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

Dardania

cgcsb wrote: »

Surely the cycle lane will spell the end for cars on Bachelor's walk no matter what option is chosen. In that context why all the bending over backwards to keep cars on bachelors walk only to remove them in a few months time regardless

Such a big step might scare opponents & politicians. Breaking into manageable steps is sometimes better

MJohnston

The direct approach has failed a few times now thanks to the car park lobbyists and others, so perhaps they're just doing what they can to make car commuting as unpleasant as possible (while also improving space for public transport), so that car volumes keep decreasing to the point where said car park lobbies find their car parks are no longer as worth defending as they used to be.

If you can't cut off the head of a snake, just trap it in an airtight box...

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

Surely the cycle lane will spell the end for cars on Bachelor's walk no matter what option is chosen. In that context why all the bending over backwards to keep cars on bachelors walk only to remove them in a few months time regardless

I think it involves removing the southside footpath on Bachelor's Walk - which frankly sees little use in the first place - most people use either the boardwalk or the northern footpath.

monument

LXFlyer wrote: »

No it isn't dropped.

Environmental analyses are being carried out for two options and we hopefully will get a final decision in October.

Transport committee in September and then full council in October, hopefully.

cgcsb wrote: »

Surely the cycle lane will spell the end for cars on Bachelor's walk no matter what option is chosen. In that context why all the bending over backwards to keep cars on bachelors walk only to remove them in a few months time regardless

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think it involves removing the southside footpath on Bachelor's Walk - which frankly sees little use in the first place - most people use either the boardwalk or the northern footpath.

That works for Bachelor's Walk, but I'm less sure how bus priority can be maintained on Eden Quay and keeping cars.

LXFlyer

monument wrote: »

Transport committee in September and then full council in October, hopefully.


That works for Bachelor's Walk, but I'm less sure how bus priority can be maintained on Eden Quay and keeping cars.

Well I think my views on that are fairly well known at this stage!

Middle Man

MJohnston wrote: »

The direct approach has failed a few times now thanks to the car park lobbyists and others, so perhaps they're just doing what they can to make car commuting as unpleasant as possible (while also improving space for public transport), so that car volumes keep decreasing to the point where said car park lobbies find their car parks are no longer as worth defending as they used to be.

If you can't cut off the head of a snake, just trap it in an airtight box...

Let's put another angle on this...

The new Luas Cross City line will be opening by the end of the year and it's very welcome though belated. While the car has been extremely beneficial to so many people, it is like everything else not the solution to every demand. It is quite clear that the best solution for getting around Dublin at street level is a combination of walking and light rail - both of these modes rock IMO. The missing link however is the Underground (for longer distance travel) and it is only upon its provision that the need for cars coming into Dublin will be considerably reduced. The DART Inter-connector must be the first major step and would, along with extensive heavy rail electrification, provide a major incentive for M1/M4/M7 commuters to switch mode of travel. I can't understand why so many Irish people don't get that!!!

Now, it is very interesting that I practically get my head chopped off every time I post anything that opposes cycling, but yet look at all the anti-car rubbish that's being posted here - this is a real case of double standards! Of course, I'm not one of the sheep who follows the doctrine that's delivered from the secular pulpit. Once again, I'm not for filling Dublin with cars, but there needs to be a reasonable solution and whether you guys want to hear it or not, Dublin needs an underground rail system (and Ireland needs the M20) and yes, it will cost money. However, look at all the money that people have for silly fashion trends, smoking and drinking - there may be scope for extra taxation so that we can fund the infrastructure we need! Oh, and there's our broken water systems too!

sunrainmooncl

I know the journey time from St. Stephen's Green to Cabra is supposed to be 21 mins but have they said how long it will take between each stop?

Sierra Oscar

Interesting article on the heritage works carried out during the project and the items workers uncovered.

The lost history of Dublin uncovered by Luas works

LXFlyer

sunrainmooncl wrote: »

I know the journey time from St. Stephen's Green to Cabra is supposed to be 21 mins but have they said how long it will take between each stop?

Not as yet.

Muahahaha

Back at the design stage does anyone remember why Westmoreland St and the west side of OCS was preferred over using the east side of OCS and Dolier St? Was it a safety thing of not wanting a Luas running contraflow to car traffic on OCS? Now that it is finished OC Bridge seems to be very squashed on the west side but has stacks of space in the east side.

D.L.R.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Back at the design stage does anyone remember why Westmoreland St and the west side of OCS was preferred over using the east side of OCS and Dolier St?

Dublin Bus, basically. Ridiculous half measure to placate vested interests. One of the original route options had twin track up Westmoreland & OCS. They compromised by removing one.

technocrat

D.L.R. wrote: »

Dublin Bus, basically. Ridiculous half measure to placate vested interests. One of the original route options had twin track up Westmoreland & OCS. They compromised by removing one.

If the Spire didn't exist they could easily have ran both tracks up the central median with very little disruption to bus traffic.
Even the single track up Westmoreland st takes up relatively little space and could easily accommodate a second line.

Muahahaha

Yeah it just seems to me that the west side of OC Bridge is now very cluttered. The footpath badly needed widening, no doubt about that. But between that and the Luas line there is not much other space left whereas the east side of the bridge has stacks of space as does Dolier street which has no-where near as many pedestrians as Westmoreland does (and where footpath widening was also badly needed). Given the west side of the bridge seems to be much busier for pedestrians I would have thought using the east side for the Luas would have made more sense. It would have meant the Luas running contraflow to bus & taxi traffic on OCS but with proper segregation Im sure it was possible.

AngryLips

Whenever you have an event taking place on OCS, is it still possible to run a skeleton service to Broombridge using the Marlborough Street branch only?

BonnieSituation

AngryLips wrote: »

Whenever you have an event taking place on OCS, is it still possible to run a skeleton service to Broombridge using the Marlborough Street branch only?

This is why I still think that using OCS was madness.

A few months back on this very thread I posted about how 2-way on Marlborough was discounted during the EIS phase.

I still think it was Madness not to go through with it.

LXFlyer

D.L.R. wrote: »

Dublin Bus, basically. Ridiculous half measure to placate vested interests. One of the original route options had twin track up Westmoreland & OCS. They compromised by removing one.

Or perhaps remove the rose tinted glasses and realise it was to cause the minimum disruption to the city bus service and its users. Or perhaps you think DB users aren't relevant?

Also bear in mind that the loop facilitates the turning back of trams from the south side without having to go into a turnback platform and the driver changing ends.

D.L.R.

LXFlyer wrote: »

Or perhaps remove the rose tinted glasses and realise it was to cause the minimum disruption to the city bus service and its users. Or perhaps you think DB users aren't relevant?

Also bear in mind that the loop facilitates the turning back of trams from the south side without having to go into a turnback platform and the driver changing ends.

Nothing to do with the user, the loop route was done to keep Dublin Bus's most lucrative routes safe. The loop will cause MORE disruption than a straight route would have. Buses will be slower along the quays and up & down OCS due to the loop. Buses and trams cross paths more often due to the loop.

"Turnback facilities" more hairbrained logic to justify a dumb route choice designed to keep vested interests happy at the EXPENSE of a more efficient transport system for the end user.

LXFlyer

D.L.R. wrote: »

Nothing to do with the user, the loop route was done to keep Dublin Bus's most lucrative routes safe. The loop will cause MORE disruption than a straight route would have. Buses will be slower along the quays and up & down OCS due to the loop. Buses and trams cross paths more often due to the loop.

"Turnback facilities" more hairbrained logic to justify a dumb route choice.

Running both lines along OCS would have an even worse impact on the bus service rather than the option that has been taken.

It has nothing to do with "lucrative routes" - Dublin Bus will get a flat fee for operating the bus service with the award of the next tender and farebox revenue will go to the NTA.

You seem to be rather obsessed with DB as a company, rather than the bus service per se.

Given that every second tram will turn back south at Parnell stop, not having to go into a siding and the driver reverse ends will make the operation more efficient. Hardly hairbrained logic.

D.L.R.

LXFlyer wrote: »

Running both lines along OCS would have an even worse impact on the bus service rather than the option that has been taken.

It has nothing to do with "lucrative routes" - Dublin Bus will get a flat fee for operating the bus service with the award of the next tender and farebox revenue will go to the NTA.

You seem to be rather obsessed with DB as a company, rather than the bus service per se.

Its more the fact that our various transport companies don't cooperate in the common interest, they seek out their own interests first and foremost. That's what bothers me. This is a prime example. It took years to even organise this shoddy route and DB and others shaped it according to their own needs not the city's needs.

Given that every second tram will turn back south at Parnell stop, not having to go into a siding and the driver reverse ends will make the operation more efficient. Hardly hairbrained logic.

Complete nonsense to suggest a tram line needs a turnback in the city centre, when it can just as easily carry on up the line and serve the northern branch with more trams.

Stephen15

D.L.R. wrote: »

Complete nonsense to suggest a tram line needs a turnback in the city centre, when it can just as easily carry on up the line and serve the northern branch with more trams.

You clearly don't have much of an understanding of how public transport works. If all trams went all the way to Broombridge then that would mean that there would be longer journey times meaning that trams wouldn't be able to run as frequently.

strassenwo!f

Stephen15 wrote: »

If all trams went all the way to Broombridge then that would mean that there would be longer journey times meaning that trams wouldn't be able to run as frequently.

No, the trams could run just as frequently. The proposed 4-minute frequency at, for example, the stop on Marlborough Street is unaffected by the origin of the tram (i.e. whether it's coming in from Broombridge or has just turned around the loop from the Parnell Monument).

We all know it's going to be a huge success from day 1. My guess is that (i) about a week after it opens there's going to already be a clamour to increase service levels north of O'Connell Street, and (ii) within 2 years we will see a rejigging of the Broadstone stop - where space could readily be made available - to introduce a turnback platform there.

D.L.R.

Stephen15 wrote: »

You clearly don't have much of an understanding of how public transport works. If all trams went all the way to Broombridge then that would mean that there would be longer journey times meaning that trams wouldn't be able to run as frequently.

Drivel. More weak and convenient excuses to justify bad choices. It "had to" have a turnback in the middle. Sure it did, unlike every tram line on the planet which doesn't.

Its a half measure which mixes bus and tram and bikes together like poster paints, and that brown glob represents Dublin's crap transport system in all its constipated woefulness. No plan, no vision, no clue.

MJohnston

Seems all a bit hyperbolic in here...the turnback makes sense to me, given how often parts of the city centre are shut down, or for occasional accidents that close parts of the line. It also makes expanding past Broombridge an easier proposition too.

LXFlyer

D.L.R. wrote: »

Drivel. More weak and convenient excuses to justify bad choices. It "had to" have a turnback in the middle. Sure it did, unlike every tram line on the planet which doesn't.

Its a half measure which mixes bus and tram and bikes together like poster paints, and that brown glob represents Dublin's crap transport system in all its constipated woefulness. No plan, no vision, no clue.

Only in your mind.

This route maximises operational flexibility by providing the facility to turnback trams at several locations (St Stephen's Green and Parnell for northbound trams, and Dominick St for southbound trams).

It also reduces the impact on the city bus service that operating both directions along OCS and the three sides of the D'Olier St/College St/Westmoreland St. That has nothing to do with vested interests - only someone who doesn't understand the importance that the bus service will continue to play (in the absence of MN and DU) would come up with a comment like that. The impact on the bus service is bad enough as it is without what you suggest.

CramCycle

technocrat wrote: »

If the Spire didn't exist they could easily have ran both tracks up the central median with very little disruption to bus traffic.
Even the single track up Westmoreland st takes up relatively little space and could easily accommodate a second line.

It probably was moved against for safety concerns, as instead of the current system, you would have essentially one road from one side of the street to the other, with essentially 6 lanes of traffic that pedestrians would have to cross without a break.

As for the turnback, not necessary as the driver could switch ends of the LUAS so all that was really needed was a switch to move from one track to the other like Stephens Green. Although maybe there was concern about troublemakers causing grief to drivers.

LXFlyer

CramCycle wrote: »

It probably was moved against for safety concerns, as instead of the current system, you would have essentially one road from one side of the street to the other, with essentially 6 lanes of traffic that pedestrians would have to cross without a break.

As for the turnback, not necessary as the driver could switch ends of the LUAS so all that was really needed was a switch to move from one track to the other like Stephens Green. Although maybe there was concern about troublemakers causing grief to drivers.

If the tram was using a conventional turnback - an additional siding would have been required in the middle of O'Connell Street - the driver switching ends would have to happen off the two running lines.

This solution eliminates that and saves time as the tram can keep going.

CramCycle

LXFlyer wrote: »

If the tram was using a conventional turnback - an additional siding would have been required in the middle of O'Connell Street - the driver switching ends would have to happen off the two running lines.

This solution eliminates that and saves time as the tram can keep going.

I am not convinced that there would not have been a workable solution without it, it would more have been a timetabling/logistics issue IMO but I get your point, it basically means they can put less thought into it. Probably a few other scenarios I have missed.

LXFlyer

The choice of route needs to be operationally flexible - that is the most important element. For example, the Connolly turnback on the Red Line allows for the trams to be concentrated on the key Busaras - Belgard section rather than having everything go unnecessarily to the Point.

You certainly do not turn back trams on the running lines except at a terminus. One look at the problems IE experience at Malahide will tell you that.

In the same way this allows for the Green Line to have maximum frequency where it's needed which is Sandyford-Parnell.

This whole discussion about the choice of Green Line route is kind of pointless at this point to be honest, given that it's now built and almost ready to start testing. It's almost trying to put the cart before the horse.

D.L.R.

Maybe the cross city's inherent crapness and limitations will speed up the process of building the metro system we should have been focusing on from day 1, so good may come of all this faffing about with sticking plaster solutions.

lawred2

D.L.R. wrote: »

Maybe the cross city's inherent crapness and limitations will speed up the process of building the metro system we should have been focusing on from day 1, so good may come of all this faffing about with sticking plaster solutions.

It'll be a huge success.

ANY advances are to be welcomed in public transport.

But yes - let's get on with what would be a real game changer - a metro

Something that should have been started when the Dart was electrified. Now that was a bad call.