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

lucernarian

You haven't addressed in any way the actual changes to traffic configurations that would have to take place to accommodate this (and I won't even go into the issues involving construction). You can't say that the impact would be minimal and not even try to justify your conclusions. If you would but consider the local geography and the available routes, you would respect that it is not a trivial matter and needs serious addressing. And it's frankly disgraceful that you would regard my bringing-up of truck and bus mobility down the alternative streets as being somehow dishonest of me!

It's part of a pervasive attitude I'm picking up in this thread that recognises something being for the greater good and assumes that all the smaller details will sort themselves out...

robd

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You haven't addressed in any way the actual changes to traffic configurations that would have to take place to accommodate this (and I won't even go into the issues involving construction). You can't say that the impact would be minimal and not even try to justify your conclusions. If you would but consider the local geography and the available routes, you would respect that it is not a trivial matter and needs serious addressing. And it's frankly disgraceful that you would regard my bringing-up of truck and bus mobility down the alternative streets as being somehow dishonest of me!

It's part of a pervasive attitude I'm picking up in this thread that recognises something being for the greater good and assumes that all the smaller details will sort themselves out...

I presume you're replying to monument as what you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a reply yo my above post.

In fact my suggestion would remove all issues you have raised from the equation.

robd

Voila. Tunnel threaded through Trinity campus with minimal interference to buildings.

Route mostly under Provost's Garden, Parliament Square and Botany Tennis Courts.

No stops required so single bore tunnel with minimal width should suffice. Guess there'd have to be narrow walkways on either side.

pigtown

robd wrote: »

Tunnel length would be approx 500m. Certain sections could be done as cut and cover. Other sections would need to be mined under buildings. Luas would run along Marlborough St and Hawkins St only, not O'Connell St. Tunnel (with some street closures) could remove interaction with traffic except for Burgh Quay and Eden Quay.

It's merely a proposal to get around College Green problems.

Also I reckon they are going to have to build a bridge at Stephen's green, to bridge in advance over station that will be built when Dart Underground and Metro North go ahead. To the casual observer it will just look like a road, until soil is removed for station. Else they'll need to build station now which would be more expensive.[/QUOTE]

Not sure I follow. A bridge over what? Also I think there's an issue with tunnelling near old foundations and basements. I could be wrong though.

robd

pigtown wrote: »

Not sure I follow. A bridge over what? Also I think there's an issue with tunnelling near old foundations and basements. I could be wrong though.

Over future Metro North and Dart Underground station at St. Stephen's Green. Otherwise Luas would have to be shut during construction of these projects. On Bord Pleanala have raised this as an issue.

Think of it like a virtual bridge.

Tunneling near old foundations and basements certainly presents problems but it's not unsolvable.

monument

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You haven't addressed in any way the actual changes to traffic configurations that would have to take place to accommodate this (and I won't even go into the issues involving construction). You can't say that the impact would be minimal and not even try to justify your conclusions. If you would but consider the local geography and the available routes, you would respect that it is not a trivial matter and needs serious addressing.

I don't think it is a trivial matter, but it surely isn't the big show stopping issue you're making it out to be. I have not addressed any "actual changes to traffic configurations" because other than giving space over to buses and trams, I'm not suggesting to do much more. The planning process will bring up ways at resolving any issues and the local and international experiences is people who currently drive will look after them self in different ways (already outlined in more detail in one of my recent posts).

I asked the following in one of my previous posts, could you please answer it?...

I actually already said that some traffic is likely to transfer to nearby routes at peak times... So, what? What's the big deal?

I'm honestly interested in your answer.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

And it's frankly disgraceful that you would regard my bringing-up of truck and bus mobility down the alternative streets as being somehow dishonest of me!

Fair enough, sorry for implying that you were dishonest on this point, I was wrong with the way I worded my reply to you bringing up the side issues of clearance for trucks.

But 'disgraceful' could also apply how you keep bring up buses even though nobody is suggesting to remove buses from Westland Row. The suggestion would give buses even greater priority than they currently have on Westland Row. Why do you keep pretending I'm saying something else?

As for trucks, if you're talking about HGVs, the area is within the HGV cordon and there is likely only a small number of HGV movements on Westland Row. Further restrictions on HGVs is likely to be a positive thing for road safety, as the current restrictions have proven to be.

But the main points here is: HGVs could still be able to be use Westland Row one-way; they would also be able to go around; in any extreme cases they could be allowed on the bus/tram way; and, maybe most importantly, vans, smaller trucks, cars and mopeds making deliveries could use also use Westland Row one-way and the other routes both ways. HGVs account for a small percentage of overall delivers in the local area around the street and they would still be able access to both sides of the Dart line.

You're making a making a mountain out of a molehill, and even after I've explained why above, you're going to say something like I am disgracefully dismissing the issue.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

It's part of a pervasive attitude I'm picking up in this thread that recognises something being for the greater good and assumes that all the smaller details will sort themselves out...

A mix of the people sorting them self out and the details been sorted out in the planning process. It more that when something is for the greater good, that the smaller details can be sorted out. Not that the details will be sorted by magic!

lucernarian

There is already a bus lane on Westland row for the northbound traffic, which has no LUAS track on it. At some point along that route or else at the junction at Pearse St., the LUAS route would have to cross the bus lane or indeed run within a bus lane and this automatically means there will be the risk of additional congestion from the LUAS unless other steps are taken to give increased priority for public transport vehicles coming onto Pearse St. As it stands, the only thing in the way of buses coming from Lincoln Place to Pearse St. are two pedestrian crossings and then the currently-very-busy junction with Pearse St. itself (but which has a continuing bus lane all the way to College Green)

I did explain why I was opposed to moving the heavy traffic flow to nearby areas, namely that congestion is inherently unwelcome for both private vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and indeed local residents and businesses and this routing down Westland Row would not particularly benefit the people who have to deal with an influx of noise and traffic in the area. None of us know currently exactly what destinations motorists have when using the road but I'm pretty sure they don't include people coming from Stephen's Green to the northside. At least the College Green routing directly replaces some of the transport already available betwen Stephen's Green and O'Connell St.

I think that the small percentage of traffic constituted by vans and trucks etc on Westland Row (which is not miniscule by any means from hundreds of observations over the past 3 years) should still be adequately catered for given the critical nature of their work. And shunting them down already-busy routes is not a solution.

I haven't addressed things so thoroughly here but I will offer a more satisfactory response over the next few days if there are other points to raise.

dowlingm

What are the chances that RPA would relent and allow DB to use the LUAS reservation to run buses through (but not stop on it or near enough to cause obstruction - basically just a rat run for buses). Wouldn't solve all the problems but would at least keep buses moving.

monument

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

There is already a bus lane on Westland row for the northbound traffic, which has no LUAS track on it. At some point along that route or else at the junction at Pearse St., the LUAS route would have to cross the bus lane or indeed run within a bus lane and this automatically means there will be the risk of additional congestion from the LUAS unless other steps are taken to give increased priority for public transport vehicles coming onto Pearse St. As it stands, the only thing in the way of buses coming from Lincoln Place to Pearse St. are two pedestrian crossings and then the currently-very-busy junction with Pearse St. itself (but which has a continuing bus lane all the way to College Green)

There's always the risk of congestion. That risk is far greater when when bus lanes for no real reason does not continue through junctions and bus lanes are shared with taxis.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I did explain why I was opposed to moving the heavy traffic flow to nearby areas, namely that congestion is inherently unwelcome for both private vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and indeed local residents and businesses and this routing down Westland Row would not particularly benefit the people who have to deal with an influx of noise and traffic in the area.

A few points here:

• It would not be creating congestion, it would be adding some traffic from one congested route to another. The difference from how congested these streets already are would not register.
• It would not be moving all the traffic from Westland Row to the nearby streets
• Westland Row would continue to be open in one direction to private traffic
• Even the traffic from the other direction would not all move to near by streets
• Some of the traffic would go further around
• Some people would switch to walking and cycling
• Some people would switch to the Luas, Dart or bus

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

At least the College Green routing directly replaces some of the transport already available betwen Stephen's Green and O'Connell St.

Err... you said something like no southeast or northeast trips would be aided by BXD and I did not challenge you. BXD with this routing or the one the RPA picked is likely to make Luas transfers to Dart or Commuter more attractive. For example:

• Parnell Street to Lansdowne Road Station‎
• Malahide to Harcourt‎
• Clontarf Road Station to Dundrum‎
• Killester Station‎ to Sandyford
• Sandymount Station‎ to Broadstone/DIT

Pearse Station‎ with a Luas stop outside would offer the closest tram-rail passenger connections in the city centre, it would offer the overall best Luas-Dart connections post Dart Underground, and is more suited as an interchange station than Tara.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think that the small percentage of traffic constituted by vans and trucks etc on Westland Row (which is not miniscule by any means from hundreds of observations over the past 3 years) should still be adequately catered for given the critical nature of their work. And shunting them down already-busy routes is not a solution.

No reducing private traffic overall is the solution to help delivery movements, but those who want to or need to make deliveries at peak traffic flows will always suffer the most -- the point is pushing them (in one direction only!) down the other streets isn't going to make much of a difference off peak and at peak congestion already happens on all routes.

In the mid to longer run if interventions such as Luas and BRT are not put in place than delivery traffic will suffer even more as congestion becomes an even larger problem citywide. That's when you start to worry, not some smaller only at peak problem.

strassenwo!f

The obvious problem here would be related to gradients, as The line needs to rise between tunnel level and street level. With the gradients that these LUAS trams are capable of doing you'd be looking at the effective closure of sections of (at least) two of Pearse St., Townsend St. and/or Hawkins St.

robd

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The obvious problem here would be related to gradients, as The line needs to rise between tunnel level and street level. With the gradients that these LUAS trams are capable of doing you'd be looking at the effective closure of sections of (at least) two of Pearse St., Townsend St. and/or Hawkins St.

Hawkins Street and Dawson Street would need sections closed to traffic. Citadis trams can handle 6% gradient. Thus would need circa 170m either end to guarantee depth of 10m under buildings (5m to be just below road level). Hawkins St is circa 150m from Townsend St to Burgh Quay which should be more than sufficient for ramp and a stop. Would take 85m to be below road. Tram length is up to 43m, so platform would need 60m.

Doing this would mean both Nassau St, Pearse St and Townsend St, could operate as they do today as tram would effectively go under them. Poolbeg St, Duke St, Molesworth St, and Anne St would become cul de sacs.

I think the tram should run as much as possible on segregated streets in order to maintain good progress and speeds. Thus I don't think it's a bad thing for Dawson St and Hawkins St to be tram only.

AngryLips

Wouldn't make more sense to just tunnel under the city for vehicle traffic? I would prefer to see Luas on street than cars...

Ted Mosby

A tunnel?

Cost?
Dealing with Spoil?
Access portals?
Ventilation?

This is nuts. Simplest thing to do would be to open tram lanes to buses.

It is bad enough that the preferred option goes one way up O'Connell Street and down Marlborough Street purely to validate the view that trams and buses can't mix. Given the speeds of Luas in the City Centre, I fail to see how it is impossible to allow buses in the tram lanes.

Wild Bill

Ted Mosby wrote: »

A tunnel?

Cost?
Dealing with Spoil?
Access portals?
Ventilation?

Yeah, I wonder how every other country on Earth manages to dig tunnels routinely with all those insurmountable problems :rolleyes:

btw - you forgot to mention to mention leakage and, like, werewolves. They hang around in tunnels.

cgcsb

Ted Mosby wrote: »

It is bad enough that the preferred option goes one way up O'Connell Street and down Marlborough Street purely to validate the view that trams and buses can't mix. Given the speeds of Luas in the City Centre, I fail to see how it is impossible to allow buses in the tram lanes.

surely that's not actually an issue though, buses can easily relocate away from Marlborough st and let the luas have it. The loop only exists because the heads in the RPA fancied it, and they had some cash to splurge.

dowlingm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yeah, I wonder how every other country on Earth manages to dig tunnels routinely with all those insurmountable problems :rolleyes:

btw - you forgot to mention to mention leakage and, like, werewolves. They hang around in tunnels.

Many of those countries have far more modern streetscapes with grids and/or wider rights-of-way. Going under foundations is avoided in most places. But, you know, feel free to give us the benefit of your smartassery anyway.

markpb

Wild Bill wrote: »

Yeah, I wonder how every other country on Earth manages to dig tunnels routinely with all those insurmountable problems :rolleyes:

Can you point to an example of a 500m tunnel which was built in a city without using cut and cover?

robd

markpb wrote: »

Can you point to an example of a 500m tunnel which was built in a city without using cut and cover?

I don't think he was suggesting not cut and cover, just that the problems aren't unsurmountable.

In terms of removal of spoil for example. 500m tunnel, 7 m heigh and 7m wide would be 245,000 cubic meters of spoil. Tipper truck takes 15 cubic meters. Thus 1633 loads would be required to remove spoil. At 50 loads a day, thats 34 days of 50 trucks a day exiting onto Pearse St.

It's a very short tunnel so I don't believe it would cause much more disruption than the construction of some of the larger buildings in the city. Think how many of them were going up at once during the boom.

I deliberately chose a route than was mainly under open space. The interaction with buildings is minimal. You could of course build a tunnel under Nassau St and College Green (under no buildings), however that would disrupt more traffic during construction and require Metro tunnel to be move a little further west.

robd

Ted Mosby wrote: »

A tunnel?

Cost?
Dealing with Spoil?
Access portals?
Ventilation?

This is nuts. Simplest thing to do would be to open tram lanes to buses.

It is bad enough that the preferred option goes one way up O'Connell Street and down Marlborough Street purely to validate the view that trams and buses can't mix. Given the speeds of Luas in the City Centre, I fail to see how it is impossible to allow buses in the tram lanes.

Of course it costs money. However, so will building Metro North station boxes if current route goes ahead. Current estimates are that it will double cost from 300m to 600m.

Then there's the wiring problem. Lots of issues being raised by Council and Bord Pleanala with regard to wires in front of GPO, College Green, and Trinity College; all historic buildings. Huge money would be required to run a wirefree system in front of those buildings. New trams would be required.

Westmorland St routing is an option but it would make the journey uncompetitive in terms of time. You could walk faster. Thus it's economic benefit would be lowered.

Given Dart Underground and Metro North are scrapped, the Luas should as far as possible be built to a high standard where journey times are sped up. Red Line is a disaster cause it interacts with traffic and pedestrians at way too many junctions.

Anyway, it's a suggestion.

AngryLips

robd wrote: »

I don't think he was suggesting not cut and cover, just that the problems aren't unsurmountable.

I suppose you could "cut and cover" through the middle of Trinity, sure it's only a collection of old buildings :rolleyes:

markpb

robd wrote: »

I don't think he was suggesting not cut and cover, just that the problems aren't unsurmountable.

I specifically said cut & cover because no-one is going to TBM a 500m tunnel - the main cost of tunneling is buying the machine and building the entry point. At less than a km, the upfront costs would be prohibitively expensive.

robd

AngryLips wrote: »

I suppose you could "cut and cover" through the middle of Trinity, sure it's only a collection of old buildings :rolleyes:

Look at the map I posted and read my related posts. I specifically dealt with this. But sure you just jump to conclusions and roll your eyes.

Map again.

robd

markpb wrote: »

I specifically said cut & cover because no-one is going to TBM a 500m tunnel - the main cost of tunneling is buying the machine and building the entry point. At less than a km, the upfront costs would be prohibitively expensive.

Well you didn't bother reading my posts on the matter (going back 3 pages) in order to get context and just jumped in here. I have at all times said cut and cover and mining under 1 building and the corners of 2 others. I'm very aware that a TBM can't be used for such a short tunnel.

monument

robd wrote: »

Look at the map I posted and read my related posts. I specifically dealt with this. But sure you just jump to conclusions and roll your eyes.

Map again.

You're just not dealing with reality. TCD gave out about one of the possible underground routes for Metro North because of their basements and foundations -- any tunnel closer to ground level would be even more problematic and cut and cover seem like a non-starter, not even close to a non-runner.

The outline map you are using is just an outline map to direct people to buildings, it does not show the lack of space on the ground. There's no way cut and cover would work...







But really cut and cover should be dismissed well before even looking at the above because of the nature of the TCD grounds, buildings, the main square etc.

Ted Mosby

robd wrote: »

Of course it costs money. However, so will building Metro North station boxes if current route goes ahead. Current estimates are that it will double cost from 300m to 600m.

Then there's the wiring problem. Lots of issues being raised by Council and Bord Pleanala with regard to wires in front of GPO, College Green, and Trinity College; all historic buildings. Huge money would be required to run a wirefree system in front of those buildings. New trams would be required.

Westmorland St routing is an option but it would make the journey uncompetitive in terms of time. You could walk faster. Thus it's economic benefit would be lowered.

Given Dart Underground and Metro North are scrapped, the Luas should as far as possible be built to a high standard where journey times are sped up. Red Line is a disaster cause it interacts with traffic and pedestrians at way too many junctions.

Anyway, it's a suggestion.

There was never an issue with wiring in front of all these buildings between 1896 and 1949 with the original electric trams, so why should there be one now? I suggest that those who have an issue with OHLE pay for a wireless solution out of their own pockets and not those of the taxpayer.

robd

monument wrote: »

You're just not dealing with reality. TCD gave out about one of the possible underground routes for Metro North because of their basements and foundations -- any tunnel closer to ground level would be even more problematic and cut and cover seem like a non-starter, not even close to a non-runner.

The outline map you are using is just an outline map to direct people to buildings, it does not show the lack of space on the ground. There's no way cut and cover would work...







But really cut and cover should be dismissed well before even looking at the above because of the nature of the TCD grounds, buildings, the main square etc.

As I said the corners of those buildings would have to be mined under. It's really not that difficult to do as tunnels go. A TBM is not the only way of digging under something with cut and cover. There's various methods each with their own merit for a particular situation.

Of course TCD gave out. Anyone who would be significantly disrupted by any construction project would. The point is to look at the construction disruption versus the benefit to the city versus the permanent disruption to the bus gate on College Green versus disruption to Westmorland Street and longer journey time. I believe said examination is know as an Environmental Impact Study, which is done for every major public construction project.

It's worth reading Trinity's report on this here:
http://www.tcd.ie/Buildings/projectsmetro.php

I deliberately chose a route that interacts with the least number of buildings and is as minimal in it's impact to said buildings.

robd

Ted Mosby wrote: »

There was never an issue with wiring in front of all these buildings between 1896 and 1949 with the original electric trams, so why should there be one now? I suggest that those who have an issue with OHLE pay for a wireless solution out of their own pockets and not those of the taxpayer.

Oh the usual NIMBY reasons.

DUBLIN CITY Council has urged Bord Pleanála not to permit the use of overhead power cables on the proposed Luas Broombridge line through Dublin city centre.

In its submission to the hearing on the plan to link the existing red and green Luas lines, the council said the area from St Stephen’s Green to Parnell Square should be a “wire free” zone.

The council is also opposing plans to run the Luas on the central median of O’Connell Street from the Spire, which would necessitate the removal of the Fr Matthew statue.

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) wants to use the same overhead power supply system on the new line, which will link the Sandyford and Tallaght lines before continuing on to Broombridge in Cabra, as it does on the existing lines.

Dublin city planner Dick Gleeson yesterday told the hearing the proposed use of overhead cables would be “visually intrusive” on the sensitive streetscape of the historic core of the city which included the Mansion House, St Ann’s Church, Trinity College, the Bank of Ireland at College Green, O’Connell Bridge, the GPO and the Rotunda Hospital.

The council was particularly concerned about the effect such a cable system would have on College Green, Mr Gleeson said. The buildings, including Trinity College and the Bank of Ireland, were of such architectural quality and rarity that they should not be compromised, he said.

“While College Green currently suffers from an excess of hostile traffic and from various aspects of clutter including over-scaled planting, the relationship of buildings and space constitutes a dramatic urban composition and is the city’s most important urban space.”

The RPA plans to run the line on the road until it reaches the Spire on O’Connell Street where it would be moved on to the paved central median of the road until Parnell Square.

This plan is unacceptable to the council.

The proposed alignment would “detrimentally affect the integrity” of the street which was redeveloped over a four-year period by the council from 2001.

“The erosion of the median to the degree proposed will radically undermine the visual legibility and symmetry of the street,” Mr Gleeson said.

The RPA should instead keep the line on the road until after the Fr Matthew statue, which sits opposite the former Carlton cinema, where it could then join the median in order to enable it to turn on to Parnell Square, said Mr Gleeson.

The council had initially wanted to attach 109 conditions to the granting of permission for the line, he said, but following discussions with the RPA it had reached an agreed position on all but the two matters above.

If Bord Pleanála attached conditions which would order the use of an alternative power source for the line in the city centre, and change the alignment of the route through O’Connell Street, the council would be “fully supportive” of the Luas Broombridge, Mr Gleeson said.

Ted Mosby

robd wrote: »

Oh the usual NIMBY reasons.

Actually, here's a good idea. A cost effective solution to salve the tastes of Dublin City Council planners would be to drop the pantograph after St. Stephen's Green and attach a diesel shunter to the front of the tram, crossing over after Broadstone.

There we go, another Irish solution to an Irish problem! :eek:

bk

Ted Mosby wrote: »

There was never an issue with wiring in front of all these buildings between 1896 and 1949 with the original electric trams, so why should there be one now? I suggest that those who have an issue with OHLE pay for a wireless solution out of their own pockets and not those of the taxpayer.

Perhaps because we have different standards today then we did back 100 years ago.

Pictures of the streets back then show an ugly mesh of cables.

robd

markpb wrote: »

I specifically said cut & cover because no-one is going to TBM a 500m tunnel - the main cost of tunneling is buying the machine and building the entry point. At less than a km, the upfront costs would be prohibitively expensive.

Given the likely NIMBY request to cut and cover through squares in Trinity there's always box jacking. This is a proven way to construct short tunnels under operating roads, railways and historic buildings.

See: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/12.cfm

The jubilee line tunneled under Big Ben.