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

LXFlyer

fxotoole wrote: »

The Longford to Dublin train stops at Broombridge just after the 08.03 luas leaves for sandyford, and the next tram is not until 08.22. They should change the times of those trams to facilitate Irish rail passengers on that train

Given that the trams are scheduled to integrate with the other trams that are turning at Parnell - that's not always going to be possible.

Also, given that passengers changing from the train will have to walk all the way up the ramp to the road bridge, cross it, and walk into the LUAS stop (until the new footbridge is commissioned), you would have to delay the tram significantly beyond 08:03. There is also the service along the full line to Sandyford and Brides Glen to consider as well as the potential connecting passengers.

When the new trams arrive in the Spring, frequency should increase to/from Broombridge , but for the moment I would think that staying on the train to Tara St and then getting a tram from Marlborough stop would be better - it would certainly be cheaper for most trips.

Carawaystick

It's a bit only in Ireland to be able to build a tramline from Broombridge to SSG but not be able to schedule a bridge over a trainline to be done before/at-the-same-time-as the tramline....

Bray Head

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's a bit only in Ireland to be able to build a tramline from Broombridge to SSG but not be able to schedule a bridge over a trainline to be done before/at-the-same-time-as the tramline....

I think it shows that TII (erstwhile RPA) is a really high quality public sector organisation and that the CIÉ group is a really poor one.


It's a bit annoying when people constantly claim that public sector capacity is weak in Ireland. Yes it is in certain parts, no it isn't in others. Over the long run the better organisations should take over the tasks from the worse ones. The CIÉ group as it is now is pretty unreformable in its current guise.

Nermal

Would a Red line underpass under O'Connell St save any time? Slope down Middle Abbey St, stay just under street level for the Abbey St stop, slope back up after Marlborough St... There are similar inclines elsewhere on the network, aren't there?

CramCycle

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Contactless payments weren't in use to the extent that they are now so it wasn't feasible. And I bet if they delayed the roll out of a ticketing system like leap while we waited on contactless payments to become the norm I'm sure the NTA would have been criticised too. It's a no win.

Your statement above has been trotted out so much on here by others.

Leap has been incredibly successful in take up. It's frankly churlish to criticise it.

I have never heard anyone else here mention it, except me, all in all, it was far better than nothing but I talked to people who were at those meetings. It's not churlish, it is just telling it how it is. They were warned not to do it in the manner that they did, that there was a similar but far more effective way of doing it coming into effect. You miss the point of not needing contactless to become the norm, you could have had leap cards but run them like prepay credit cards.
Too late now of course, I was just making the point.

loyatemu

Nermal wrote: »

Would a Red line underpass under O'Connell St save any time? Slope down Middle Abbey St, stay just under street level for the Abbey St stop, slope back up after Marlborough St... There are similar inclines elsewhere on the network, aren't there?

it would save a couple of minutes - trams often have to wait a long time to cross OCS. But I can't see it being worth the cost - it would have to be in conjunction with a big increase in frequency and that wouldn't be possible without undergrounding elsewhere as well..

Del.Monte

Square crossings are bad news, and two within yards of each other are a recipe for disaster. I have watched this whole cross-city project with growing trepidation since the route was announced but I hope that my fears will be proved groundless.

Any announcement about beefing up security or is it going to be Red Line Mk.II?

bk

CramCycle wrote: »

Considering when they went over to London to look at that they were told, in no uncertain terms, not to get such a system as integrated ticketing is a logistical nightmare, instead, do what TfL eventually done and transfer it over to Visa/Mastercard who handle fare calculations, and dividing the money up to the separate operators as part of their charge.

Actually Oyster is still fully run by TFL! Gates, readers, ticket machines, back end servers, even Oyster cards are all still completely run by TFL. Only now you have the option to also optionally use your contactless debit/credit cards. But you are still doing it on Oyster readers, the data goes back to Oyster servers, fare calculations done by Oyster and they then just charge it to Visa/Mastercard overnight. It is all still mostly Oyster.

Leap are seemingly working on the same. But it will likewise will be run by Leap/NTA.

BTW The MTA (guys who run all public transport in New York) have licensed Oyster technology from TFL to replace their current old fashioned swipe cards with contactless systems. So clearly TFL know what they are doing and have a very good reputation.

Geuze

bk wrote: »

BTW The MTA (guys who run all public transport in New York) have licensed Oyster technology from TFL to replace their current old fashioned swipe cards with contactless systems. So clearly TFL know what they are doing and have a very good reputation.

I'm just an observer of public transit, not involved, but yes I agree, TFL seems to be a world leader in some respects.

Dardania

Interesting job posting regarding advanced ticketing systems: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/510811589/ 

Maybe they want to sharpen up Leap? (if in fact that is who AECOM is consulting to)?

Idbatterim

Came across this post in skyscrapercity. Thought I would post it here. Hits the nail on the head!

"I think MN is vital, almost as vital as DU. But Luas X is a very belated minor, slow and problematic addition to our infrastructure.

Problematic because it seems the late Garret Fitzgerald is being vindicated in relation to his calculations on the effect of running luas through College Green.

The Luas X will be an addition to transport efficiency in Dublin as a whole only when, and if, DU, MN and Luas line F are built.

We have put the cart before the horse. And while I welcome the cart we seriously need to buy the horse

It's 20 years ago since Garret was doing the maths on Luas through College Green; since then we have planned and designed DU, MN and proposed a route for Luas F...developments which would have removed all of Garret's objections.

But we approved Luas Cross City 5 years ago - and since then NOTHING has been done about the facilitating PT schemes.

In fact DU was shut down, having been shovel ready - and MN was also effectively cancelled, even while Luas X was already under construction.

So, very little to celebrate. A few km of tramline that will improve some journeys at the an unknown but very significant cost to many other journeys.

I support Luas Cross City; I also realise that in isolation it is more of a problem than a solution to Dublin's transport infrastructure in general."
__________________

Dardania

Idbatterim wrote: »

Came across this post in skyscrapercity. Thought I would post it here. Hits the nail on the head!

"I think MN is vital, almost as vital as DU. But Luas X is a very belated minor, slow and problematic addition to our infrastructure.

Problematic because it seems the late Garret Fitzgerald is being vindicated in relation to his calculations on the effect of running luas through College Green.

The Luas X will be an addition to transport efficiency in Dublin as a whole only when, and if, DU, MN and Luas line F are built.

We have put the cart before the horse. And while I welcome the cart we seriously need to buy the horse

It's 20 years ago since Garret was doing the maths on Luas through College Green; since then we have planned and designed DU, MN and proposed a route for Luas F...developments which would have removed all of Garret's objections.

But we approved Luas Cross City 5 years ago - and since then NOTHING has been done about the facilitating PT schemes.

In fact DU was shut down, having been shovel ready - and MN was also effectively cancelled, even while Luas X was already under construction.

So, very little to celebrate. A few km of tramline that will improve some journeys at the an unknown but very significant cost to many other journeys.

I support Luas Cross City; I also realise that in isolation it is more of a problem than a solution to Dublin's transport infrastructure in general."
__________________

Totally concur. And I'm also concerned about the recent development about FF threatening to collapse the government - if Leo's government could have lasted another year or two, they could have set the wheels in motion for some of these infra projects on the way out of government, without having to concern themselves with the objections of the rural TDs...

monument

Idbatterim wrote: »

Came across this post in skyscrapercity. Thought I would post it here. Hits the nail on the head!

"I think MN is vital, almost as vital as DU. But Luas X is a very belated minor, slow and problematic addition to our infrastructure.

Problematic because it seems the late Garret Fitzgerald is being vindicated in relation to his calculations on the effect of running luas through College Green.

The Luas X will be an addition to transport efficiency in Dublin as a whole only when, and if, DU, MN and Luas line F are built.

We have put the cart before the horse. And while I welcome the cart we seriously need to buy the horse

It's 20 years ago since Garret was doing the maths on Luas through College Green; since then we have planned and designed DU, MN and proposed a route for Luas F...developments which would have removed all of Garret's objections.

But we approved Luas Cross City 5 years ago - and since then NOTHING has been done about the facilitating PT schemes.

In fact DU was shut down, having been shovel ready - and MN was also effectively cancelled, even while Luas X was already under construction.

So, very little to celebrate. A few km of tramline that will improve some journeys at the an unknown but very significant cost to many other journeys.

I support Luas Cross City; I also realise that in isolation it is more of a problem than a solution to Dublin's transport infrastructure in general."
__________________

Fitzgerald also claimed Luas would not fit around the corner at the north of Dawson Street.

He was clearly wrong on that!

monument

Bray Head wrote: »

I think it shows that TII (erstwhile RPA) is a really high quality public sector organisation and that the CIgroup is a really poor one.


It's a bit annoying when people constantly claim that public sector capacity is weak in Ireland. Yes it is in certain parts, no it isn't in others. Over the long run the better organisations should take over the tasks from the worse ones. The CIgroup as it is now is pretty unreformable in its current guise.

TII/RPA and others involved with Luas are responsible for the following:

• opening route extension without having all the trams yet (as per LXFlyer's post)
• putting clusters of overground utility boxes on some of our most iconic streets
• using polls for overhead wires on many streets which could have used attachments to buildings (as used on Abby Street on the red line etc)
• a complete overuse of signage and/or sign polls
• ignoring the advice from consultants that cycling should be interrogated into the detailed design of the project from the start -- and ignoring the GDA cycle route network, ignoring what happened with the red line when they ignored providing for cycling etc
• ignoring the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets and the National Cycle Manual, meaning some of the street designs built in 2017 are against best standards, which were outlined way before construction -- this means the design of things ranging from lane way entrances to junctions are wrong and will require fixing sooner or later
• claiming at the planning stage that trams could run via College Green without even a bus gate being put in place
• building a high wall at the front the front door of Broadstone when the planning included a clear view of such, deny there was a problem until they their arms were twisted to fix it
• trying to ban cycling between Dawson Street and College Green when they were told by the city and others that it would not be accepted and only reversing their stance / being overruled by the NTA when there was national media coverage of it
• putting down granite paving all over the place but leaving utility covers exposed as if they were some type of modern art works

That doesn't show high quality. It shows dysfunctional at a high level and a disregard for a wide range of things which they could have saved the State time and money on if they addressed the issues from the start.

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

TII/RPA and others involved with Luas are responsible for the following:

• opening route extension without having all the trams yet (as per LXFlyer's post)
• putting clusters of overground utility boxes on some of our most iconic streets
• using polls for overhead wires on many streets which could have used attachments to buildings (as used on Abby Street on the red line etc)
• a complete overuse of signage and/or sign polls
• ignoring the advice from consultants that cycling should be interrogated into the detailed design of the project from the start -- and ignoring the GDA cycle route network, ignoring what happened with the red line when they ignored providing for cycling etc
• ignoring the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets and the National Cycle Manual, meaning some of the street designs built in 2017 are against best standards, which were outlined way before construction -- this means the design of things ranging from lane way entrances to junctions are wrong and will require fixing sooner or later
• claiming at the planning stage that trams could run via College Green without even a bus gate being put in place
• building a high wall at the front the front door of Broadstone when the planning included a clear view of such, deny there was a problem until they their arms were twisted to fix it
• trying to ban cycling between Dawson Street and College Green when they were told by the city and others that it would not be accepted and only reversing their stance / being overruled by the NTA when there was national media coverage of it
• putting down granite paving all over the place but leaving utility covers exposed as if they were some type of modern art works

That doesn't show high quality. It shows dysfunctional at a high level and a disregard for a wide range of things which they could have saved the State time and money on if they addressed the issues from the start.

They couldn't have attached the cables to the buildings as you need buildings on both sides to do this.
Can you give an example of a project (preferably in Ireland) where the utility boxes aren't exposed?

What you have neglected to mention is that Luas Cross City was an incredibly complex project in the heart of Dublin City Centre delivered on time and as a far as I am aware on budget.

We Irish have the ability to find fault with everything. We belittle ourselves. Luas Cross City will be a great addition to transport in Dublin, yet some people are criticising it before it even opens!!!

wakka12

Last Stop wrote: »

They couldn't have attached the cables to the buildings as you need buildings on both sides to do this.
Can you give an example of a project (preferably in Ireland) where the utility boxes aren't exposed?

What you have neglected to mention is that Luas Cross City was an incredibly complex project in the heart of Dublin City Centre delivered on time and as a far as I am aware on budget.

We Irish have the ability to find fault with everything. We belittle ourselves. Luas Cross City will be a great addition to transport in Dublin, yet some people are criticising it before it even opens!!!

I agree people are over critical but those boxes look absolutely ridiculous. I don't care if other places do it too, modern aesthetics with regards urban planning is just dog**** the world over. Doesn't mean we have to follow .
A little ingenuity wouldn't have gone astray. Why couldn't they be lumped together and all placed beneath some kind of nice stone structure with a little wooden door, or clad in some nice metal and disguised as a cool type of public seating for the square, or they could be placed under a stage for performances in the new square.Anything would be better, I don't claim to have the solution but it can be a million times better. Honestly theres a million ways they could have disguised them even a little, or made them into another amenity but no they had to be hideous utility boxes, all different shapes and colours.

I hate this modern idea that functional things can't be pretty . Or that theres no point spending any additional money to make things look nice.
The aqueducts are essentially water pipes and now they're beloved tourist attractions
Victorian pumping statiosn and mills and old industrial warehouses are all protected structures now as our generations have yet to produce any style of buildings of better quality than victorians did for their most functional utility buildings
But now as long as something just isn't a hideous eyesore then its a big win for us
Just something to think about

handlemaster

What are the buses servicing broombridge stop from the Dublin 15 area ?

LXFlyer

handlemaster wrote: »

What are the buses servicing broombridge stop from the Dublin 15 area ?

Broombridge LUAS stop is not served by any bus route.

The nearest bus would be the 120 on Carnlough Road, while Phibsboro stop is served by the 38/38a/38b/38d, 46a, 120 and 122.

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

Broombridge LUAS stop is not served by any bus route.

The nearest bus would be the 120 on Carnlough Road, while Phibsboro stop is served by the 38/38a/38b/38d, 46a, 120 and 122.

In fairness the 120’s stop is only 2 minutes walk away from the Broombridge Luas.

monument

Last Stop wrote: »

They couldn't have attached the cables to the buildings as you need buildings on both sides to do this.
Can you give an example of a project (preferably in Ireland) where the utility boxes aren't exposed?

What you have neglected to mention is that Luas Cross City was an incredibly complex project in the heart of Dublin City Centre delivered on time and as a far as I am aware on budget.

We Irish have the ability to find fault with everything. We belittle ourselves. Luas Cross City will be a great addition to transport in Dublin, yet some people are criticising it before it even opens!!!

I’m not saying Luas Cross City is all bad, I’m saying they messed up on planning and messed up on detailed design (utility boxes, public realm, junctions, traffic, cycling, polls etc)

On time and on budget but corners were cut — mandatory guidance wasn’t followed, consultants were paid to give advice and their reports were left to gather dust etc.

Re the cables — actually, there’s examples where there’s building on both sides but Luas Cross City went with polls — that was my point of referencing Abbey Street with the red line, it was done far better than most of the Cross City Route.

As for undergrounding the utilities — I’m not talking about doing it everywhere but at least for College Green and some of the other key locations. It is possible the red line (for some reason) has an underground utility chamber west of the platforms at Spencer Dock.

But some attempt at better design (like one box rather than three) or placement, there seems to be little effort. But such costs money and might have left you unable to say on budget.

The RPA/TII have been left away with the boxes and overkill of signs for so long, they just can’t help themselves.




Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets = the most pedestrian friendly policy and planning document in Ireland.

You’ll see the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets was mentioned in my post. The point of that is that the project fails to follow the guidance and policy on pedestrian-friendly.

I don’t however think Luas Cross City is all bad and one of the ways it’s good is giving over space up pedestrians.

Middle Man

I do agree that most clusters of utility boxes should be placed in underground chambers - can't understand why it wasn't done!

roadmaster

Would DCC not of had to approve the utility boxes or where they excluded from them decisions ?

Victor

Middle Man wrote: »

I do agree that most clusters of utility boxes should be placed in underground chambers - can't understand why it wasn't done!

Rain and electronic equipment don't mix very well - or rather, they mix too well.

markpb

Victor wrote: »

Rain and electronic equipment don't mix very well - or rather, they mix too well.

It’ll be ground breaking (excuse the pun) then when engineers find a way of putting things underground and keeping them dry!

stampydmonkey

markpb wrote: »

It’ll be ground breaking (excuse the pun) then when engineers find a way of putting things underground and keeping them dry!

And were dare I say would all these 100s of underground utility "rooms" go? The city and route was clogged with private basements which caused enough hassle. Anyone ever hear of a confined space. You cant mix utilities belonging to different companies into single room. Theres atex, health and safety, access, space requirements etc and you would still require man holes and chambers.

Agree the design of some of the Fibre boxes/mini pillars/DRIs could have been modified but utility companies want people away from their infrastructure not directly interacting with it.

Sam Russell

Mod: Off topic rants removed. Please be civil to each other and try to keep on-track. This topic is about Cross City Luas.

monument

Victor wrote: »

Rain and electronic equipment don't mix very well - or rather, they mix too well.

Underground chambers — like the one at Spencer Dock — can be kept dry.

wakka12

stampydmonkey wrote: »

And were dare I say would all these 100s of underground utility "rooms" go? The city and route was clogged with private basements which caused enough hassle. Anyone ever hear of a confined space. You cant mix utilities belonging to different companies into single room. Theres atex, health and safety, access, space requirements etc and you would still require man holes and chambers.

Agree the design of some of the Fibre boxes/mini pillars/DRIs could have been modified but utility companies want people away from their infrastructure not directly interacting with it.

So make it painfully ugly to scare us away from them? Works like a charm
As I said, they could easily be clumped together and placed under some nice looking structure with a locked door to the boxes inside

wakka12

Put a basket of flowers over them


or some other kind of planter


Doesn't have to be as tacky as this but could easily be incorporated into carved stone seating or something

It could be hidden under/within a nice looking market stall?

As I said , million and one ways to improve this.I don't claim to have the answer, but it can be better, whilst maintaining functionality and safety, No doubt about this.
They're the ones sitting around a table designing this scheme, they can do better.
But as usual we are given dog**** urban planning, not that I care that much anymore Ive pretty much given up on dublin ever being a nice city, theres just too little motivation amongst any bodies with influence for this to ever happen

spacetweek

monument wrote: »

Underground chambers — like the one at Spencer Dock — can be kept dry.

The former public toilet at College Green will presumably stay dry now that it’s a Luas equipment room.