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

gjim

The route F option is convoluted, unnecessary and costly.

The split line "solution", by the RPA's own estimates is going to add 70% to the cost of extending the green line to Parnell Square over the simple and direct route A (straight up Westmoreland St and O'Connell St. - two streets almost designed for trams - this should also allow re-routing many of the DB routes away from the O'Connell St axis).

I would rather they used the money to do a version of route A which was 70% longer.

I would also prefer if they re-thought the whole idea of using the old Broadstone cutting to get to Broombridge. I don't see the point since most of it runs through very low density housing containing an aging population and the billion euro DIT campus is simply not going to happen in this generation. They should be aiming to serve existing population centres like Phibsboro - for example by going in a virtual straight line up North Frederick St, Blessington and Berkeley St.

If an interconnection with commuter heavy rail is required then look at connecting at a new commuter station somewhere around Guns Cross. This would be much shorter and useful than what the RPA is proposing.

Cool Mo D

I think the controversy over the loop routing is a storm in a teacup. The loop routing is under 300m longer than the direct route, and only in one direction. Hardly enough to make a noticeable difference in travel time compared to delays crossing city centre junctions.

Having a loop in the centre of the city with connections to the red line also makes it easier to terminate trams in the city if there is a closure on any other tram line, as trams can just run around the loop and return. The increased cost is an issue, but it will probably be balanced out by less need to work on the redeveloped O'Connell street, and if the new bridge is being installed anyway, that removes a great deal of the cost advantage of the direct route. Although, at the moment, the connections planned from the red line to the loop are not good enough.

Also, on the suggestion of sending the tram on the street through Phibsboro to Guns junction, instead of the old train alignment, that is a terrible idea. It's not practical to send a tram along those streets - there is not space for bus lanes all along the route, and car traffic is very congested at peak. The broadstone alignment is a very short walk from all the major places on the route: Dalymount, the shopping centre, and the village. Most of the housing there is occupied by elderly residents, but their large townhouses are being replaced by flats, at a high density. Even if the new DIT campus does not go ahead in Grangegorman (and it's not cancelled yet), the site is going to be developed sooner or later.

gjim

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The increased cost is an issue, but it will probably be balanced out by less need to work on the redeveloped O'Connell street, and if the new bridge is being installed anyway, that removes a great deal of the cost advantage of the direct route.

Unless you have some proof that these factors were not taken into account, then this is just handwaving. The estimates have been published - the RPA itself says that route F will cost 65% more than route A (I just checked the document on their website). Why would the RPA deliberately overstate the costs of their preferred route?

And the increased cost is not just "an issue" - it is THE ISSUE. Most of T21 has been binned because of a lack of money; spending an extra 70% on a project like this when the money could be used on something which would actually deliver utility (like an extension to Phibsboro) is not a "storm in a teacup".

As for your claims about the old alignment, it's selection was justified by a financial model which is dead - i.e. extend the Luas into areas where new apartments can be built and subsequently levy the developers of the new apartments. Suggesting that old Cabra will be redeveloped with gleaming high density apartment buildings might have worked as a justification for this route 4 years ago - these days it's a bad joke.

Hopefully sanity will now prevail and capital intensive public transport development will be based on delivering utility to the commuters of Dublin and not on a circular "build it and they will come, thus justifying building it" argument.

As for the new bridge, it will not be built unless the Luas goes over it. It has been the wet dream of the traffic engineers in DCC for more than a decade but could never be justified. Route F is the result of horse trading; DCC dropped it's strenuous objections to BX once the RPA found some way to incorporate a need for a new bridge at Hawkins St. The result is this expensive dog's dinner of a route.

Aard

Using Broadstone is a good idea -- grade seperation to Finglas. I'm all for, however, cutting down on expense of on-street trams (i.e. route F). Lord knows they'll probably be ripped up in the not too distant future anyway!

D.L.R.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I think the controversy over the loop routing is a storm in a teacup.

I disagree, its possibly the worst routing call made by the RPA, and that's saying a lot. Completely unnecessary, and it messes up O'Connell St just for good measure.

And what do we get in return? A slower journey and a bigger bill! Retarded isn't the word...

Victor

gjim wrote: »

And the increased cost is not just "an issue" - it is THE ISSUE. Most of T21 has been binned because of a lack of money; spending an extra 70% on a project like this when the money could be used on something which would actually deliver utility (like an extension to Phibsboro) is not a "storm in a teacup".

But that 70% (I though it was 65% a moment ago) is only on a small section. How much of that extra is because of the bridge? The bridge will remove most right-turn movements from O'Connell Bridge and give pedestrians better options to cross at both bridges.

gjim

Victor wrote: »

But that 70% (I though it was 65% a moment ago) is only on a small section. How much of that extra is because of the bridge? The bridge will remove most right-turn movements from O'Connell Bridge and give pedestrians better options to cross at both bridges.

It's for the BX section which is the section attracting the criticism. Even it is doubtful, while without the massive Grangegorman development, the D section is about as likely to be built as Metro West.

The only details made available by the RPA of the cost estimates for the various options are given in percentages above option A rounded to 5%. I'd like to refer you to the original estimates (which provided actual construction costs) but they've "disappeared" from the RPA website; at the time the excess was closer to 70% from what I recall but like I said the figures are not available.

I presume your question regarding the proportion of the cost which can be attributed to the bridge is rhetorical? The extent of the information regarding costs which have been released by the RPA is insufficient to even guess what the overall cost of Option F is, never mind components of it. I'm sure you are well aware of this.

strassenwo!f

It appears that the BXD line will cross the Red line at O'Connell Street and Marlborough Street. There will be a physical connection to the Red line at O'Connell Street/Marlborough Street, but this will apparently not be used for passenger travel.

Why is this?

It would seem advantageous to plan for the possibility of passenger services between Sandyford and the Point, between Broombridge and the Point, between Tallaght/Citywest and Broombridge (/eventually Finglas), etc., etc.

I have a vague recollection that this has something to do with environmental impact statements, but this could be wrong. It would seem a pity for a physical connection to be planned, but not to plan for this connection to be used to facilitate a variety of passenger services.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It appears that the BXD line will cross the Red line at O'Connell Street and Marlborough Street. There will be a physical connection to the Red line at O'Connell Street/Marlborough Street, but this will apparently not be used for passenger travel.

Why is this?

It would seem advantageous to plan for the possibility of passenger services between Sandyford and the Point, between Broombridge and the Point, between Tallaght/Citywest and Broombridge (/eventually Finglas), etc., etc.

I have a vague recollection that this has something to do with environmental impact statements, but this could be wrong. It would seem a pity for a physical connection to be planned, but not to plan for this connection to be used to facilitate a variety of passenger services.

Because it's a major complication for the operator while a minor inconvenience for the passenger to transfer

GerardKeating

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Because it's a major complication for the operator while a minor inconvenience for the passenger to transfer

How ???

Tram operators do this all around the world...

loyatemu

GerardKeating wrote: »

How ???

Tram operators do this all around the world...

most tram/metro systems I've been on have separate lines and where they intersect you change trams. It makes the system much easier to understand for passengers and is logistically easier for the operator.

Aard

Even if there was a Sandyford<>Point service, realistically the service frequency wouldn't be particularly high (especially if you want to throw Broombridge<>Point into the mix too, for example) and a lot of people would end up just taking the first tram that comes, whether that entails a transfer or not. At very most only 50% of trams would go where one wants without a transfer, but this would probably be less. People aren't gonna let a tram sail by just to avoid changing at Abbey St -- the transfer would take less time than the wait for the next one.

BrianD

strassenwo!f wrote: »

It appears that the BXD line will cross the Red line at O'Connell Street and Marlborough Street. There will be a physical connection to the Red line at O'Connell Street/Marlborough Street, but this will apparently not be used for passenger travel.

Why is this?

It would seem advantageous to plan for the possibility of passenger services between Sandyford and the Point, between Broombridge and the Point, between Tallaght/Citywest and Broombridge (/eventually Finglas), etc., etc.

I have a vague recollection that this has something to do with environmental impact statements, but this could be wrong. It would seem a pity for a physical connection to be planned, but not to plan for this connection to be used to facilitate a variety of passenger services.

No need for it. The penny is finally dropping for those who think it's essential that the lines join. The connection will really be for engineering reasons. There was never a plan to route trams to Heuston, Tallaght or the Point. You get off and change lines like any other cities in the world. They can probably close one of the tram depots if there is a connection between both lines.

strassenwo!f

loyatemu wrote: »

most tram/metro systems I've been on have separate lines and where they intersect you change trams. It makes the system much easier to understand for passengers and is logistically easier for the operator.

My experience of tram systems is mostly gleaned from Germany and Poland, where most sections of the various networks are used by multiple lines. Dresden would be a nice example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresdner_Verkehrsbetriebe

murphaph

Crossings used only for operational reasons exist all over Berlin. Get off the tram, walk around corner and wait for the other one.

If both routes are frequent and reliable (easier to maintain with single route per line) then changing is no problem.

LXFlyer

Operationally interworking the two lines was never in the proposal - that's been discussed on boards repeatedly.

I don't know how this is suddenly big news to people?

LXFlyer

BrianD wrote: »

No need for it. The penny is finally dropping for those who think it's essential that the lines join. The connection will really be for engineering reasons. There was never a plan to route trams to Heuston, Tallaght or the Point. You get off and change lines like any other cities in the world. They can probably close one of the tram depots if there is a connection between both lines.

I would very much doubt either depot will be closed.

For example, were Sandyford to close the additional travel time that would be taken for empty trams to get from Red Cow to either Brides Glen or Sandyford to start the day and at the end would be nonsensical and would result in additional unnecessary labour costs.

strassenwo!f

lxflyer wrote: »

Operationally interworking the two lines was never in the proposal - that's been discussed on boards repeatedly.

I don't know how this is suddenly big news to people?

Oh it's not news. I was just trying to get a reminder as to why connecting the two lines for passengers was not being done.

You say that it was never in the proposal, yet you still haven't explained why. It would seem sensible to envisage use of the lines in this way, even if it is not initially part of the plan. In this way, Dublin might be able to utilise the eventual network more fully, like cities like Dresden.

It was pointed out above, by Murphaph, that crossings used only for operational reasons exist all over Berlin. Crossings used for passenger services also exist all over the city, and they seem to work fine.

LXFlyer

It may well be that from a practical perspective (in terms of driver hours etc) as an operator that it would not work out - I don't know.

I suspect that having developed the service since it was launched they just want to keep a relatively simple network in place, i.e. Connolly-Saggart, Tallaght-Point and Cathal Brugha Street-Sandyford/Brides Glen, and therefore a consistency of service through the central areas.

LeinsterDub

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Oh it's not news. I was just trying to get a reminder as to why connecting the two lines for passengers was not being done.

You say that it was never in the proposal, yet you still haven't explained why. It would seem sensible to envisage use of the lines in this way, even if it is not initially part of the plan. In this way, Dublin might be able to utilise the eventual network more fully, like cities like Dresden.

It was pointed out above, by Murphaph, that crossings used only for operational reasons exist all over Berlin. Crossings used for passenger services also exist all over the city, and they seem to work fine.

It's been stated here by Aard. There is only 1 transfer point.
Why wait 15 minutes for the 3rd tram Broombridge -The Point when I can get the next , walk 10 foot and jump on the next tram

Berlin has multiple lines. It makes sense to run multiple routes on single lines as passenger might have to make multiple transfer to get where they want to be.

When we get close to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_tramways again we can run multiple routes on single lines

strassenwo!f

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's been stated here by Aard. There is only 1 transfer point.

I'm afraid that, among the many excellent posts on infrastructure by Aard, I was unable to find the one which explains the reason.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why wait 15 minutes for the 3rd tram Broombridge -The Point when I can get the next , walk 10 foot and jump on the next tram

Well, for example, there might be considerable demand to travel from the IFSC to locations along the current green line or the envisaged line to Broombridge (and hopefully beyond, eventually). The demand for such services might be high enough to justify a direct route. There might, for example, be considerable demand for travel between Heuston Station and locations along the current green line, perhaps also sufficient to justify a direct route. I don't think there's anything wrong with changing, but if the numbers stack up it is better to have a direct route available.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Berlin has multiple lines. It makes sense to run multiple routes on single lines as passenger might have to make multiple transfer to get where they want to be.

This is a very good point. You really don't want multiple transfers if you can help it.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

When we get close to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_tramways again we can run multiple routes on single lines

I think (or I hope!) Dublin should be able to do this to some extent before that happens.

Victor

lxflyer wrote: »

I would very much doubt either depot will be closed.

For example, were Sandyford to close the additional travel time that would be taken for empty trams to get from Red Cow to either Brides Glen or Sandyford to start the day and at the end would be nonsensical and would result in additional unnecessary labour costs.

The depot level functions, e.g. wheel lathe, could be consolidated while maintaining the tram parking area.

BrianD

lxflyer wrote: »

I would very much doubt either depot will be closed.

For example, were Sandyford to close the additional travel time that would be taken for empty trams to get from Red Cow to either Brides Glen or Sandyford to start the day and at the end would be nonsensical and would result in additional unnecessary labour costs.

If I recall, the original plans was to have a single depot? Perhaps this was for technical work i.e maintenance. Granted unless it was a 24hour system it wouldn't make much sense to shuffle them off the Red Cow in the morning/evening.

My experience of tram systems is mostly gleaned from Germany and Poland, where most sections of the various networks are used by multiple lines. Dresden would be a nice example of this.

This is not the same as what you are suggesting. In many cities, you'll find that different lines will use/share the same sections of track before splitting off. This already happens in Dublin on the Red line where you've got different end to end runnings.

If there is a demand to go to the IFSC to Sandyford then you just switch lines.

strassenwo!f

BrianD wrote: »

This is not the same as what you are suggesting. In many cities, you'll find that different lines will use/share the same sections of track before splitting off. This already happens in Dublin on the Red line where you've got different end to end runnings.

If there is a demand to go to the IFSC to Sandyford then you just switch lines.

No, it is.

I'm not sure what the current running pattern is on the red line, but let's say it is Connolly-Citywest, Point-Tallaght and Connolly-Heuston. (I'm also not sure if this last one is actually in service, but let's say it is).

This is all currently illustrated by the RPA as "the red line" on the network map, with one colour being used for all the services. However, it could also be illustrated on the network map by a red line (Connolly-Citywest), a purple line (Point-Tallaght) and a pink line (Connolly-Heuston), showing different services.

This is what happens in most cities, albeit on a larger scale, because they usually have more track and quite a number of connections between sections of track. Think District, Circle, Metropolitan and Hammersmith and City in London and you'll get the picture.

Victor

The RPA have been doing a survey for the last week to check total numbers and to see what people's origin-destination pairs are. I wonder if London Underground do the same and adjust lines accordingly (over a long time frame).

AngryLips

If there were too many different combinations of origin/terminating services it would become confusing and less user friendly. That's not an argument against having the option but different services would need to be clearly demarcated to differentiate them from one another in order to address this problem for the casual user.



...Of course, one unavoidable problem would be that the more combinations they operate the less the frequency for each service. Having hopped on a Heuston terminating tram one too many times when I'm traveling further out I can say this is a real frustration for me.

Victor

AngryLips wrote: »

...Of course, one unavoidable problem would be that the more combinations they operate the less the frequency for each service. Having hopped on a Heuston terminating tram one too many times when I'm traveling further out I can say this is a real frustration for me.

There is another effect with this - people at Connolly wondering when the next tram to Tallaght is (Connolly trams tend to go to Saggart).

For passengers, generally the trick is to go as far as you can on the first available service and then change to a direct service to your destination. For some systems "first available service" should read "first available / fastest service" - there may be semi-express or express services that overtake other services.

strassenwo!f

AngryLips wrote: »

If there were too many different combinations of origin/terminating services it would become confusing and less user friendly. That's not an argument against having the option but different services would need to be clearly demarcated to differentiate them from one another in order to address this problem for the casual user.

Really, clear demarcation should not be difficult in this day and age. It might represent a problem the first time one uses the service, but after that it's hard to think that people wouldn't learn pretty fast.

AngryLips wrote: »

...Of course, one unavoidable problem would be that the more combinations they operate the less the frequency for each service. Having hopped on a Heuston terminating tram one too many times when I'm traveling further out I can say this is a real frustration for me.

Well, you can look at it as a problem or you can look at it as an advantage. For example, Munich's S- and U-Bahn network consists of just 4 lines (if one disregards minor routes like the S27): one S-Bahn line with about 12 different termini, and 3 U-Bahn lines each with 4.

They could concentrate all the services on each of these lines into just Terminus A to Terminus B services, with magnificent frequencies along these routes. The trade off would be that the other branches would get nothing. Or they could do what they actually do do, which is to run lower frequencies on a greater number of routes.

spacetweek

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Well, you can look at it as a problem or you can look at it as an advantage. For example, Munich's S- and U-Bahn network consists of just 4 lines (if one disregards minor routes like the S27): one S-Bahn line with about 12 different termini, and 3 U-Bahn lines each with 4.

The Luas Red and Green lines constitute a north-south route and an east-west. The Strecktunnel (or whatever it's called in Munich) is west-east only and is more like a lot of similar routes sharing a central section (like Luas Heuston-Connolly). It's not the same thing at all.

The #1 reason why we can't have through services from Red-Green or vice versa is that it would be at the expense of frequency to the termini. If you have a tram every 5 mins to Connolly from Heuston but then require the 1st of every 3 services to turn north to Broombridge, the 2nd of every 3 to turn south to Sandyford, and the final 3rd of 3 to Connolly, then you've just divided the service frequency to Connolly by 3. Not great. I don't understand they big objection to getting off and transferring.

spacetweek

If anything, I would place a greater priority on creating express services on the Luas. 1 hr Saggart-Point is far, far too slow. There should be express services roughly like this:
Green: Stephen's Green, Ranelagh, Milltown, Dundrum, Sandyford
Red: Connolly, Abbey, Jervis, Heuston, Rialto, Blackhorse, Kylemore, Red Cow, Belgard, Square
Express trams would hold off a few mins at launch in order to avoid catching up with the next one.