Luas Cross City (Line BX/D) [now open]

Victor

BrianD wrote: »

How will the red line be affected during construction?

Actually, not a lot for Metro North not that I think of it, but obviously the new BXD track layout would have implications for the Red Line and BXD and MN have implications for each other.

Also why do they need a facility at Broombridge when there's one at Sandyford?

A few things: (a) there wouldn't be enough space in Sandyford for an expanded fleet (b) they want to deprive anti-social behaviour of a safe loiter space in Broombridge and (c) not having a stabling facility in Broombridge would mean not having to drag trams all the way from Sandyford for services at the start of the day and back at the end of services - Sandyford would have services for perhaps 90 minutes more than Broombridge every day.

In terms of disruption, if O'connell St was out of use could they route trams via Marlborough St even if it was a single line? Not a great solution but would provide means to an end.

Possible, but potentially very complicated. You would need passing loops and extra platforms from Parnell Street to College Green. College Green ight not be the best place to have a set of points. if anything broke down you would be very stuck.

Sponge Bob

Victor wrote: »

Proposed new Broombridge Luas vehicle.

That is really unoriginal and you know it

Victor

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is really unoriginal and you know it

Note the vehicle is actually called the BDX.

FreudianSlippers

I just can't see the point of this line without the Grangegorman development. Surely the money would be better off put into starting work on a worthwhile project like MN or DU - who knows what situation we may be in economically in 2015; this seems like typical Irish half-assery.

Sponge Bob

Victor wrote: »

Note the vehicle is actually called the BDX.

I don't care what it is called, the locals would have that thing cut into scrap in no time.

Here is the correct rolling stock for that line as originally sourced by Sponge Bob

AngryLips

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just can't see the point of this line without the Grangegorman development. Surely the money would be better off put into starting work on a worthwhile project like MN or DU - who knows what situation we may be in economically in 2015; this seems like typical Irish half-assery.

This raises an interesting point. I would have imagined that the presence of a Luas line would encourage higher density development. Are we saying that there are some areas of Dublin that don't justify Luas? What about the extension to Green line and spur to Red line? What does the experience of both tell us?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

AngryLips wrote: »

This raises an interesting point. I would have imagined that the presence of a Luas line would encourage higher density development. Are we saying that there are some areas of Dublin that don't justify Luas? What about the extension to Green line and spur to Red line? What does the experience of both tell us?

I think we should be focusing on drawing people to living in the city centre, not promoting moving out into suburbs.

Arguably, the Green line extension was built as a way to fix the problem of suburbanisation; e.g. traffic. The Red line is, as Plowman stated, reactionary to the Docklands development.

dowlingm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just can't see the point of this line without the Grangegorman development.

According to DIT they will be going ahead in Grangegorman, just at a slower pace as they will be depending on private sources to a larger extent.

AngryLips

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think we should be focusing on drawing people to living in the city centre, not promoting moving out into suburbs

But most of BXD is within the canals.

monument

AngryLips wrote: »

But most of BXD is within the canals.

All of it is. And even if the Royal Canal was more circular at this point (like the Grand is) than 70-90% would still be within the canal.

It passes the some of the most high density areas in the country, and generally has higher density around it than the original and highly successful red and green lines.

FreudianSlippers

AngryLips wrote: »

But most of BXD is within the canals.

monument wrote: »

All of it is. And even if the Royal Canal was more circular at this point (like the Grand is) than 70-90% would still be within the canal.

It passes the some of the most high density areas in the country, and generally has higher density around it than the original and highly successful red and green lines.

I know, I was mainly referring to the government spiel about connectivity with the Maynooth line being its most vital function now that the Grangegorman campus is "postponed".

AngryLips

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I know, I was mainly referring to the government spiel about connectivity with the Maynooth line being its most vital function now that the Grangegorman campus is "postponed".

I don't see how connectivity with Maynooth line promotes suburban sprawl. If anything, connectivity with Maynooth line will result in higher passenger numbers on IE services, increasing the value from the existing infrastructure there. I think it's hard to argue that Luas will have anything less than a positive impact on whatever neighbourhood it will serve going by what we've seen to date.

robd

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I know, I was mainly referring to the government spiel about connectivity with the Maynooth line being its most vital function now that the Grangegorman campus is "postponed".

Thing is, according to DIT only 20% of funding for Grangegorman was coming from government and it is this funding that is "postponed". DIT have indicated that there are going ahead with Grangegorman albeit at a slower rate.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1110/capital_education.html

In general I agree with Luas. However I don't agree with BXD running up one street and down another. This to me is twice the cost and twice the mess. Also I hate the idea of it running up O'Connell st. Think it really should run up and down Marlborough St.

In general Luas meets Dublin's needs, particularly once you get within 2-3 km of city where it's housing density. A rethink is need about what Luas is though. particularly in City Centre. I mean there's no reason why it can't run underground where it needs to. Dublin is a medieval city and as such it will always be a struggle to thread a 40m+ tram through it's streets.

Metro North was really just a bigger Luas badly sold PR wise.

markpb

robd wrote: »

Dublin is a medieval city and as such it will always be a struggle to thread a 40m+ tram through it's streets.

Why do people still have this idea It's been wrong for almost 250 years! Lots of the city centre buildings were demolished by the Wide Streets Commission to join two streets together into one wider street. Dame St, O'Connell St, Parnell St, Westmoreland St, Dolier St, Tara St and Amiens St are all 4-6 lanes wide. (Some have been artificially narrowed to make space for wider footpaths since then.) Yes there are still some narrow streets like Suffolk and Trinity St but, by and large, the main routes are reasonably wide.

The main struggle is getting on-street trams the right level of priority through the city centre while keeping the roads open for traffic and letting pedestrians cross (since DCC ITS are under the impression that pedestrians do actually wait for their absurdly long red light times.)

robd

markpb wrote: »

Why do people still have this idea It's been wrong for almost 250 years! Lots of the city centre buildings were demolished by the Wide Streets Commission to join two streets together into one wider street. Dame St, O'Connell St, Parnell St, Westmoreland St, Dolier St, Tara St and Amiens St are all 4-6 lanes wide. (Some have been artificially narrowed to make space for wider footpaths since then.) Yes there are still some narrow streets like Suffolk and Trinity St but, by and large, the main routes are reasonably wide.

The main struggle is getting on-street trams the right level of priority through the city centre while keeping the roads open for traffic and letting pedestrians cross (since DCC ITS are under the impression that pedestrians do actually wait for their absurdly long red light times.)

Sure there are some wide streets. By and large they narrow at either end of them though. Also most of them are bus corridors. We still need a decent bus network, at least for the next 20+ years before we get much in the way of new Luas lines.

You could of course bulldoze but I suspect the protection societies are much bigger and better these days than in by gone era's. You could of course argue that complete crap is protected at the expense of really good building's but that's not for this thread.

Also each new Luas line invokes hysteria from the business associations who will be affecting, delaying the whole process.

2 x 4 lane (2 lanes each) way public transport tunnels running roughly East-West and North-South, running through the city centre and popping out onto main arteries, could do wonders for Dublin Transport. No reason priority buses couldn't use them either if they are built with suitable ventilation (or trolly buses).

AngryLips

This argument is tired and doesn't hold water given the fact that many European cities share similar street lay-outs. As we've seen with the Red line alignment from Capel Street to Heuston there are many side streets in the city that can be transformed into main through-roads / dedicated bus corridors or Luas lines when traffic flow and public transport is reconfigured in the city. There is nothing unique or unusual about Dublin that cannot be surmounted by effective traffic management and planning. This is a typical car-centric argument because under all scenarios private traffic space loses out to public transport and that's what the discussion boils down to. The world didn't end when Green line was built to Stephen's Green instead of going underground, as floated at the time at significantly higher cost.

murphaph

AngryLips wrote: »

This argument is tired and doesn't hold water given the fact that many European cities share similar street lay-outs. As we've seen with the Red line alignment from Capel Street to Heuston there are many side streets in the city that can be transformed into main through-roads / dedicated bus corridors or Luas lines when traffic flow and public transport is reconfigured in the city. There is nothing unique or unusual about Dublin that cannot be surmounted by effective traffic management and planning. This is a typical car-centric argument because under all scenarios private traffic space loses out to public transport and that's what the discussion boils down to. The world didn't end when Green line was built to Stephen's Green instead of going underground, as floated at the time at significantly higher cost.

The Red Line in the area you mention is absolutely crap though. Sometimes going underground can't be avoided to provide a quality solution.

At some point the Red Line will be put underground along there or rerouted completely through a new tunnel from Rialto. Mark my words. The rest of the Red Line has a high degree of segregation and functions like a pre-metro.

LXFlyer

I certainly do not view my opposition to BXD as car-centric - quite the opposite. The negative impact on the much greater number of bus routes and bus commuters (than will benefit from the tram line extension) this will have is enormous. Large numbers of city centre bus stops are down for "relocation" per the EIS with no suggestion as to where they will relocate to, along with the bus stands on Marlborough Street.

I would certainly like to see an independent study on the impact on city bus services before proceeding with this - this does not appear to have been done.

As murphaph states, the bus is consistently faster along the Quays than the on-street LUAS.

markpb

lxflyer wrote: »

Large numbers of city centre bus stops are down for "relocation" per the EIS with no suggestion as to where they will relocate to, along with the bus stands on Marlborough Street.

Perhaps the EIS couldn't suggest alternative stops because DB were/are in the middle of implementing Network Direct and can't say where routes will go and what stops will be required.

Alternatively, perhaps by the time BXD is operational, Dublin Bus will have sorted out their god awful dwell times and will be allowed to share track and stops with Luas like other cities do.

bk

robd wrote: »

In general I agree with Luas. However I don't agree with BXD running up one street and down another. This to me is twice the cost and twice the mess. Also I hate the idea of it running up O'Connell st. Think it really should run up and down Marlborough St.

......

Metro North was really just a bigger Luas badly sold PR wise.

+1 a million times, couldn't agree more.

AngryLips wrote: »

This argument is tired and doesn't hold water given the fact that many European cities share similar street lay-outs. As we've seen with the Red line alignment from Capel Street to Heuston there are many side streets in the city that can be transformed into main through-roads / dedicated bus corridors or Luas lines when traffic flow and public transport is reconfigured in the city. There is nothing unique or unusual about Dublin that cannot be surmounted by effective traffic management and planning.

The difference between Dublin and these other European cities is that they normally also have extensive underground Metro networks, cars are typically banned from the city centre (or at least very heavily discouraged) and are far less reliant on buses, at least in the city centre.

That isn't dsiagreeing with you, it is to point out the major failure.

AngryLips wrote: »

This is a typical car-centric argument because under all scenarios private traffic space loses out to public transport and that's what the discussion boils down to.

And that is exactly the biggest problem with Dublin, it is obsessed with cars. This is because so much of the city councils revenue comes from parking.

Until the three Dublin city councils are merged, an elected Mayor with real powers and most importantly the ability to raise their own taxes, this isn't going to change unfortunately.

AngryLips

murphaph wrote: »

The Red Line in the area you mention is absolutely crap though.

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that it also happens to be the part with as least twice as many stops as the rest of the red line.

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

Perhaps the EIS couldn't suggest alternative stops because DB were/are in the middle of implementing Network Direct and can't say where routes will go and what stops will be required.

Alternatively, perhaps by the time BXD is operational, Dublin Bus will have sorted out their god awful dwell times and will be allowed to share track and stops with Luas like other cities do.

Irrespective of that there are huge numbers of stops/stands being removed that will cause serious problems in running the bus service through the city centre.

Stops on Dawson Street, Grafton Street, College Street, Hawkins Street, Marlborough Street and O'Connell Street Lower (Easons) are all down for removal. That will mean pretty large gaps between stops in the city centre.

murphaph

AngryLips wrote: »

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that it also happens to be the part with as least twice as many stops as the rest of the red line.

I'm sure there are just as many bus stops on the competing bus routes yet they hammer the red line day in day out.

The Red Line does the business between Tallaght and James'-after that it's downhill (literally) with a tortuously slow route.

The slow bit hamstrings the good bit, which is why it'll eventually have to go underground IMO (just as countless European cities discovered THIRTY YEARS AGO: trams are wonderful so long as interaction with road traffic is kept to a minimum).

Dublin had all the experience to look at and replicated an antiquated tramway in the Red Line north of the Quays. It was a terrible decision even then. The lion's share of the work in building Luas in the city centre was utility diversion. They should have opted for a cut and cover tunnel from Heuston to Connolly, not as much extra work as one might think when one is diverting utilities anyway.

AngryLips

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sure there are just as many bus stops on the competing bus routes yet they hammer the red line day in day out.

The Luas has to stop at every single stop whereas the bus doesn't. Dwell times easily accounts for 4 of the eleven-or-so minutes between Heuston and Abbey Street on Luas. I regularly get the bus along the Quays into town and it's unusual for it to stop any more than once between Heuston and Ha'penny Bridge.

You're confusing the higher frequency of stops in the city centre with the 'drawbacks' of on-street running. Most of the on-street sections are on dedicated routes anyway. An underground options would only be marginally faster if it were also serving that many stops ...not worth the investment alone. If going underground meant higher capacity, like MN, then you could justify it based on demand. But I suspect that the appeal of underground here is just for the sake of it and nothing else.

murphaph

AngryLips wrote: »

The Luas has to stop at every single stop whereas the bus doesn't. Dwell times easily accounts for 4 of the eleven-or-so minutes between Heuston and Abbey Street on Luas. I regularly get the bus along the Quays into town and it's unusual for it to stop any more than once between Heuston and Ha'penny Bridge.

You're confusing the higher frequency of stops in the city centre with the 'drawbacks' of on-street running. Most of the on-street sections are on dedicated routes anyway. An underground options would only be marginally faster if it were also serving that many stops ...not worth the investment alone. If going underground meant higher capacity, like MN, then you could justify it based on demand. But I suspect that the appeal of underground here is just for the sake of it and nothing else.

Of course Luas doesn't have to stop at every stop. That's an operational decision. Trams in Berlin stop only on request, just like buses.

By going underground, the number of stops would obviously be reduced in line with other pre metro systems. Do you really believe that if Luas went underground behind James's (up to which point it has 90% levels of segregation) that it wouldn't be significantly faster overall?

I am not so naive to believe underground is automatically better. Segregation is what's important, the means of achieving that are irrelevant (from a journey duration point of view, obviously elevated lines in Dublin city centre would be largely unwelcome nowadays)

trellheim

BXD is a nightmare. It can be, and is, done by buses faster and cheaper. Let's face it if we had to go with buses for that segment for the next 10 years it wouldn't matter all that much. Given the financial outlook this is like burning fivers to heat the house.

AngryLips

murphaph wrote: »

Do you really believe that if Luas went underground behind James's (up to which point it has 90% levels of segregation) that it wouldn't be significantly faster overall?

Well obviously it would if you reduce the number of stops but that can be achieved without putting it underground and at much less cost (not that I'm advocating that in the slightest).

D.L.R.

AngryLips wrote: »

But I suspect that the appeal of underground here is just for the sake of it and nothing else.

Yes, it must be that these underground advocates are somehow irrational. :rolleyes:

I mean imagine, having underground light rail under the busiest parts of the city. Thank god all these lunatics have emigrated to those crazy countries with underground systems.

Judgement Day

D.L.R. wrote: »

Yes, it must be that these underground advocates are somehow irrational. :rolleyes:

I mean imagine, having underground light rail under the busiest parts of the city. Thank god all these lunatics have emigrated to those crazy countries with underground systems.

Let's face it, if Dublin had an Underground it would soon end up like the Liffey Boardwalk or the Red Luas line.