Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

CatInABox

jd wrote: »

Green Party seem to be suggesting that we run 55 meter Luas trams at 36 tph in each direction, unless I've miscalculated somewhere!

I see that they haven't explained that you'd only be able to get half a car across Dunville Avenue before the lights change again.

It's all "I don't like this plan that's based on facts, so here's my plan based upon my emotions and what I feel is right."

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

I see that they haven't explained that you'd only be able to get half a car across Dunville Avenue before the lights change again.

It's all "I don't like this plan that's based on facts, so here's my plan based upon my emotions and what I feel is right."

It’s more we don’t give a monkeys about this but we want votes

Sam Russell

jd wrote: »

And also this one from the Greens. 13k capacity on Green line by increasing frequency?

There is no planned closure of the Luas Green Line for 'up to two years'.

I have yet to get 70% off in a sale offering 'up to 70% off'. In fact most such puff notices are an exaggeration by many times the actual reductions on offer. So a closure of 'up to 2 years' might be less than six months. Why would the GL need to be closed for so long? The bridge at St Raephaela's RD could be done very early in the project, with a temporary passing link as described in the Metrolink documentation, resulting in no major delay - maybe a week or so.

The Dunville Ave would be a non-event if the Metrolink emerges south of
Beechwood.

So the only likely delay is the provision for high floor vehicles. Temporary structures could be implemented quickly while long term structures are rolled out.

No costings are given for the tunnel to Rathfarnham - clearly a dream.

Lengthen the trams from the longest in the world to what? Longer be a mile trams.

Serious capacity isues from Sandyford to Bride's Glen, but not from Sandyford to SSG on an unupgraded GL. What nonsense.

In fact, the whole leaflet hardly warrants a serious look. All misinformation and lies.

I though the Green Party would be in favour of a Metro PT service.

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

I though the Green Party would be in favour of a Metro PT service.

Green Party has long since given up on the environment and only serves as a vehicle for a handful to draw a wage. They would say or do anything to get some seats.

Qrt

Sam Russell wrote: »

Lengthen the trams from the longest in the world to what? Longer be a mile trams.

I'd give anything to see what chaos 90m trams would do in the city, I'm not sure they'd be even able to stop once between Charlemont and Broadstone without the entire city coming to a standstill.

yabadabado

I'd be embarrassed if Catherine Martin was my local TD .
Such utter bull**** from her.

D.L.R.

Was on the cross city tram today, during daytime. Absolutely RAMMED both directions through the city centre. Bursting at the seams. Very uncomfortable and unpleasant.

Pity M-F commuters who use this line.

Metro upgrade essential.

LXFlyer

D.L.R. wrote: »

Was on the cross city tram today, during daytime. Absolutely RAMMED both directions through the city centre. Bursting at the seams. Very uncomfortable and unpleasant.

Pity M-F commuters who use this line.

Metro upgrade essential.

It’s certainly not rammed through the city centre most weekdays.

Bear in mind the lower frequency on Sundays.

marno21

LXFlyer wrote: »

It’s certainly not rammed through the city centre most weekdays.

Bear in mind the lower frequency on Sundays.

+ it's nearly Christmas which would make it busier

However, the point still stands. A slow meandering tram is no use for a prime north-south public transport corridor in a city of such size.

Sam Russell

The reason we have the longest trams in the world is because we have the fewest number of tram lines each serving a very long route on each of them. Trams are usually short, and have multiple routes that crisscross.

We need more routes in the city centre so that there is choice between destinations. For example, the Green Line should have been able to divert to Heuston. The Red Line should go down from High St to Pearse St and onto Ringsend, or perhaps go past Stoneybatter and onto Broadstone, and follow the N. Circular.

However, Metrolink needs to be built as currently planned. Any deviation will cause delay and perhaps even cancelled.

CatInABox

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, Metrolink needs to be built as currently planned. Any deviation will cause delay and perhaps even cancelled.

Indeed, as part of the Metrolink project, they've essentially built on the work of the previous Green Line project, one that had originally been designed to be upgraded to Metro status. In other words, they haven't even looked at other options south of the river.

Deciding to reroute the southside portion would mean that they'd essentially go back to square one on the city centre section as well, as it might make more sense to reroute further back, perhaps avoiding St Stephens Green, etc.

At a somewhat educated guess, I'd imagine that any attempt to reroute the south side section would result in a delay of at least four years, just to get it back to the point that it is at now. During that time, major work would still be required on the Green Line to maintain capacity.

It's also entirely possible that, faced with a four or more year delay, the NTA may progress Dart Underground first, meaning that the Green Line will be left as is for more than a decade.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

I see that they haven't explained that you'd only be able to get half a car across Dunville Avenue before the lights change again.

By my reckoning, based on the standard equation for relating distance, acceleration and time, it should take 11.83 seconds for a 55m tram to leave the Beechwood stop northbound and clear the Dunville Avenue level crossing.

Thus, with the 12 or so seconds needed to get a 55m tram (or, often, two 55m trams, going in opposite directions) across the junction, and with a current throughput of 20 tph, this should currently leave a comfortable 2 minutes 30 seconds (150 seconds) for road traffic to cross at Dunville Avenue before the currently operated tram cycle starts up again.

A quick look at the situation at my local traffic lights during the rush hour last week showed that it got, on average, 9-11 cars through on a 25 second cycle. Extrapolating for Dunville Avenue, this would be around 60 cars over a 150 second cycle.

Even if, being very generous, they can only manage, say 45-50 cars per cycle at Dunville Avenue, with 20 cycles per hour at peak tram time that would still be around 900-1,000 cars per hour across that road crossing at current tram throughput rates. That sounds pretty good to me, for what is not a major road.

A lot more than the 'one car' suggested.

Does anyone know what the official figures are for the throughput at Dunville Avenue?

Perhaps a bit of rejigging of the crossing might be helpful, if it's not currently getting, say, more than 800 vehicles per hour across.

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

By my reckoning, based on the standard equation for relating distance, acceleration and time, it should take 11.83 seconds for a 55m tram to leave the Beechwood stop northbound and clear the Dunville Avenue level crossing.

Thus, with the 12 or so seconds needed to get a 55m tram (or, often, two 55m trams, going in opposite directions) across the junction, and with a current throughput of 20 tph, this should currently leave a comfortable 2 minutes 30 seconds (150 seconds) for road traffic to cross at Dunville Avenue before the currently operated tram cycle starts up again.

A quick look at the situation at my local traffic lights during the rush hour last week showed that it got, on average, 9-11 cars through on a 25 second cycle. Extrapolating for Dunville Avenue, this would be around 60 cars over a 150 second cycle.

Even if, being very generous, they can only manage, say 45-50 cars per cycle at Dunville Avenue, with 20 cycles per hour at peak tram time that would still be around 900-1,000 cars per hour across that road crossing at current tram throughput rates. That sounds pretty good to me, for what is not a major road.

A lot more than the 'one car' suggested.

Does anyone know what the official figures are for the throughput at Dunville Avenue?

Perhaps a bit of rejigging of the crossing might be helpful, if it's not currently getting, say, more than 800 vehicles per hour across.

If it was that simple then the NTA would, instead of Metro South, propose the construction of a bridge at Dunville Avenue as it's cheaper and more cost effective. Yet they aren't - I wonder why that is

There is one high capacity section of the Green Line - Charlemont to Sandyford. The section north of here and south of Sandyford are lower capacity and have significantly more operating constraints.

Unless you propose upgrading Charemont-Sandyford and running extra trams along just this section, you have run out of options. The NTA have done all the required studies on this and have decided that a Metro upgrade is the only feasible option. I'm not sure how many times what I've said has to be restated. This has been known to us for several years now

strassenwo!f

So I guess I'll have to re-ask the question, since there was no attempt to answer it there by Marno, nor has there been on the many times I've asked it: what is the current road traffic throughput across the Dunville Avenue crossing?

Since so many people on the board are sure that it's an appalling situation there, and worthy of forking out an extra few hundred million quid or so to alleviate it, somebody must have some figures.

At least, you'd think they would.

antoinolachtnai

You are so sure they are wrong. Why don’t you go down there and count them?

salmocab

Not sure anyone said it was an appalling situation. I used to use that crossing a bit a few years back, at busy times you would generally have to wait for the lights in a queue, rarely for too long but pretty much never would you drive straight across at arriving. It’s complicated by the one way nature of the crossing that halves capacity, the supermarket yards away with parking outside it and very little of it at that, along with a few more shops and businesses, the reasonably tight streets on the other side with houses quite tight to the road and almost no off street parking for residents. Along with 2/3 turns off the road quite close to the crossing which means at busy times people have to queue to get off the road they live on.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

By my reckoning, based on the standard equation for relating distance, acceleration and time, it should take 11.83 seconds for a 55m tram to leave the Beechwood stop northbound and clear the Dunville Avenue level crossing.

Thus, with the 12 or so seconds needed to get a 55m tram (or, often, two 55m trams, going in opposite directions) across the junction, and with a current throughput of 20 tph, this should currently leave a comfortable 2 minutes 30 seconds (150 seconds) for road traffic to cross at Dunville Avenue before the currently operated tram cycle starts up again.

A quick look at the situation at my local traffic lights during the rush hour last week showed that it got, on average, 9-11 cars through on a 25 second cycle. Extrapolating for Dunville Avenue, this would be around 60 cars over a 150 second cycle.

Even if, being very generous, they can only manage, say 45-50 cars per cycle at Dunville Avenue, with 20 cycles per hour at peak tram time that would still be around 900-1,000 cars per hour across that road crossing at current tram throughput rates. That sounds pretty good to me, for what is not a major road.

A lot more than the 'one car' suggested.

Does anyone know what the official figures are for the throughput at Dunville Avenue?

Perhaps a bit of rejigging of the crossing might be helpful, if it's not currently getting, say, more than 800 vehicles per hour across.

You're maths is wrong. 72 trains per hour means on average a trains passes a point more than once a minute. You've attempted to have 2 trams going in opposite directions past the same spot at the same time. A good idea on paper but one that simply doesn't hold up if watch the real world operation of the Luas. You've also not factored in the length of time it takes cars to clear these junctions which you need to when you're talking about an average opening time of about 30 seconds

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

By my reckoning, based on the standard equation for relating distance, acceleration and time, it should take 11.83 seconds for a 55m tram to leave the Beechwood stop northbound and clear the Dunville Avenue level crossing.

Thus, with the 12 or so seconds needed to get a 55m tram (or, often, two 55m trams, going in opposite directions) across the junction, and with a current throughput of 20 tph, this should currently leave a comfortable 2 minutes 30 seconds (150 seconds) for road traffic to cross at Dunville Avenue before the currently operated tram cycle starts up again.

My nearest station is Sydney Parade on the Dart. The gates close two minutes before a south bound train and three minutes before a north bound train. The Darts are scheduled every 10 minutes with diesel trains added. So approximately 50% of the time, the gates are closed.

Perhaps you might contact Irish Rail and ask them why they have not applied Newton's laws to get a tighter time on gate closures at Sydney Parade. If the Dart was every 5 minutes, the gates would not open at all.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

A lot more than the 'one car' suggested.

Ah come on Strassenwo!f, it was clearly an exaggeration. Lighten up.

marno21

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/1210/1016279-cherrywood/

First Cherrywood housing units to be available in 2020. Thankfully there's lots of available capacity on the Green Line to cater for these people when they begin commuting to the city centre. Along with the Green Party's fantastic plan of doubling the capacity on the line without any infrastructural investment by simply running longer trams and increased frequency.

cgcsb

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/1210/1016279-cherrywood/

First Cherrywood housing units to be available in 2020. Thankfully there's lots of available capacity on the Green Line to cater for these people when they begin commuting to the city centre. Along with the Green Party's fantastic plan of doubling the capacity on the line without any infrastructural investment by simply running longer trams and increased frequency.

I generally put green party pronouncements into the into the pile marked environmentally destructive ideas, along with incentivizing diesel cars and supporting burning coal for electricity ahead of zero carbon nuclear reactors.

prunudo

I feel a father jack gif would be appropriate to describe the greens.

Bray Head

I've had a close look at the Dunville Avenue issue.

1) I am sceptical that there are significant traffic volumes that use it already. I lived in the area years ago and I always avoided the route in the car for two reasons: barrier might be down anyway; access from the east was difficult anyway with parked cars, one-way streets, etc. It is likely to be only used by very local traffic flows.

2) Even if you kept the level crossing, increased Metrolink train volumes would mean that the barrier would be down much of the time anyway, meaning traffic would seek substitute routes.

So if Metrolink is at surface level at that point, there really isn't much of a loss in closing Dunville Avenue.

The related issue - is it worth surfacing the whole line a lot later just to keep traffic flowing? I really doubt the cost-benefit analysis stacks up on that one.

salmocab

Bray Head wrote: »

I've had a close look at the Dunville Avenue issue.

1) I am sceptical that there are significant traffic volumes that use it already. I lived in the area years ago and I always avoided the route in the car for two reasons: barrier might be down anyway; access from the east was difficult anyway with parked cars, one-way streets, etc. It is likely to be only used by very local traffic flows.

2) Even if you kept the level crossing, increased Metrolink train volumes would mean that the barrier would be down much of the time anyway, meaning traffic would seek substitute routes.

So if Metrolink is at surface level at that point, there really isn't much of a loss in closing Dunville Avenue.

The related issue - is it worth surfacing the whole line a lot later just to keep traffic flowing? I really doubt the cost-benefit analysis stacks up on that one.

You can’t have looked that close at it as there is no barrier just lights.
The traffic would be very local alright mostly but closing the crossing forces all those cars out onto Ranelagh Main Street which is already too busy.

prunudo

Very true, in an era where we are being urged to give up private car use. Is it wise to be pandering to nimbys and making concessions to road access.

salmocab

jvan wrote: »

Very true, in an era where we are being urged to give up private car use. Is it wise to be pandering to nimbys and making concessions to road access.

To be honest if I lived there I wouldn’t want that access closed off and would be livid about it, it’s used to avoid a very busy village. I’ve no time for the don’t build it because it’s near our houses crowd but I have full sympathy for not wanting the road closed, if they sank the road a bit and put in a bridge for the tram I would consider that a good compromise.
The problem with NIMBYism is that real concerns get treated the same and I don’t think it’s fair. We now call every objection NIMBY in a lazy way a bit like lazy journalism likes to tag the word ‘gate’ on the end to make it catchy.

prunudo

salmocab wrote: »

To be honest if I lived there I wouldn’t want that access closed off and would be livid about it, it’s used to avoid a very busy village. I’ve no time for the don’t build it because it’s near our houses crowd but I have full sympathy for not wanting the road closed, if they sank the road a bit and put in a bridge for the tram I would consider that a good compromise.
The problem with NIMBYism is that real concerns get treated the same and I don’t think it’s fair. We now call every objection NIMBY in a lazy way a bit like lazy journalism likes to tag the word ‘gate’ on the end to make it catchy.

I don't think they even want that. Send it over to Terenure where there isn't even a plan and let them worry about it.
My biggest fear is that even if a small percentage of people reading these leaflets believe the info on them it will be hard for the NTA to sell the new plan in January. I really do hope they get a positive message out from day 1.

salmocab

jvan wrote: »

I don't think they even want that. Send it over to Terenure where there isn't even a plan and let them worry about it.
My biggest fear is that even if a small percentage of people reading these leaflets believe the info on them it will be hard for the NTA to sell the new plan in January. I really do hope they get a positive message out from day 1.

Oh those clowns giving out leaflets are total nimbys no doubt, they can do one.

antoinolachtnai

It is very important that NTA come out and sell the new line in the Ranelagh area.

It will be a tremendous boon. Get to the dart in 5 minutes, make a connection to Sligo and Maynooth, get to the airport in 20 minutes. It will also make the service more available, frequent and comfortable. There are safety benefits at Cowper and elsewhere, especially for children.

marno21

Swimming pool users to hold protest that their leisure needs trump the needs of 1 million+ people

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/protesters-hold-rush-hour-demonstration-15532561