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

Jack Noble

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Fair enough. I haven't read into it much so I'm mainly interested for that reason. It may be a moot discussion but I guess it's up to mods to decide on whether the posts are in keeping with the forum and thread!

I've since done some research today on the second Munich S-Bahn tunnel and from what I can see based on the information and drawings on the Deutsche Bahn project website and Google Maps, the southernmost bore passes between 10m and 20m north of the Frauenkirche at a depth of 40m. The station box at Marienhof is some 60m to 80m to the east of the cathedral building.

However, what Strassenwolf is suggesting for Dart Underground is that it pass directly under either the Trinty College campus or Parliament Buildings - or both. Any station box would either be in the tight space on College Green directly in front of both buildings or in the even tighter space to the side of both where College Street meets Westmoreland Street.

Once again, I would suggest such a plan would not get past the public consultation stage for the reasons already outlined.

There is another practical point which appears not to have been considered by Strassenwolf in his College Green Dart fantasy and that is that any College Green Dart station would be less than 400m from Pearse station where the two Dart lines are designed to interchange - or just over twice the length of an eight-car Dart train (circa 170m).

Setting aside all the other reasons why CG is neither suitable or practical for a major Dart-Metro interchange, is it really justifiable to build two very expensive stations so close together - especially with the additional costs and delays that would come with building such a station with the need to protect heritage buildings and archaeological discoveries?

lucernarian

Thanks for that - and I am inclined to think the evidence suggests St. Stephen's Green is a far more cost-effective place for the construction of two nearby station boxes than College Green would be, in my opinion. Also given the status quo of planning etc.

murphaph

Indeed. Even if Stephen's Green were not a pretty central destination in itself, it would warrant looking at because there are at the end of the day practicalities about building metros that mean you can't always locate stations just where you'd like them. Par for the course.

monument

I've just come across this map of employment density, by the NTA and based on CSO census data:

NOTE: I've clearly forgotten to include the Docklands Dart station!



I've inserted the black dots to represent Dart stations post Dart Underground and the singe white dot to represent College Green.

St Stephen's Green is well placed between the largest areas of very high density. And also well placed to serve the very large area of high density employment in the south east of the area (ie the triangler-type area between Camdon Street, Pearse Street and the canal).

Here's Metro North stops added in, in purple:



The northern half of the city centre employment area is very well served, while the south is not. Take out the interchange at St Stephen's Green and it becomes a lot less served.

The College Green and Dame Street area is very well served by nearby stops/stations at O'Connell Bridge, Tara, and at Christ Church.

The main employment area is clearly far sound of the river. Even without Metro, there's clearly a stronger need to serve the south business area.

noelfirl

Don't forget there's another black dot at Spencer Dock, well placed within the developing density employment area of the North Docklands. Essentially all of the inner canal zone stations will be well placed, in terms of catchment and for the most part, construction feasibility.

I wouldn't waste any time on the College Green argument and it's principal proponent here. My key fear would be that if DU/MN don't start within the next 5 years, another government may take the opportunity to revise the plans again for the sake of politics, potentially to the detriment of rail development in the city.

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

You are being more than a little disengenuous here.

Like the Trinity Campus, one bore of Metro North skirts under the edge of the BoI building on College Green for a matter of metres as this image from the RPA clearly shows.

http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Metro%20North/MN%20Ortho%20Maps%202008/BMN0000GD7504B04.map.pdf

I'm not being disingenuous at all.

I mentioned that the metro bore goes under the bank building.

Did the bank, or An Taisce, or anyone else, make a big fuss? Did An Bord Pleanala bat an eyelid?

I'm not aware that they did.

Jack Noble wrote: »

That is very different to what you are proposing which is two deep bores passing under either the entire structure of the Parliament Building/BoI 'branch' and/or under the heart of the Trinity campus, along with a deep excavation covering a large area in front of both PB and TCD to accommodate a massive interchange station incorporating perpendicular platforms of circa 100m (Metro) and 170m (Dart).

No, I am not proposing that one or more deep bores pass under the "heart" of either TCD or the bank.

You would need a deep excavation in College Green. It's a big area, so it should really not be a major problem. It's hard to see that the bank would have a problem with a big hole in the vicinity of the bank, when they didn't seem to be to worried about a line under the bank itself.

Similarly with TCD. Far from going under the "heart" of TCD, it would most probably be possible to build the interconnector under the more modern buildings adjacent to College Street, with minimal tunnelling under the older ones, in order to make a good, reasonably straight, connection between Pearse Street and College Green. From there to Pearse should be a doddle.

For both entities, there would doubtless be disruption, but is it really likely to be one of the engineering feats of the century?

Jack Noble wrote: »

Strassenwolf, in this debate I have tried to lay out to you the facts and practical realities of the situation but I realise now I am wasting my time as you simply do not want to hear anything that contradicts the fantasy you have in your head.

I'm not going to bother any further because it's clearly an exercise in futility.

As I suggested earlier in the thread, if you want the answers you seek here then ask the NTA, RPA, IE and DoT - and if you can't get what you want there then ask your TDs to request the information from them by way of a PQ in the Dail.

Jack, I understand the practical realities.

It's easier to build an interchange station at St. Stephen's Green than at College Green. I think we can all grasp that.

One of the biggest problem with the proposed St. Stephen's Green interchange is St. Stephen's Green itself.

The fact that there will be a massive 22 acre area sitting on one side of the station at St. Stephen's Green to which (apart from the, what, 20 or so people who maintain the park) the interconnector will never deliver a single commuter and from which it will never see a single commuter.

If you're looking for a catchment area directly south of the interconnector, apart from a few offices on the west and east sides of the Green you need to go at least 300 hundred metres away from the interconnector station - right across the park - before you get to anything at all.

This is a desperately inefficient way of delivering and taking up potential users of the line.

In contrast, an interchange at College Green would be more difficult to build, but would result in a cheaper line. And it would be continually flooded from both sides by people with only up to a few hundred metres to walk to get to the station. This is a much more efficient way of dealing with the needs of Dublin's commuters.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote: »

I've just come across this map of employment density, by the NTA and based on CSO census data:

NOTE: I've clearly forgotten to include the Docklands Dart station!



I've inserted the black dots to represent Dart stations post Dart Underground and the singe white dot to represent College Green.

St Stephen's Green is well placed between the largest areas of very high density. And also well placed to serve the very large area of high density employment in the south east of the area (ie the triangler-type area between Camdon Street, Pearse Street and the canal).

An understandable, but basic error, Monument.

The major red bit would be equally well-served by interchange stations at College Green or St. Stephen's Green. Thus, no advantage for that high-demand area by building a longer, more expensive route.

The more southerly red bit is a considerable way away from the proposed St. Stephen's Green interchange. Much of it is at least a kilometre away on foot.

Are you suggesting that the St. Stephen's Green station really serves this area?

It might be tolerable for a while, but that is not what a high-demand area like this needs in the long-term.

Much more likely that it will eventually be served by an extension of the metro or LUAS (in fact, a lot of it would be quite close to the current LUAS).

If that area is to eventually be properly served by the LUAS or metro, interconnector passengers from the east or west of the city would simply travel into the centre of the city and then change on to the LUAS or metro. And, for that, it wouldn't matter much whether their interchange was in St. Stephen's Green or College Green.

So no obvious long-term advantage from building the more expensive interconnector route (with the big commuter-free green space between it and much of its catchment area).

murphaph

The cost of building a station box is not just the cost of the box itself, but also the cost to the economy of any disruption caused by the construction.

The Green offers an incredibly low impact site on which boxes for DU and MN can be built.

College Green however would need to be completely closed to build a box there and because Trinity "blocks" north-south traffic and there's no useful route through Temple Bar then diversions would be long, very long.

I think you are seriously under estimating the cost to the economy of closing College Green for a couple of years.

monument

I'm not going to bother directly replying to a person who seem to have all the answers to Dublin's public transport yet is not bothered to find out where a current Luas line is before replying.

The poster who claims cutting 1km off an already planned tunnel will save so much but won't account for wasted construction and planning cost.

There's no point when a map key clearly does not indicate the 'green' colour as "commuter-free" but a poster claims such without any bases and also discounts the second highest colour code when it disproves their previous held view that there is nothing around SSG. For the record: the area west of SSG referenced as 'green' is still a reasonablely high level of employment and has a high level of residential.

The most southern red area is also all or nearly all within 1km of the planned SSG. Walking cycling ~1km at peak times will generally be better than trying to go one stop on Luas -- but that option is open to people too and is more attractive than no station at SSG and having to go two stops vie what will likely be the slowest green line section and than extra walking.

Commuters in Dublin have a high tolerance for walking (look at the current busest station Pearse on the map -- far less employment than around SSG) but walking UNDER 1km to a Dart Underground stop really isn't an issue.

Jack Noble

monument wrote: »

I'm not going to bother directly replying to a person who seem to have all the answers to Dublin's public transport yet is not bothered to find out where a current Luas line is before replying.

The poster who claims cutting 1km off an already planned tunnel will save so much but won't account for wasted construction and planning cost.

There's no point when a map key clearly does not indicate the 'green' colour as "commuter-free" but a poster claims such without any bases and also discounts the second highest colour code when it disproves their previous held view that there is nothing around SSG. For the record: the area west of SSG referenced as 'green' is still a reasonablely high level of employment and has a high level of residential.

The most southern red area is also all or nearly all within 1km of the planned SSG. Walking cycling ~1km at peak times will generally be better than trying to go one stop on Luas -- but that option is open to people too and is more attractive than no station at SSG and having to go two stops vie what will likely be the slowest green line section and than extra walking.

Commuters in Dublin have a high tolerance for walking (look at the current busest station Pearse on the map -- far less employment than around SSG) but walking UNDER 1km to a Dart Underground stop really isn't an issue.

The College Green better than SSG argument is utterly ludicrous and the product of fantasy married with ignorance and I'm quite happy to admit I was wrong to indulge Strassenwolf and try to reason with them using facts and logic.

Dart Underground has a Railway Order and the entire route and plan is not going to changed now.

The recent comments by Leo Varadkar suggest the thinking in the DoT at least - at both civil service and ministerial level - has come round again to accepting that DartU is essential to the future growth, prosperity and development of Dublin after and a refreshing change to some of the nonsense that came Leo came out with when he first took office in 2011.

Hopefully now Finance and Public Expenditure, Noonan and Howlin, and Kenny and Gilmore will come round too - and DartU will be included in the post-2015 capital plans.

Obviously that is dependent on continuing and strengthening recovery and the absence of any external economic shocks, EU support and funding, and Ireland remaining attractive for private sector investment - but I'm more confident of that today than I was this time last year.

roddney

Jack Noble wrote: »

The College Green better than SSG argument is utterly ludicrous and the product of fantasy married with ignorance and I'm quite happy to admit I was wrong to indulge Strassenwolf and try to reason with them using facts and logic.

I gave up about 2 weeks ago, for my own sanity.

Really hope this project goes ahead (actually I mean DU) as I see we're actually on Metro North thread.

Would be great to see further pedestrianisation of streets around Grafton St. (as far as George's St.) at the same time. Would be a good time to rethink car parks such as Brown Thomas, which is about the only reason that area is not pedestrianised.

We could have a lovely little city.

murphaph

roddney wrote: »

We could have a lovely little city.

Indeed we could. Imagine the Quays pedestrianised. Would transform the city.

strassenwo!f

roddney wrote: »

I gave up about 2 weeks ago, for my own sanity.

Really hope this project goes ahead (actually I mean DU) as I see we're actually on Metro North thread.

Would be great to see further pedestrianisation of streets around Grafton St. (as far as George's St.) at the same time. Would be a good time to rethink car parks such as Brown Thomas, which is about the only reason that area is not pedestrianised.

We could have a lovely little city.

Rodney, who joined in December 2013, and seems to know a lot about this, is already tired of this discussion. We need to pep it up, lads.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

The cost of building a station box is not just the cost of the box itself, but also the cost to the economy of any disruption caused by the construction.

The Green offers an incredibly low impact site on which boxes for DU and MN can be built.

College Green however would need to be completely closed to build a box there and because Trinity "blocks" north-south traffic and there's no useful route through Temple Bar then diversions would be long, very long.

I think you are seriously under estimating the cost to the economy of closing College Green for a couple of years.

It's a very good question to ask (although you didn't actually ask the question, it is implied). .

There would undoubtedly be a greater economic cost to the country, during the constuction phase, if an underground metro-DART interchange were built in College Green than if it were built in a "low-impact location" like St. Stephen's Green.

That is, I think, obvious.

After the construction phase through College Green, there would be a considerable economic benefit to the country, from having the highest capacity line going right through the centre of the city. with people on all sides readily able to access it throughout the day.

In contrast, St. Stephen's Green is, as you say, "low-impact". Go ahead with construction there and nobody's going to really get too bothered. (apart from the occassional art gallery owner).

The economic benefit mentioned above would not be seen in St. Stephen's Green, because (apart from the big park area right beside the station where there are no commuters, and never will be), you've got (i) a situation where there's a lot of demand to get there (but no significant demand to get from there) in the early hours of the day, and (ii) a lot of demand to get from there (but very little demand to get to there) in the evening peak.

In the middle, you've got no significant demand to get to or from there that can't be realistically be satisfied by other means.

Unquestionably, in the short term, a greater economic cost incurred by building through College Green. In the longer term, after the first two years or so of construction, and into the distant future, an economic benefit.

murphaph

But college green is not the centre of the area of densest employment. Jobs are not equally divided by the river. We've already established that.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

But college green is not the centre of the area of densest employment. Jobs are not equally divided by the river. We've already established that.

Is there a better location in the city? Overall.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

But college green is not the centre of the area of densest employment. Jobs are not equally divided by the river. We've already established that.

Try to keep up, Murphaph. Thanks to Monument's maps of employment, the area of densest employment seems to be directly between St. Stephen's Green and College Green.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Try to keep up, Murphaph. Thanks to Monument's maps of employment, the area of densest employment seems to be directly between St. Stephen's Green and College Green.

Anyway, monument's maps seem to say something different to me than to you. The Stephen's Green location sits between the 2 largest blobs of highest density of employment. How can you get better than that?

anyway, it seems no matter what is said you will hold on to your position that we are all wrong and you are right, so it seems pointless continuing.

maninasia

roddney wrote: »

I gave up about 2 weeks ago, for my own sanity.

Really hope this project goes ahead (actually I mean DU) as I see we're actually on Metro North thread.

Would be great to see further pedestrianisation of streets around Grafton St. (as far as George's St.) at the same time. Would be a good time to rethink car parks such as Brown Thomas, which is about the only reason that area is not pedestrianised.

We could have a lovely little city.

You'll need to do a lot more than that to create 'the lovely little city'.

maninasia

murphaph wrote: »

But college green is not the centre of the area of densest employment. Jobs are not equally divided by the river. We've already established that.

Cities aren't stuck 'in stone' , the building of a metro can totally change employment densities.

Also whatever about the practicalities of a stop here or there for workers, a metro would be used by very large numbers of shoppers, tourists and students so College Green is not a a bad idea, just maybe more impractical than Stephen's Green.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

...in St. Stephen's Green, because (apart from the big park area right beside the station where there are no commuters, and never will be),

Just like how you're never going to get commuters working or living in on all the squares and pitches of TCD which combined are not that much smaller that SSG.

The low employment density of the park is offset by the high employment density around it. But if you want to keep being silly about this please keep going -- you're fooling nobody but your self!

strassenwo!f wrote: »

you've got (i) a situation where there's a lot of demand to get there (but no significant demand to get from there) in the early hours of the day, and (ii) a lot of demand to get from there (but very little demand to get to there) in the evening peak.

This has been proven to be untrue already. Please stop repeating your baseless ideas which has already been replied to at length.

You have already been proven to be clueless about the -- this was backed up by a long list of venues etc which attract people counter-peak and off-peak, and the amount of residents near to both areas is comparable.

D.L.R.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Try to keep up, Murphaph. Thanks to Monument's maps of employment, the area of densest employment seems to be directly between St. Stephen's Green and College Green.

Thing is we could debate the design for the next 10 years, and Irish govts love nothing more than to procrastinate and defer.

Our lack of enterprise/confidence to invest in a metro has hurt this city and country badly imo. We seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

O'Connell Bridge will have an entrance on Westmoreland/Fleet street. That's like 50m from College Green. Good enough - LETS GO.

roddney

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Rodney, who joined in December 2013, and seems to know a lot about this, is already tired of this discussion. We need to pep it up, lads.

Don't be so black and white about things.

I used to post under a different username in both Infrastructure and Commuting & Transport. I gave up that account (again for my own sanity) and only monitored threads for about 5 years. The starting of Luas Cross City and Metro Dublin (http://www.metrodublin.ie) proposal sparked my interest again.

It's not taking long for me to loose my sanity again so will probably just monitor (skipping the posts back and forth to yourself).

Also, my username is actually roddney, not rodney.

strassenwo!f

monument wrote:

This has been proven to be untrue already. Please stop repeating your baseless ideas which has already been replied to at length.

Monument, I specifically want to reply to this point.

It wasn't proven to be untrue. There were a number of comments about it, refutations, etc. but nothing which could reasonably be said to disprove my argument. And I say this particularly in the context of the more southerly red area in the map you posted.

I think we can agree that the major red bit between St. Stephen's Green and College Green would be equally well served by a station at either. So there is, at least in that regard, no advantage to building the longer, more expensive route for that bit, and no advantage to building a big, "incredibly low-impact" interchange beside a 22 acre park with no commuters.

This other red bit is basically all offices. Companies like Deloitte (Hatch St.), Aviva (Hatch St.) Mercer (Charlemont St.), the Harcourt Centre, etc. There really is effectively no demand to get there after 9:30 in the morning. People come in and do their number-crunching for the day, then they leave. There are a few others, like couriers, who go in later, but the numbers who are using public transport to get to that high-emplyment area after 9:30 in the morning is really limited. Really.

Similarly, the numbers of public transport users leaving that area before 5 in the evening is minimal.

That whole area between the canal/Adelaide Road and Hatch Street is offices. Very important work going on there, but there is nothing else.

We've dealt with the central red bit, which would be equally well-served by either College Green or St. Stephen's Green. But does Dublin really need to spend a lot more money building a big loop for the interconnector which will, still, inadequately serve the other big red bit?

And inadequately serve an area for which there really is no demand to go to after 9:30 and no demand to get from before 5 pm?

(I was initially wrong: much of it is over a kilometre away on foot, but it's a minimum of around 650m from the nearest exit of the proposed station)

Most people using the interconnector on their way to get to/from work in that area will also use the LUAS or metro. The LUAS green line does currently go through that big red area. (Although I thought it was a rubbish template for Dublin's future public transport, the DTO's plan envisaged metro stations at Harcourt, Charlemont and Camden).

If the interconnector and metro do eventually get built, it is surely almost inevitable that the metro will be continued south, serving southern suburbs and better serving high-employment areas south of St. Stephen's Green. Isn't it?

It is not sensible to see this high-employment area as being served by the proposed station at St. Stephen's Green. Obviously there will be those who like to walk or cycle that extra bit, but it's quite likely that the majority would like to see it properly served by an eventual extension of the metro.

In the meantime, a journey into town on the interconnector and a change onto the LUAS (or vice versa) will have to do. Spending a lot of money building a more expensive interconnector route in order to make the LUAS bit of that journey marginally shorter is, in my opinion, folly, (partly because it will surely be eventually superseded by a metro extension). Equally, spending a lot of money to shorten the walk required to get to or from such a high-employment area is also folly.

monument

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Monument, I specifically want to reply to this point.

It wasn't proven to be untrue. There were a number of comments about it, refutations, etc. but nothing which could reasonably be said to disprove my argument.

It was proven untrue.

First you claimed there was noting at all around SSG and this was proven untrue by employment data. Then you tried to claim that there was nothing outside of peak commuter hours -- this was also proven to be untrue with a long list of what is around the area.

You arguments were proven untrue. Or maybe you're now going to prove that there's very low employment around SSG and that the list of venues etc are somehow fictional?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I think we can agree that the major red bit between St. Stephen's Green and College Green would be equally well served by a station at either.

The point that you are finding so hard to understand is that a station at SSG would better serve a larger area. College Green and the direct area around it is already served under the current plans.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

interchange beside a 22 acre park with no commuters

This was in my LAST POST:

Just like how you're never going to get commuters working or living in on all the squares and pitches of TCD which combined are not that much smaller that SSG.

The low employment density of the park is offset by the high employment density around it. But if you want to keep being silly about this please keep going -- you're fooling nobody but your self!

Why do you keep ignoring what has been posted and than just repeat what you already said?

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This other red bit is basically all offices. Companies like Deloitte (Hatch St.), Aviva (Hatch St.) Mercer (Charlemont St.), the Harcourt Centre, etc. There really is effectively no demand to get there after 9:30 in the morning. People come in and do their number-crunching for the day, then they leave. There are a few others, like couriers, who go in later, but the numbers who are using public transport to get to that high-emplyment area after 9:30 in the morning is really limited. Really.

Similarly, the numbers of public transport users leaving that area before 5 in the evening is minimal.

That whole area between the canal/Adelaide Road and Hatch Street is offices. Very important work going on there, but there is nothing else.

Again you're showing how wrong you are.

People come and go from offices all day long and the red area we're talking about includes: The Eye and Ear Hospital, POD, the National Concert Hall, and it borders Leeson Street which includes a number of restaurants, pubs, venues etc. And the other end of the red area is Harcourt Street which is host to bars and nightclubs.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

(I was initially wrong: much of it is over a kilometre away on foot, but it's a minimum of around 650m from the nearest exit of the proposed station)

Again: They can also hop on the Luas (you know the one which you did not know coved the area, that or you were very confused about in one of you recent posts).

Google Maps walking directions puts most of it under 1km. The longest distance I can find is 1.1km, which is a 14min walk. That's nothing of a walking distance for Dublin's public transport users.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The LUAS green line does currently go through that big red area.

Have you being doing research since your last post about Luas covering the area?!

strassenwo!f wrote: »

If the interconnector and metro do eventually get built, it is surely almost inevitable that the metro will be continued south, serving southern suburbs and better serving high-employment areas south of St. Stephen's Green. Isn't it?

Again: There's a high employment area all around SSG. The red area only shows the highest employment area -- the orange area is also high employment.

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Spending a lot of money building a more expensive interconnector route.

You've yet to prove how 1km less of Dart Underground tunnel would save much compared to the extra expense of a College Green station and redesigning and planning nearly all of Dart Underground and Metro North within the canals and maybe beyond.

You just keep repeating stuff without trying to back up much of anything.

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This other red bit is basically all offices. Companies like Deloitte (Hatch St.), Aviva (Hatch St.) Mercer (Charlemont St.), the Harcourt Centre, etc. There really is effectively no demand to get there after 9:30 in the morning. People come in and do their number-crunching for the day, then they leave. There are a few others, like couriers, who go in later, but the numbers who are using public transport to get to that high-emplyment area after 9:30 in the morning is really limited. Really.

Just on this point (and bearing in mind, of course, the rest of your post).

Office workers are the bread and butter of public transport. They create peak-hour trips within a relatively narrow time-window. If these people are all to travel by car, congestion would be astronomical. Allowing them to travel underground allows them to literally bypass all roads and surface transport options. There couldn't be a more efficient way to displace literally thousands of people in the space of less than two hours.

Depriving commuters of the opportunity to take the underground as close as possible to their place of work (remember that people can be unbelievably lazy, especially if there is an uphill walk involved) will result in many of them just resorting to the car. Which goes entirely against government policy.

You say it yourself in the quote above. We are talking about a high-employment area. This is where people want to go to. On the Green Line in the morning, the tram can go from being bursting at Ranelagh to being half-empty at Harcourt. Why? Because a lot of people using the tram work in and around the southern part of Dublin 2. And Dublin 2 is entirely within Dublin's CBD.

Just to reiterate: office workers are pretty much the whole point of high-capacity publicly transport, specifically because of the concentrated nature of their travel demands.

strassenwo!f

Aard, you are entirely correct about office workers being the mainstay of the public transport system in a city.

But I think you are missing my point. Assuming that Dublin can eventually get its head around integrated ticketing, most people are not going to be using the interconnector to St. Stephen's Green and then walking the 800 metres or so to the Harcourt Centre, Hatch Street or Adelaide Road. They are going to be changing onto the LUAS or, eventually, a southbound metro (when the metro is inevitably extended). That, surely is a fact.

The idea that this high-employment area is served by the proposed station at St. Stephen's Green is poor. This area is a minimum of 650 metres from the station on foot, and a lot of it is around a kilometre.

My point is that they could do the same thing from College Green. Compared to the journey from an interchange at St. Stephen's Green, it would be about 4 minutes longer on the LUAS or, eventually, about one minute longer on the metro.

The key thing is that the vast majority of people who use the interconnector and who work in this high-employment area will also be using the metro or LUAS to get to or from work.

Jack Noble

Aard wrote: »

Just on this point (and bearing in mind, of course, the rest of your post).

Office workers are the bread and butter of public transport. They create peak-hour trips within a relatively narrow time-window. If these people are all to travel by car, congestion would be astronomical. Allowing them to travel underground allows them to literally bypass all roads and surface transport options. There couldn't be a more efficient way to displace literally thousands of people in the space of less than two hours.

Depriving commuters of the opportunity to take the underground as close as possible to their place of work (remember that people can be unbelievably lazy, especially if there is an uphill walk involved) will result in many of them just resorting to the car. Which goes entirely against government policy.

You say it yourself in the quote above. We are talking about a high-employment area. This is where people want to go to. On the Green Line in the morning, the tram can go from being bursting at Ranelagh to being half-empty at Harcourt. Why? Because a lot of people using the tram work in and around the southern part of Dublin 2. And Dublin 2 is entirely within Dublin's CBD.

Just to reiterate: office workers are pretty much the whole point of high-capacity publicly transport, specifically because of the concentrated nature of their travel demands.

The fact that Strassenwolf even thinks that shows they haven't the first clue about public transportation and what it is designed to do.

Around two thirds of all journeys take place in the morning and evening peaks - because that's when the greatest demand is, for obvious reasons - while the remaining third is spread throughout the rest of the day.

That's why the highest frequencies and longest trains are deployed in the two peak periods while Dart and Commuter, for example, use fewer, smaller trains during the late morning, early afternoon and evening because the demand is not there. With Luas, the numer of trams per hour is reduced outside peak times.

That's not unique to Dublin - it's the way it's done the world over.

To not get that fundamental point is just more evidence that the poster in question doesn't have the first clue what they are talking about.

murphaph

And these commuters are the most time sensitive travellers. Shoppers and party goers are under much less time pressure so can afford to make a change. The more commuters you can serve with the direct connection the better.

Aard

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The key thing is that the vast majority of people who use the interconnector and who work in this high-employment area will also be using the metro or LUAS to get to or from work.

I'm afraid you're once again putting too much faith in people. It's no secret in transport planning that people hate making transfers. Even if it's free, even if the transfer is as easy as pie. People just don't do it in the numbers you'd expect. The same goes for a 4-minute longer Luas ride. Four minutes sounds like nothing. For all intents and purposes, it's negligible. But people have shown time and again that four minutes is more than enough to turn the easiest of trips into the most arduous ordeal (in their heads of course).