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

Dayor Knight

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The Reason:



Longer Trams:



http://www.thejournal.ie/luas-overcrowding-scheduled-maintenance-3914655-Mar2018/

Peregrine wrote: »

The metro redesign started in 2015. There are thousands of pages of documents published and years of study gone into it. €700m allocated for design and initial construction until 2020.

Public consultation was supposed to start in February. It's actually a few weeks late. They could have deflected from Luas earlier if that was the aim of metro.

But, yes, it's all a big 3 year long conspiracy to deflect attention if that makes you feel better.

It's not a question of my feeling better. But excuse me for taking a cynical view of the convenient timing of the big publicity launch for the Metro line. As we know, this will of course be announced and launched many more times over the coming years. If you don't believe that these things are fed to the media at the most opportune times, then God bless your innocence.

The NTA suggested the other day that the problems on the Green line were now solved due to four trams coming back online. Utter nonsense. Then we get this big blast of Metro publicity. And it's just a coincidence. How fortunate.

No amount of apologists chipping in here will change the fact that the introduction of this Luas extension has been a farce to date, and there's no sign of it improving (the much promised extra trams are now due " in the coming months"). Maybe it will all settle down over the Summer. I certainly hope so. May be too late for Shane Ross though. His goose is cooked. No promises of a gleamy new Metro in 2027 will change that. In my opinion.

BonnieSituation

This metro plan was actually due to be launched (in some form) back in October (as mentioned on here several times) as per the directions I got whilst working on the potential route analysis. It was pushed out cos life and shiz.

The fact that the launch came this week has nothing to do with LCC being sh!tshow. It's mad to suggest otherwise.

LuckyLloyd

I don’t agree with the conspiracy theory; but I certainly agree with the damning assessment of current LUAS service levels.

bebeman

Easy fix for the problems, Garda on the scene for 2 weeks max, followed with occasional spot check to keep people wondering if they will get caught.
Use bus gate when not supposed too, FINE.
Cross over solid white line coming up to bus gate, FINE.
Block yellow box junction, FINE.
Cyclists not using bike lane, FINE.
Do these simple thing and the multi million LUAS project would not be causing any bus delays, public transport users would be a happy lot then.
It will never happen, as no big consultant fees needed to come up with this plan.

NyOmnishambles

bebeman wrote: »

Easy fix for the problems, Garda on the scene for 2 weeks max, followed with occasional spot check to keep people wondering if they will get caught.
Use bus gate when not supposed too, FINE.
Cross over solid white line coming up to bus gate, FINE.
Block yellow box junction, FINE.
Cyclists not using bike lane, FINE.
Do these simple thing and the multi million LUAS project would not be causing any bus delays, public transport users would be a happy lot then.
It will never happen, as no big consultant fees needed to come up with this plan.

Not that I disagree that enforcement is needed for all in order to make the Luas run better but as for the bolded above Cyclists are not required to use the cycle lane, unless in a pedestrian area or contra flow (not sure if it happened but Shane Ross was supposed to clarify the legislation on that which was amended in 2012 but then revoked over a missing comma) so no fines can be applied

lucernarian

Peregrine wrote: »

The metro redesign started in 2015. There are thousands of pages of documents published and years of study gone into it. €700m allocated for design and initial construction until 2020.

Public consultation was supposed to start in February. It's actually a few weeks late. They could have deflected from Luas earlier if that was the aim of metro.

But, yes, it's all a big 3 year long conspiracy to deflect attention if that makes you feel better.

It really started well before that with the North Dublin Transport Needs study, where AECOM pulled figures out of its arse to justify the Luas to Swords idea.

I agree it's not a deflection strategy, but the Metrolink idea is in itself a bit fantastical. A scheme got shot down for costing 2.4 billion around 2012. Now, we are told we can significantly extend the length, have much more tunneling, take part of an operating Luas line out of service for a year, and seamlessly design/build all this for 25% more than the Metro North was to cost in 2012. Construction industry inflation is running at 7% currently.

There's plenty of reasons to be skeptical in general.

bk

lucernarian wrote: »

I agree it's not a deflection strategy, but the Metrolink idea is in itself a bit fantastical. A scheme got shot down for costing 2.4 billion around 2012. Now, we are told we can significantly extend the length, have much more tunneling, take part of an operating Luas line out of service for a year, and seamlessly design/build all this for 25% more than the Metro North was to cost in 2012. Construction industry inflation is running at 7% currently.

The Metro North scheme got cancelled because we were in a horrible deep recession at the time and didn't have two cents to rub together, nevermind the fact that the Troika were controlling the purse strings at the time.

I detailed for you over on the Metrolink thread why the new plan is cheaper, while giving more overall. Basically vastly simpler stations, etc.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we keep this as the Luas CC thread and keep posts about Metrolink and Metro North on the appropriate thread, otherwise no-one knows which thread is which and duplication of posts causes confusion and disrupts discussion.

strassenwo!f

THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT Authority (NTA) says overcrowding should not be an issue on the Luas Green Line this week as four trams have come back online following a scheduled maintenance backlog.

NTA spokesman Dermot O’Gara told TheJournal.ie that 29 trams are needed to operate the Green Line without overcrowding for passengers. Due to a backlog in scheduled maintenance only 25 trams were operating on the Green Line last week.

But we still need to upgrade it to a metro, with a service every two minutes or so, rather than using this glorious opportunity to deliver rapid rail to areas of Dublin which don't have rapid rail and where a LUAS line has been deemed to be unsuitable or unbuildable.

Could some kind person talk me through that?

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But we still need to upgrade it to a metro, with a service every two minutes or so, rather than using this glorious opportunity to deliver rapid rail to areas of Dublin which don't have rapid rail and where a LUAS line has been deemed to be unsuitable or unbuildable.

Could some kind person talk me through that?

I, and others have repeatedly answered this question.

There is no "golden opportunity" here. The cost of the Green Line upgrade will be between 40 and 120 million depending on platform height and length. This is approx 5-13m per km.

There is no chance in hell you could build a new Metro to South West Dublin for that price. No chance.

Please do not raise this issue again on these threads which have no relevance. There is one Metro in the 2016-2035 GDA Transport Plan and it is Swords-Sandyford. Anything else is fantasy, and this was confirmed by the NTA last week.

I will not be repeating this again.

RobAMerc

clearly the issue with the LUAS BX/D is that they have made terrible use of the space available at college green.
Surely by removing the islands, narrowing the cycle lane ( or rerouting it) and perhaps shaving a tiny bit off footpaths on either side at the narrowest points, they could facilitate traffic and luas through the green without them having to share the lanes
To me its preposterous that the LUAS and vehicles have to share lanes when there is a 2 way bike lane that seems to be only used 1 way and caters for no where near as many bodies as the roads those. (and I am a cyclist btw)

Idbatterim

Ok. Them leave footpaths as they are if there is enough space to fit in another lane, if cycle lane and islands were removed?

loyatemu

Idbatterim wrote: »

Ok. Them leave footpaths as they are if there is enough space to fit in another lane, if cycle lane and islands were removed?

the council's aim is to remove traffic from CG - they won't be putting in another lane.

RobAMerc

Seriously? The volume of cars and cabs going through there is miniscule. This will make 0 difference. Simply blaming cars for everything isn't a real solution to anything! I have never seen a bike using the bike lane from east to west and between that and the width of the islands they could make the bus lane wide enough in that dirextio n for both

jamo2oo9

RobAMerc wrote: »

Seriously? The volume of cars and cabs going through there is miniscule. This will make 0 difference. Simply blaming cars for everything isn't a real solution to anything! I have never seen a bike using the bike lane from east to west and between that and the width of the islands they could make the bus lane wide enough in that dirextio n for both

Quite obvious that you don't travel through college green during rush hour where there are more taxis than buses driving through. Private cars are already banned in college green (not sure if it's 24hrs?).

RobAMerc

Funny you say that as i am sitting on the luas in traffic there this minute. The issue is the traffic trying to go from east to west towards dame st is blocking luas and bus from going round trinity onto Nassau. If there wasn't a huge cycle lane and traffic islands the luas and busses could go round trinity withoutbening blocked by this traffic ( which isn't 90% cars even now after the 19.00 ban )
But i hear you : cars are bad

donvito99

RobAMerc wrote: »

Funny you say that as i am sitting on the luas in traffic there this minute. The issue is the traffic trying to go from east to west towards dame st is blocking luas and bus from going round trinity onto Nassau. If there wasn't a huge cycle lane and traffic islands the luas and busses could go round trinity withoutbening blocked by this traffic ( which isn't 90% cars even now after the 19.00 ban )
But i hear you : cars are bad

Getting rid of the cycle lane does nothing for East - West movements now that the tracks are in the ground.

strassenwo!f

marno21 wrote: »

I, and others have repeatedly answered this question.

There is no "golden opportunity" here. The cost of the Green Line upgrade will be between 40 and 120 million depending on platform height and length. This is approx 5-13m per km.

There is no chance in hell you could build a new Metro to South West Dublin for that price. No chance.

Please do not raise this issue again on these threads which have no relevance. There is one Metro in the 2016-2035 GDA Transport Plan and it is Swords-Sandyford. Anything else is fantasy, and this was confirmed by the NTA last week.

I will not be repeating this again.

There are a number of issues here, Marno21, and in the absence of a general thread on the board about the metro, the LUAS, the possible DART Underground and other possibilities for Dublin, I see no current option but to post them here. Sorry.

Anything confirmed by the NTA may well have the same effect as confirmation by the Dept. of Transport back in the earlier years of this millennium that the 'Platform for Change' document to 2016, from their offshoot the Dublin Transportation Office, would be implemented in full. (If you remember, in the end almost none of it was implemented, and the major infrastructural change which actually did happen in the centre over those 15 or so years - the LUAS link-up - had not been included in the plan). So, given our experience of transport plans in Dublin, it is probably fair to say that the situation is 'fluid'.

Nobody is questioning that an upgrade of the major southside part of the current Green line to a metro would be cheap. The track bed, the rails, the catenary, the ticket machines, the station signs, the shelters are all there. There would need to be changes to the platforms, and perhaps also to the access in several cases, but I think everyone agrees that upgrading to a metro should be relatively easy. And nobody thinks that you can achieve such a section of metro line anywhere else in the city at such a cheap price.

But why not leave the Green Line alone for 15 years or so, doing its stuff well between Bride's Glen and Broadstone - when the tram maintenance issues have been sorted out - and try to develop other areas of the city? We need some figures to show that it needs to be upgraded.

It is, as you say, fantasy to think that you could build an underground metro as deep into the southwest of Dublin for the price of what it would take to upgrade the overground LUAS line south of the canal to Sandyford. And nobody I know has that fantasy.

But, as a first step, you might use the boring machine to get to the canal, heading south towards Rathmines (or Harold's Cross), with a station around the top of Camden Street, for the same prices as it costs you to upgrade a perfectly good line between the city and Sandyford to an unnecessary metro level of service.

Another two years, and an investment of 300-400 million euro, your machine gets to Rathmines and Rathgar (or Harold's Cross), and you can start providing metro services from totally new areas of the city, while keeping the very good LUAS Green Line service operating continually between Bride's Glen and Broombridge.

Two years after that, after an investment of another 300-400 million euro, you can start providing services from the totally new areas Terenure and perhaps Templeogue (or Kimmage and Walkinstown), while keeping the very good LUAS Green Line services operating continually between Bride's Glen and Broombridge.

Et cetera.

What has been outlined above would be unquestionably more expensive for the Irish exchequer in the short-term. But, in the absence of any evidence that the current Green Line infrastructure is unable to handle the current levels of demand, I think this would be the most appropriate way to proceed.

As I've said, it's hard to know onto which thread I should put these thoughts about what Dublin should do. But the current plan does not seem to be one which serves the whole city as well as it might.

RobAMerc

donvito99 wrote: »

Getting rid of the cycle lane does nothing for East - West movements now that the tracks are in the ground.

if they get rid of the bike lanes they could get dedicated west east bus/car lane and luas track - this would stop north bound luas getting jammed by buses etc not clearing the yellow boxes. this would help with north bound luas blocking east west traffic also by allowing them onto westmorland st and clearing the green entirely

if they get rid of the island they could fit a dedicate bus/car lane east to west - this would stop cars and buses going west blocking luas going south

so - bikes have to share the bus lane for 300m in both directions - is this the end of the world ?
probably

blanch152

strassenwo!f wrote: »

There are a number of issues here, Marno21, and in the absence of a general thread on the board about the metro, the LUAS, the possible DART Underground and other possibilities for Dublin, I see no current option but to post them here. Sorry.

Anything confirmed by the NTA may well have the same effect as confirmation by the Dept. of Transport back in the earlier years of this millennium that the 'Platform for Change' document to 2016, from their offshoot the Dublin Transportation Office, would be implemented in full. (If you remember, in the end almost none of it was implemented, and the major infrastructural change which actually did happen in the centre over those 15 or so years - the LUAS link-up - had not been included in the plan). So, given our experience of transport plans in Dublin, it is probably fair to say that the situation is 'fluid'.

Nobody is questioning that an upgrade of the major southside part of the current Green line to a metro would be cheap. The track bed, the rails, the catenary, the ticket machines, the station signs, the shelters are all there. There would need to be changes to the platforms, and perhaps also to the access in several cases, but I think everyone agrees that upgrading to a metro should be relatively easy. And nobody thinks that you can achieve such a section of metro line anywhere else in the city at such a cheap price.

But why not leave the Green Line alone for 15 years or so, doing its stuff well between Bride's Glen and Broadstone - when the tram maintenance issues have been sorted out - and try to develop other areas of the city? We need some figures to show that it needs to be upgraded.

It is, as you say, fantasy to think that you could build an underground metro as deep into the southwest of Dublin for the price of what it would take to upgrade the overground LUAS line south of the canal to Sandyford. And nobody I know has that fantasy.

But, as a first step, you might use the boring machine to get to the canal, heading south towards Rathmines (or Harold's Cross), with a station around the top of Camden Street, for the same prices as it costs you to upgrade a perfectly good line between the city and Sandyford to an unnecessary metro level of service.

Another two years, and an investment of 300-400 million euro, your machine gets to Rathmines and Rathgar (or Harold's Cross), and you can start providing metro services from totally new areas of the city, while keeping the very good LUAS Green Line service operating continually between Bride's Glen and Broombridge.

Two years after that, after an investment of another 300-400 million euro, you can start providing services from the totally new areas Terenure and perhaps Templeogue (or Kimmage and Walkinstown), while keeping the very good LUAS Green Line services operating continually between Bride's Glen and Broombridge.

Et cetera.

What has been outlined above would be unquestionably more expensive for the Irish exchequer in the short-term. But, in the absence of any evidence that the current Green Line infrastructure is unable to handle the current levels of demand, I think this would be the most appropriate way to proceed.

As I've said, it's hard to know onto which thread I should put these thoughts about what Dublin should do. But the current plan does not seem to be one which serves the whole city as well as it might.

After the tunnelling machines finish the metro, they will be needed for DART Underground, if it goes ahead.

The other option is to finally decide DART Underground doesn't go ahead (because Whitworth Road replaces it) and use the machines for a different Metro line.

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But we still need to upgrade it to a metro, with a service every two minutes or so, rather than using this glorious opportunity to deliver rapid rail to areas of Dublin which don't have rapid rail and where a LUAS line has been deemed to be unsuitable or unbuildable.

Could some kind person talk me through that?

A future metro line to south west Dublin can be built in the future. Building one now as part of the metro north scheme won't save a significant amount of money. Connecting the green line upgrade with metro north at the same time does save a significant amount.

strassenwo!f

blanch152 wrote: »

After the tunnelling machines finish the metro, they will be needed for DART Underground, if it goes ahead.

Any underground DART tunnel would have a different (and larger) rail gauge, and DART trains themselves are bigger (certainly wider, and perhaps higher) than the proposed vehicles for the metro. Thus a DART Underground tunnel should be much larger, in terms of radius.

It is certainly questionable whether the tunnelling machines could be used for both projects without a major refit being carried out prior to any potential use for tunnelling a larger DART tunnel after being used for construction of the tunnel phase of the metro.

I am, of course, very open to correction on that.

blanch152 wrote: »

The other option is to finally decide DART Underground doesn't go ahead (because Whitworth Road replaces it) and use the machines for a different Metro line.

Maybe it will be definitively decided that DART Underground won't go ahead, but I doubt if the boring machine will be the crux. And if the machines are to be put to a further metro use, using them to build a line to and from the south-west of the city would, in effect, be using them to build a different line, to different areas of the city, than is currently proposed. Those southwest areas are areas where it has been determined that there is no suitable route for a LUAS.

strassenwo!f

cgcsb wrote: »

A future metro line to south west Dublin can be built in the future. Building one now as part of the metro north scheme won't save a significant amount of money. Connecting the green line upgrade with metro north at the same time does save a significant amount.

I wrote a post dealing with this, within the last page or so, but you may have missed it. Gradual use of the boring machine to eat into new areas of the city seems, to me, to make much more sense.

Nobody is suggesting that you could save money by building underground to the southwest of the city rather than upgrading the LUAS green line. But Dublin could strike while the iron is hot, with the boring machine still in the ground, to head for areas where it has been deemed that no LUAS line can ever be created.

At some later stage, the LUAS Green Line can be upgraded to a metro, but it's hard to see that that is an urgent project now.

strassenwo!f

I would be curious to know if a single track loop for the LUAS Green line around the entire Harcourt Centre has ever been considered by the authorities.

For many on the southside, the Harcourt Centre and its environs are the extent of their need for the LUAS on a working day. Many don't need to go further north. Ditto, for passengers from Broombridge, many don't need to go further south.

The southside Green Line is obviously at a greater level of maturity, because it's been around longer, but if there were to be a loop around that centre - probably used at peak times only - there might be scope for services from Sandyford hitting the southbound platform (heading towards Broombridge) and services from Sandyford heading around the Harcourt Centre and directly back to Sandyford via the Harcourt stop (or, perhaps, a stop with a similar name around the corner, on Charlotte Way).

I am aware that there are some congestion issues on the southside Green Line at peak times, but I am also aware that the 55 metre trams need some bedding in. A loop around the Harcourt Centre might allow, for example, a nice 2-3 minute service on the southside Green Line to the Harcourt area at peak times, with only Harcourt Road/Adelaide Road to cross, without the line inflicting itself inordinately on the major traffic junctions deeper in the city.

Podge_irl

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that you could save money by building underground to the southwest of the city rather than upgrading the LUAS green line. But Dublin could strike while the iron is hot, with the boring machine still in the ground, to head for areas where it has been deemed that no LUAS line can ever be created.

At some later stage, the LUAS Green Line can be upgraded to a metro, but it's hard to see that that is an urgent project now.

And the project would be twice as expensive.

Ultimately the options available are dig the metro but just stop when it reaches the green line and leave that as the extent of it or spend an extra 100m and upgrade the green line and connect them.

CramCycle

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The southside Green Line is obviously at a greater level of maturity, because it's been around longer, but if there were to be a loop around that centre - probably used at peak times only - there might be scope for services from Sandyford hitting the southbound platform (heading towards Broombridge) and services from Sandyford heading around the Harcourt Centre and directly back to Sandyford via the Harcourt stop (or, perhaps, a stop with a similar name around the corner, on Charlotte Way).

I am aware that there are some congestion issues on the southside Green Line at peak times, but I am also aware that the 55 metre trams need some bedding in. A loop around the Harcourt Centre might allow, for example, a nice 2-3 minute service on the southside Green Line to the Harcourt area at peak times, with only Harcourt Road/Adelaide Road to cross, without the line inflicting itself inordinately on the major traffic junctions deeper in the city.

Surely the suggested turnaround at St. Stephens green would accomplish this with no cost during peak times, Just turnaround every second or third tram.

strassenwo!f

CramCycle wrote: »

Surely the suggested turnaround at St. Stephens green would accomplish this with no cost during peak times, Just turnaround every second or third tram.

You are entirely right. It broadly would.

But a loop around the Harcourt Centre would also remove one city road junction from the equation - the one at St. Stephen's Green, Harcourt Street and Cuffe Street. It should also allow continuous operation: tram comes in from Bride's Glen, does the loop, and goes straight back out to Bride's Glen.

For a minimal cost, there might be advantages over an arrangement where a tram goes to the St. Stephen's Green siding, the driver changes ends and then gets back into the system, all of which takes at least 10 minutes over the loop arrangement suggested above (an extra 2-3 minutes to the siding, and back, from the Harcourt stop, and the change of ends), which possibly translates into more trams or more drivers overall.

CramCycle

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You are entirely right. It broadly would.

But a loop around the Harcourt Centre would also remove one city road junction from the equation - the one at St. Stephen's Green, Harcourt Street and Cuffe Street. It should also allow continuous operation: tram comes in from Bride's Glen, does the loop, and goes straight back out to Bride's Glen.

For a minimal cost, there might be advantages over an arrangement where a tram goes to the St. Stephen's Green siding, the driver changes ends and then gets back into the system, all of which takes at least 10 minutes over the loop arrangement suggested above (an extra 2-3 minutes to the siding, and back, from the Harcourt stop, and the change of ends), which possibly translates into more trams or more drivers overall.

Maybe, you would have to do analysis on which spot has the greatest drop off. I imagine though (and could be wrong) that you would find SSG still has a large enough share of drop offs that making a loop that turns around that one stop earlier would not be financially worth it. Driver changing ends and all the rest happens no matter where the final stop is, it would still be alot quicker than the end of the line, and would alleviate peak time pinch points. The fact that it is already there means they could literally start in no time at all with minimal disruption.

Laying new track around Harcourt centre would mean a new traffic layout for the area, either remapping or removal of a few junctions.

I appreciate the idea but unless they plan to pedestrianise the area and reclaim half the roadway, I don't think it is worth it.

strassenwo!f

CramCycle wrote: »

Maybe, you would have to do analysis on which spot has the greatest drop off. I imagine though (and could be wrong) that you would find SSG still has a large enough share of drop offs that making a loop that turns around that one stop earlier would not be financially worth it. Driver changing ends and all the rest happens no matter where the final stop is, it would still be alot quicker than the end of the line, and would alleviate peak time pinch points. The fact that it is already there means they could literally start in no time at all with minimal disruption.

Laying new track around Harcourt centre would mean a new traffic layout for the area, either remapping or removal of a few junctions.

I appreciate the idea but unless they plan to pedestrianise the area and reclaim half the roadway, I don't think it is worth it.

Obviously St. Stephen's Green has the greater drop-off and pick-up over the whole day, compared to the Harcourt Stop, and I'd guess it also does at peak times, given that it's closer to the city centre.

My logic was that removing the St. Stephen's Green/Harcourt Street junction from the equation, by building the suggested loop, would make it easier to up the level of service on the southside green line. But if this can be done using the existing siding at St. Stephen's Green, at no extra cost, so much the better.

And if it can be done, and if the peak time conditions on the southside green line are as traumatic as many people on this board say they are - indeed so much so that it now seems to need to be upgraded to a metro - one wonders why it is not already being done?

strassenwo!f

I've read statements on this board that (some) officials at the public consultation about the metrolink project are saying that the LUAS line south of Sandyford will 'never' be upgraded to metro status.

I am curious about this: while I don't think the next 10-15 or so years is an appropriate time to upgrade the green line - given that there is much else to do in the city, and recent posts on this thread indicate that an upgrade may be premature - it was always my hope that it would eventually be upgraded to have a very fine service between Cherrywood, Sandyford and the city.

Two questions:

Could someone give a clear explanation why the line south of Sandyford won't be, or can't be, upgraded?

And, if it can't, why did Dublin spend so much money on the infrastructure for a tram line which is out in the sticks, and will remain out in the sticks, when a bus route might have sufficed?