of this is a result of mode shift from suburban rail, Luas and bus. There is also a small amount of public transport trip generation (around 1-1.5%)."

I think DU needed some significant reengineering to make it really work. The frequency of services needs to be a lot higher and to make this work, the line needs to have linkage with more heavily populated areas, i.e, with the western line, as well as or instead of the Northern Line.. The service also needs to overlap less with Luas, i.e., Christchurch station should be replaced with a station a lot further south.

Avada

Where further south would you have it go that would make it viable to continue to Heuston?

Money no object and crayons out, I'd have it spur off after SSG and go Rathmines, Terenure and Rathfarnham (but thats probably unrealistic).

antoinolachtnai

Difficult, but I'd say Liberties or St Patrick's Cathedral, meet the Luas at St James's and link with Heuston rail services on a platform under the west end of Heuston station.

Avada

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Difficult, but I'd say Liberties or St Patrick's Cathedral, meet the Luas at St James's and link with Heuston rail services on a platform under the west end of Heuston station.

Fair enough about St Patrick's, although I think it would be too tight to swing by James' (in my completely uneducated opinion).

Going away from Christchurch may solve some of the Archaeological problems which are bound to crop up.

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The business case indicates that as designed DART Underground would bring 38 million people onto DART/suburban rail per year 15 years after completion. It would attract 36 million of these people from DART and Dublin Bus. It is unbelievable how far the project travelled with such weak justification.

The report summarises the transport modelling as follows:

"As would be expected, there is a substantial increase (of around 55%) in DART demand. Most of this is a result of mode shift from suburban rail, Luas and bus. There is also a small amount of public transport trip generation (around 1-1.5%)."

I think DU needed some significant reengineering to make it really work. The frequency of services needs to be a lot higher and to make this work, the line needs to have linkage with more heavily populated areas, i.e, with the western line, as well as or instead of the Northern Line.. The service also needs to overlap less with Luas, i.e., Christchurch station should be replaced with a station a lot further south.

I don't know what extra "linkage" you could envisage, short of relocating the existing rail network.

But the 1.5% figure seems quite pessimistic. The frequency of trains would be doubled compared to now, closer to 6x the amount on the Western Commuter line. The commuter services towards Newbridge would serve areas poorly served by Dublin bus or not served by them at all. Is there a chance they also took modal share for hypothetical luas lines into account? Ones that would be expected to open at the time of the Dart Underground, like the Lucan luas?

BonnieSituation

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't know what extra "linkage" you could envisage, short of relocating the existing rail network.

But the 1.5% figure seems quite pessimistic. The frequency of trains would be doubled compared to now, closer to 6x the amount on the Western Commuter line. The commuter services towards Newbridge would serve areas poorly served by Dublin bus or not served by them at all. Is there a chance they also took modal share for hypothetical luas lines into account? Ones that would be expected to open at the time of the Dart Underground, like the Lucan luas?

The second they open Kishoge you'd see a pretty large jump to the train from my part of Lucan.

Once DU happens you'll see a monstrous jump.


Those stats above, Pessimistic is one word alright.

LXFlyer

High frequency rail and large P & R facilities could encourage reasonably large numbers of car users - that doesn't seem to be in any of the discussion above.

Clondalkin and Kishogue could become major P & R hubs.