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

Jamie2k9

LXFlyer wrote: »

With respect that’s a cop out.

People have been left waiting for up to 30 minutes to get on trams in an area where there are no viable alternative public tranport options (the bus service having been cut back due to lack of demand).

It’s simply not good enough to say everything will be ok by March.

Longer trams from Feb (?), terminating now would just increase anger from customers and even more reputation damage to Luas. Now the sensible thing would be to ensure that all longer trams are on the Parnell turn during peak until they are all complete.

Stephen15

LXFlyer wrote: »

I’ve gone out observing it (as have some others) and there are anything but high numbers on that section currently (particularly the Parnell stoppers).

Last week one morning the average over the peak period passing Westmoreland stop was just over 40 per tram.

The vast majority of people get off at or before SSG.

You could easily reduce the frequency north of SSG and still carry everyone comfortably, and at the same time improve the situation south of Sandyford.

I said it before it was opened that a passing loop should have been installed on Stephens Green to allow trams to terminate there and a proper passing loop rather than just a layover facility which is there now.

Terminating peak hour trams at SSG would make a lot of sense not all just some peak hour trams similar to the Southbound Darts which terminate in DL it would ease the overcrowding South of SSG. I have to say it is disappointing to the 54m trams delayed aswell.

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Longer trams from Feb (?), terminating now would just increase anger from customers and even more reputation damage to Luas. Now the sensible thing would be to ensure that all longer trams are on the Parnell turn during peak until they are all complete.

I think the anger being experienced by a far greater number of people at not being able to get the trams in the first place is a more serious issue.

You don’t seem to realise how bad the problem actually is.

Again - the average number was 42 people on LCC at Westmoreland stop - it hardly compares to the numbers being discommoded.

Jamie2k9

LXFlyer wrote: »

With respect that’s a cop out.

People have been left waiting for up to 25 minutes to get on trams south of Sandyford, in an area where there are no viable alternative public tranport options (the bus service having been cut back some years ago in line with reduced demand).

It’s simply not good enough to say everything will be ok by March, when this problem could be addressed now. It’s an appalling way to treat existing customers.

I’d seriously question the need for a 3 minute frequency on LCC based on my observations - a six minute frequency would be sufficient.

DCC will have to deal with this regardless when the longer trams arrive and I seriously worry that they are going to cause mayhem in the city centre. Having some SSG terminators at peak times are in my view a sensible compromise.

I agree on the freq however they should not even contemplate any form of termination in SSG until DCCs hand is forced and that will only happen with longer trams operating at a 3 minute freq and hopefully back to back to force action.

Current problems are for the greater good...

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I agree on the freq however they should not even contemplate any form of termination in SSG until DCCs hand is forced and that will only happen with longer trams operating at a 3 minute freq and hopefully back to back to force action.

Current problems are for the greater good...

I’d love to see you go out to the people and say that to them.

Customer service obviously doesn’t feature in your daily routine.

That has to be one of the most arrogant and ludicrous lines that I’ve read here on these boards.

Jamie2k9

LXFlyer wrote: »

I’d love to see you go out to the people and say that to them.

Customer service obviously doesn’t feature in your daily routine.

That has to be one of the most arrogant and ludicrous lines that I’ve read here on these boards.

Your right about customer service, however without me customers won't be going anywhere!

I think if customers were educated particularly on how badly DCC have handled the situation many would be understanding. Luas managers should be out regularly at SSG informing customers and taking feedback.

I also believe the longer trams have deliberately been delayed. The plan for long trams were to start gradually from December not February and it likely comes back to DCC failing to address traffic so TII/Luas decided to have a gradual launch before starting them.

Alstom were working on that assumption for the longer trams.

markpb

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I think if customers were educated particularly on how badly DCC have handled the situation many would be understanding. Luas managers should be out regularly at SSG informing customers and taking feedback.

What feedback should they be taking? People can’t get on their trams in the morning, their commutes have almost doubled. Everyone knows the reason why. Do you think some men in suits pretending to listen would help? Your bizarre notion that passengers should be held hostage to force DCC to take action would be laughable if it wasn’t so ridiculous and insulting. And that’s ignoring the fact that you’re dreaming up some bizarre TII conspiracy to force DCCs hand. Nothing DCC do can make up for the shortage (not short) of trams in south Dublin.

I also love your optimism that this will be sorted in a little over two weeks. I suspect it’ll be late March at best before all trams are assembled, tested and in production. For your own sake, I hope your commute is never affected for 3.5 months like what is happening today. I suspect your Queen Antoinette attitude would swiftly change.

Jamie2k9

markpb wrote: »

What feedback should they be taking? People can’t get on their trams in the morning, their commutes have almost doubled. Everyone knows the reason why. Do you think some men in suits pretending to listen would help? Your bizarre notion that passengers should be held hostage to force DCC to take action would be laughable if it wasn’t so ridiculous and insulting. And that’s ignoring the fact that you’re dreaming up some bizarre TII conspiracy to force DCCs hand. Nothing DCC do can make up for the shortage (not short) of trams in south Dublin.

I also love your optimism that this will be sorted in a little over two weeks. I suspect it’ll be late March at best before all trams are assembled, tested and in production. For your own sake, I hope your commute is never affected for 3.5 months like what is happening today. I suspect your Queen Antoinette attitude would swiftly change.

I never suggested it would all be sorted in two weeks, once longer trams start to arrive it will help and it should be viable quickly if they are scheduled correctly. Obviously it won't be until all are complete it will be over and the only testing has been complete.

I have also been critical of the tram shortage and what a mess its been made but I don't think terminating at SSG is the answer. It should of been done at the start if they wanted to do it.

LXFlyer

So you don’t think an organisation (in this case TII/NTA) should hold its hands up, admit that it’s made a mistake, and address it by implementing some temporary changes to alleviate the problem?

That’s a pretty shocking attitude to be quite frank. Basically, it’s showing two fingers to the customers. That’s not right in any circumstance.

Jamie2k9

LXFlyer wrote: »

So you don’t think an organisation (in this case TII/NTA) should hold its hands up, admit that it’s made a mistake, and address it by implementing some temporary changes to alleviate the problem?

That’s a pretty shocking attitude to be quite frank. Basically, it’s showing two fingers to the customers. That’s not right in any circumstance.

Yes they need to hold their hands out and explain why the longer trams have not entered service liked planned, why the order was made so late and what forward planning was carried out and why they failed to for see the current problems.

I don't travel on the green line at peak times but can I assume the major congestion happens between 07.45-08.30 inbound. I really can't see people not been able to board the first or second trams earlier than this but someone can clarify. Now from a scheduling prospective would turning back at Parnell Street really deliver much in terms of capacity for a short period of time. Weighting it up, I'm not sure there would be a massive difference because you more less have to terminate trams at SSG at around 07.10 for them to be back out at peak hours and would you maybe get 3 trams back out to cater for the peak. (I have not looked at current peak GL schedules)

Now while everybody is moaning, you can bet the numbers actually taking the time to complain to them about the problem isn't half as many and without a major volume of complains change won't happen. My view on terminating trams is irrelevant but you can be sure they are not under enough pressure to deal with the issue hence no change.

hmmm

I'm with LXFlyer on this one. I find the situation bizarre, where an existing well run service is cannibalised in order to meet an unrealistic date for introduction of a new service, and passengers are being told that they will have to wait until March for the service to be fixed.

The solution is simple - postpone LCC until it is properly ready to go-live. Yes someone is able to tick a box and say "we delivered LCC on time", but that was only achieved by causing disruption for existing services.

ArmaniJeanss

hmmm wrote: »

I'm with LXFlyer on this one. I find the situation bizarre, where an existing well run service is cannibalised in order to meet an unrealistic date for introduction of a new service, and passengers are being told that they will have to wait until March for the service to be fixed.

The solution is simple - postpone LCC until it is properly ready to go-live. Yes someone is able to tick a box and say "we delivered LCC on time", but that was only achieved by causing disruption for existing services.

Theres a fully functioning line from Broombridge - BridesGlen now. Deciding that a portion of it merits no service whatsoever would have been a terrible decision, effectively saying that Dundrum is more worthy than Cabra. Giving all ends of the line some service, but below par, is a reasonable compromise.

Having the bloody trams ready in time would have been the best solution obviously. Artificially slowing down the construction just might have been a clever albeit sly option but the truth would probably have eventually come out.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think the anger being experienced by a far greater number of people at not being able to get the trams in the first place is a more serious issue.

Here is the thing though, the anger is currently only being felt by people using the Green Line. The rest of the country mostly haven't heard about it.

If you stop running trains on LCC, it will make front page news on all the newspapers and radio talk shows and do terrible damage to the idea of public transport.

You would have people all around the country saying, look, LCC was a massive waste of money. Rail based public transport is a waste of money, lets stop doing it.

It would likely damage the chance of future Luas lines and extensions and even likely damage MN/DU.

I don't think any of us, including most people on the Green line would want that.

I know that sucks for the people who just use this service from day to day, but sometimes you have to stand back and look at the bigger picture and the long term consequences.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of blame to go around, to DCC, NTA and in particular the business associations driven by the car parks.

What people should be doing, is getting together and putting pressure on their politicians to improve public transport in the city. To counter balance the power of those business associations who manage to get every transport plan watered down.

Direct you anger at the right place. Don't fall for this, it is exactly what they want.

hmmm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Giving all ends of the line some service, but below par, is a reasonable compromise.

You don't take services away from existing commuters in order to run services on a new line. People on the LCC have used alternative services until recently and can continue to use those services for a few months longer, whereas people on the existing lines have completely relied on the LUAS for years.

It's the same argument I hear from people saying that buses should be rerouted to facilitate LCC. Don't make the lives of existing commuters worse just because you want to run a new service which hasn't been properly thought through.

ArmaniJeanss

hmmm wrote: »

You don't take services away from existing commuters in order to run services on a new line. People on the LCC have used alternative services until recently and can continue to use those services for a few months longer, whereas people on the existing lines have completely relied on the LUAS for years.

It's the same argument I hear from people saying that buses should be rerouted to facilitate LCC. Don't make the lives of existing commuters worse just because you want to run a new service which hasn't been properly thought through.

I don't see it as a new line. Its not LCC or LxB, it's just an extension to the Green Line (I think that's pretty much the way maps and luas website are looking at it also).
Once it was completed the people on the Broombridge side are immediately every bit as much 'existing customers' as those on the Brides Glen side, and entitled to a service.

Chivito550

hmmm wrote: »

You don't take services away from existing commuters in order to run services on a new line. People on the LCC have used alternative services until recently and can continue to use those services for a few months longer, whereas people on the existing lines have completely relied on the LUAS for years.

It's the same argument I hear from people saying that buses should be rerouted to facilitate LCC. Don't make the lives of existing commuters worse just because you want to run a new service which hasn't been properly thought through.

Problem is that those who take the LCC and to Broombridge are now existing customers too.

The ship has sailed I’m afraid. Terminating at SSG will not be happening.

BonnieSituation

Chivito550 wrote: »

Problem is that those who take the LCC and to Broombridge are now existing customers too.

The ship has sailed I’m afraid. Terminating at SSG will not be happening.

But they're going Northside. feck them.

LXFlyer

hmmm wrote: »

I'm with LXFlyer on this one. I find the situation bizarre, where an existing well run service is cannibalised in order to meet an unrealistic date for introduction of a new service, and passengers are being told that they will have to wait until March for the service to be fixed.

The solution is simple - postpone LCC until it is properly ready to go-live. Yes someone is able to tick a box and say "we delivered LCC on time", but that was only achieved by causing disruption for existing services.

There is no need to postpone the cross-city extension and I am NOT suggesting that.

This can be resolved with some relatively minor timetable changes.

LXFlyer

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Theres a fully functioning line from Broombridge - BridesGlen now. Deciding that a portion of it merits no service whatsoever would have been a terrible decision, effectively saying that Dundrum is more worthy than Cabra. Giving all ends of the line some service, but below par, is a reasonable compromise.

Having the bloody trams ready in time would have been the best solution obviously. Artificially slowing down the construction just might have been a clever albeit sly option but the truth would probably have eventually come out.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't see it as a new line. Its not LCC or LxB, it's just an extension to the Green Line (I think that's pretty much the way maps and luas website are looking at it also).
Once it was completed the people on the Broombridge side are immediately every bit as much 'existing customers' as those on the Brides Glen side, and entitled to a service.

For the record (again) I am not suggesting diminishing the service to/from Broombridge whatsoever.

I'm suggesting that the timetable be recast to turn back some of the trams that currently operate from either Brides Glen or Sandyford to Parnell at St Stephen's Green, and thereby release trams to replace the three peak departures from Brides Glen.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Here is the thing though, the anger is currently only being felt by people using the Green Line. The rest of the country mostly haven't heard about it.

If you stop running trains on LCC, it will make front page news on all the newspapers and radio talk shows and do terrible damage to the idea of public transport.

You would have people all around the country saying, look, LCC was a massive waste of money. Rail based public transport is a waste of money, lets stop doing it.

It would likely damage the chance of future Luas lines and extensions and even likely damage MN/DU.

I don't think any of us, including most people on the Green line would want that.

I know that sucks for the people who just use this service from day to day, but sometimes you have to stand back and look at the bigger picture and the long term consequences.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of blame to go around, to DCC, NTA and in particular the business associations driven by the car parks.

What people should be doing, is getting together and putting pressure on their politicians to improve public transport in the city. To counter balance the power of those business associations who manage to get every transport plan watered down.


Direct you anger at the right place. Don't fall for this, it is exactly what they want.

I am well conversant with the problems facing public transport in Dublin - probably more so than anyone else on these boards being honest about it, so I don't really need to be told where to address my anger.

The long term issue is the lack of any mass transit rail alternatives and the complete lack of political will to deliver them over the last 40+ years - the transport issues facing Dublin frankly require delivery of DART Underground, and Metro North.

But that is not what I'm talking about here - I've stated my views on the shortcomings of the planning of the Green Line extension repeatedly and I'm not going to revisit that now.

I'm purely looking at what could be done to resolve the serious operational problems that are being experienced on the south side at the moment in the short term until the new trams are delivered and to make people's commute less of a nightmare.

Transport companies all across the world reassess timetables and stock allocation in line with demand to deal with overcrowding on a regular basis, and I don't see why LUAS should be any different.

Both you and others here clearly haven't even looked at the new -v- old timetables to see what the issues are, nor have you, by the sounds of things any knowledge, of what is actually happening on the ground.

Turning several trams in the mornings (note several) at SSG using the turnback facility there (that was installed as part of the project for precisely this purpose) is not going to destroy the reputation of LUAS or rail based solutions - talk about exaggeration.

It's called matching resources with demand.

Perhaps you and some of the other posters here should go and actually see how bad the situation is before pontificating that this is for the greater good. That's not how one solves these kinds of problems.

CramCycle

At rush hour, how full are the trams between SSG and Parnell St.? In both directions. If either are full, leave as is.
If they are only half full turn back every second LUAS between the two, if they are a third full, turn back every third.

Without knowing how full they are, I can't comment on whether the suggestion for turn backs are a good idea or ridiculous.

Does anyone have an idea?

Chivito550

CramCycle wrote: »

At rush hour, how full are the trams between SSG and Parnell St.? In both directions. If either are full, leave as is.
If they are only half full turn back every second LUAS between the two, if they are a third full, turn back every third.

Without knowing how full they are, I can't comment on whether the suggestion for turn backs are a good idea or ridiculous.

Does anyone have an idea?

I get off at Dawson Street now. It’s usually jammed until Charlement then I get a seat the rest of the way. I’d say it’s less than half full after Stephen’s Green. The majority get off at Charlement and Harcourt.

Loving the extension to Dawson personally. 2 min walk from the LUAS to my desk.

LXFlyer

CramCycle wrote: »

At rush hour, how full are the trams between SSG and Parnell St.? In both directions. If either are full, leave as is.
If they are only half full turn back every second LUAS between the two, if they are a third full, turn back every third.

Without knowing how full they are, I can't comment on whether the suggestion for turn backs are a good idea or ridiculous.

Does anyone have an idea?

As I have already posted, on a recent morning, a survey of 26 northbound trams during the peak period showed a total load of 1,100 people on board as they passed Westmoreland stop - that's an average load of 42 people per tram. Clearly the trams going towards Broombridge would have a better loading (and I'm not suggesting changing them in any way) than those terminating at Parnell.

Southbound trams starting at Broombridge would also be better loaded, but those starting at Parnell have lots of spare capacity until they reach SSG.

CramCycle

LXFlyer wrote: »

As I have already posted, on a recent morning, a survey of 26 northbound trams during the peak period showed a total load of 1,100 people on board as they passed Westmoreland stop - that's an average load of 42 people per tram. Clearly the trams going towards Broombridge would have a better loading (and I'm not suggesting changing them in any way) than those terminating at Parnell.

Southbound trams starting at Broombridge would also be better loaded, but those starting at Parnell have lots of spare capacity until they reach SSG.

The obvious solution in this case is at rush hour to turn back any tram terminating at Parnell, In fact, have no trams starting there either during rush hour.
Or am I over simplfying it. It won't solve the problem but it may ease it a bit. This was your suggestion right?

Wait until Clayfarm opens and the other development across from Leopardstown heights opens. One of the original complaints by residents for the second one was insufficient car park spaces, therefore people would block up local side streets, which are already used for cheap/free parking by south Dublin business park and Sandyford Industrial Estate.

I see alot of them being bought up by young professionals who are more likely to use PT etc. The capacity of the route, even with the new trams, will struggle in the next year once more.

ArmaniJeanss

LXFlyer wrote: »

For the record (again) I am not suggesting diminishing the service to/from Broombridge whatsoever.

Not sure why you are replying this to me, both of my posts were to poster 'hmmm' who had said operations on the extension should be cancelled until March.

Your turnback compromise (if that's the right word) seems reasonable enough.

LXFlyer

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Not sure why you are replying this to me, both of my posts were to poster 'hmmm' who had said operations on the extension should be cancelled until March.

Your turnback compromise (if that's the right word) seems reasonable enough.

I was just making clear what I was suggesting (lest anyone think otherwise)!

LXFlyer

CramCycle wrote: »

The obvious solution in this case is at rush hour to turn back any tram terminating at Parnell, In fact, have no trams starting there either during rush hour.
Or am I over simplfying it. It won't solve the problem but it may ease it a bit. This was your suggestion right?

Wait until Clayfarm opens and the other development across from Leopardstown heights opens. One of the original complaints by residents for the second one was insufficient car park spaces, therefore people would block up local side streets, which are already used for cheap/free parking by south Dublin business park and Sandyford Industrial Estate.

I see alot of them being bought up by young professionals who are more likely to use PT etc. The capacity of the route, even with the new trams, will struggle in the next year once more.

There’s no need to stop all of the Parnell stoppers at SSG - just some. Enough to free up trams to reinstate the three departures that used to start at Brides Glen.

LeinsterDub

"It’s apparent now that the Minister for Transport was eager to substitute the provision of an effective tram service that meets demand, with a pre-Christmas photo opportunity.

http://www.dublinlive.ie/lifestyle/travel/luas-passengers-being-forced-travel-14179500

Getting some more national attention now.

IngazZagni

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.dublinlive.ie/lifestyle/travel/luas-passengers-being-forced-travel-14179500

Getting some more national attention now.

It's very easy for those on the sidelines to say things like this in hindsight but the real question to me still hasn't been answered and that's who is responsible for ensuring adaquate capacity would have have been available from the opening date which was known a long time in advance? Why weren't these new luas trams delivered over the second half of last year ready to enter service by Christmas?

MJohnston

IngazZagni wrote: »

It's very easy for those on the sidelines to say things like this in hindsight but the real question to me still hasn't been answered and that's who is responsible for ensuring adaquate capacity would have have been available from the opening date which was known a long time in advance? Why weren't these new luas trams delivered over the second half of last year ready to enter service by Christmas?

They were ordered for delivery before the new line was opened, but then there were delays on the manufacturing side.