Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

strassenwo!f

In the morning peak there currently seem to be about 20 trams northbound at Dunville Avenue and 15-16 southbound. I haven't yet had a chance to personally observe the evening peak, but even if it's 20:20, that should still leave the guts of 2 minutes for cars crossing at Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan.

Apart from the traffic driving on the right, what would you say are the major differences between car/tram crossings at Dunville Avenue and those in Central Berlin?

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In the morning peak there currently seem to be about 20 trams northbound at Dunville Avenue and 15-16 southbound. I haven't yet had a chance to personally observe the evening peak, but even if it's 20:20, that should still leave the guts of 2 minutes for cars crossing at Dunville Avenue and Stillorgan.

Apart from the traffic driving on the right, what would you say are the major differences between car/tram crossings at Dunville Avenue and those in Central Berlin?

Dunville is one way at a time which halves the time available to cross. Even your 40 trams wouldn’t leave 2 minutes to cross, that’s only leaving 30 secs per tram on average to pass. It’s not green until the moment the tram passes and green again instantly there are safety limits before and after.

Also you never responded the other day when I pointed out it was one change into town on the proposed route after you claimed it was 2 to even get to the city.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

Dunville is one way at a time which halves the time available to cross. Even your 40 trams wouldn’t leave 2 minutes to cross, that’s only leaving 30 secs per tram on average to pass. It’s not green until the moment the tram passes and green again instantly there are safety limits before and after.

The scenario I posted above seems to be a reasonable way of utilising the LUAS Green line to a level which is seen in other cities, but Dublin has to go through a whole palaver of costly tunnelling all the way to Beechwood just so as not to inconvenience some car drivers who wish to cross at Dunville Avenue?

I would think they'll just have to wait a bit longer, or find some other way. I'm not sure, but with all the tram/car interactions in Central Berlin (and other cities), where they're running 30 trams per hour per direction I'd guess that's what car drivers do there.

salmocab wrote: »

Also you never responded the other day when I pointed out it was one change into town on the proposed route after you claimed it was 2 to even get to the city.

Sorry about that, I must have missed it.

I can't think where I would have said it was two changes to get into the city on the current metrolink proposal. Could you remind me?

salmocab

You posted 4 days ago in the other forum ‘The current proposal, which would involve a bizarre two-change journey from Cherrywood just to even get into the city centre’.

By the way I agree they shouldn’t have to tunnel more to get past Dunville they should use a combination of raising the track a bit and digging an underpass.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

You posted 4 days ago in the other forum ‘The current proposal, which would involve a bizarre two-change journey from Cherrywood just to even get into the city centre’.

I am clear, and always have been, that it needs a change, under the current metrolink proposal, to get between Cherrywood and the city. Could you provide a link to that post?

salmocab wrote: »

By the way I agree they shouldn’t have to tunnel more to get past Dunville they should use a combination of raising the track a bit and digging an underpass.

It appears, from other European cities, that 30 trams per direction per hour is very doable, even with a number of tram/car interactions. In the case of Berlin, there are several such interactions right in the centre of the city, and it seems to work.

I am very doubtful that anywhere near the maximum has been 'got' out of the southside Green Line,which is largely an off-street line. There may well be a case for upgrading it in the future, in around the 2040's or so.

But, with implementation of the scenario I posted above, of a short LUAS line between Peter Place and Baggot Street Bridge (or something broadly around that idea), there should be no reason why that upgrade needs to happen soon.

salmocab

It’s your post from a few days back, search for it yourself. To be absolutely clear what I posted was your exact words no ambiguity, no attempts to make your post sound like it had a different meaning. If you don’t want to bother searching that’s fine but regardless it’s your words.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

Ah, I see that you've ignored every single point put to you over the last few pages and gone off on an entirely new tangent. Well done.

I'm glad to have a chance to finally answer this post.

Much of the last couple of pages has been the poster bk doing some very commendable maths about the capacity of Berlin's trams.

One thing which he didn't include, and there's no real way to quantify it, is that there's a tram, or a U-Bahn or an S-Bahn, on pretty well every street corner in Berlin, as there is in many European cities, because of infrastructure development to all areas of the city over many years.

Anyway, back to Dublin, and as I see it it's not the capacity of different systems which matters here, it's the throughput.

According to the metrolink.ie data, there are 400 people per tram. (8,000 passengers northbound at 20 trams per hour, at current peak times, rising to 11,000 passengers per hour northbound in 2047)

30 trams per hour per direction should be sufficient along the Green Line to stay ahead of the metrolink.ie (metrolink.ie) projections for 2-3 decades to come. The proposal I mentioned on the previous page, of a tram line between Baggot Street Bridge and Peter Place, would be one way of dealing with this capacity issue.

That would allow the TBM to deliver rapid transport to other areas of the city, rather than delivering something a teeny-weeny bit better to areas which already have rapid transport between their suburb and the city centre.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

It’s your post from a few days back, search for it yourself. To be absolutely clear what I posted was your exact words no ambiguity, no attempts to make your post sound like it had a different meaning. If you don’t want to bother searching that’s fine but regardless it’s your words.

You're alleging I said something, but you won't post where I said it. Could you help me here?

antoinolachtnai

You say that like building a tram for a few km through an historic area is cheaper than extending an underground tunnel. That is not necessarily true. Because of all the preparatory work involved with services, building a tram line is pretty expensive. You are going to be looking at at least €50m/km or more for tram on a road and the smaller the project, the higher the cost/km.

The other problem is that tram paths would cross and this would create further delays.

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You're alleging I said something, but you won't post where I said it. Could you help me here?

Search your own history, are you claiming you didn’t say it? I’m on my phone so am limited in what I can do and frankly find it bizarre that you won’t do a 30sec search.
It’s almost like you made a ridiculous statement and now don’t want to own it.

strassenwo!f

salmocab wrote: »

Search your own history, are you claiming you didn’t say it? I’m on my phone so am limited in what I can do and frankly find it bizarre that you won’t do a 30sec search.
It’s almost like you made a ridiculous statement and now don’t want to own it.

I am sure I have never said that there are two changes required between Cherrywood and the City Centre.

When you get back home, or to some other place with internet, post me the link.

CatInABox

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, my mistake. I intended to talk only about the Charlemont - Sandyford section of this proposed upgrrade,

As far as I know, there are just two at-grade road crossings (and several pedestrian crossings) between Charlemont and Sandyford being talked about extensively here. There are a number of other rarely-used road crossings (at Alexandra College, for example) and several pedestrian crossings, and we will have to see what the plans might be to deal with these.

The current proposal, which would involve a bizarre two-change journey from Cherrywood just to even get into the city centre , is surely unsustainable. In most cities I've seen, the default option is the centre, and if you want to go somewhere else, you change.

It is my opinion that the current Cherrywood - Broombridge LUAS is pretty good, and there is no need for an upgrade for the service at this stage. The figures for the metro, produced by the NTA, indicate that the Broombridge - Cherrywood line should probably be due for an upgrade to a metro in around 2040, or shortly after.

Hopefully, by which time, lots of other stuff will have been been done in Dublin.

Here you go, strassenwo!f. Just FYI, if you ever want to check your post history quickly, there's a "Find All My Posts" option in the top right hand corner.

salmocab

CatInABox wrote: »

Here you go, strassenwo!f. Just FYI, if you ever want to check your post history quickly, there's a "Find All My Posts" option in the top right hand corner.

Thank you sir

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I am sure I have never said that there are two changes required between Cherrywood and the City Centre.

When you get back home, or to some other place with internet, post me the link.

And yet you did

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You say that like building a tram for a few km through an historic area is cheaper than extending an underground tunnel. That is not necessarily true. Because of all the preparatory work involved with services, building a tram line is pretty expensive. You are going to be looking at at least €50m/km or more for tram on a road and the smaller the project, the higher the cost/km.

I fully understand all you say. But we've had, in Dublin, a tramline built across St. Stephen's Green, and through College Green, two of Dublin's most treasured locations. A tram between Peter Place and Baggot Street Bridge wouldn't seem to prevent problems on a similar level.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The other problem is that tram paths would cross and this would create further delays.

Something like this isn't a problem in many other cities where tram lines merge, even in very central areas. I doubt it should be a problem in Dublin.

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I fully understand all you say. But we've had, in Dublin, a tramline built across St. Stephen's Green, and through College Green, two of Dublin's most treasured locations. A tram between Peter Place and Baggot Street Bridge wouldn't seem to prevent problems on a similar level.

The degree of treasuredness does not effect the amount or nature of services underground or the construction cost. You are talking about a major east-west artery. It would result in great inconvenience for very little benefit compared to extending a tunnel by a kilometer or so.

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The degree of treasuredness does not effect the amount or nature of services underground or the construction cost. You are talking about a major east-west artery.

What I have suggested on this thread could result in many people being delivered almost directly to their place of work. What we see in most other cities is a situation where there are several lines converging to a major concentration of employment. In Dublin, the situation is a bit different, but the Green LUAS could be used to hoover up people from, and deliver people to, a number of areas.

This is why I sugggest a LUAS link between Peter Place and the Baggot Street area, to deliver and pick up people who work in that Baggot Street / Leeson Street area, and to deliver and pick up people who work in the city centre and to allow them to change. I don't know how much that would cost, but it's got to be less than tunnelling all the way to Beechwood.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It would result in great inconvenience for very little benefit compared to extending a tunnel by a kilometer or so.

Is it just a kilometre from St. Stephen's Green to Beechewood?

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

What I have suggested on this thread could result in many people being delivered almost directly to their place of work. What we see in most other cities is a situation where there are several lines converging to a major concentration of employment. In Dublin, the situation is a bit different, but the Green LUAS could be used to hoover up people from, and deliver people to, a number of areas.

I can see there is a degree of convenience to a number of people, but that is not the same as there being a significant benefit to the community. Construction and operation of the service you propose would also discommode some other people.

In general, it will be faster to get off and walk than to wait for your infrequent tram.

This is why I sugggest a LUAS link between Peter Place and the Baggot Street area, to deliver and pick up people who work in that Baggot Street / Leeson Street area, and to deliver and pick up people who work in the city centre and to allow them to change. I don't know how much that would cost

I don't know how much it would cost either, exactly, but a good guess would be between 75 and 100 million excluding the cost of all the disruption caused.

, but it's got to be less than tunnelling all the way to Beechwood.

Not necessarily. And even if it is, say, 30 million euros or even 100 million euros cheaper, doesn't mean that it represents better value.



[/quote]
Is it just a kilometre from St. Stephen's Green to Beechewood?[/QUOTE]

It is 1.72 km, but 720 extra meters actually doesn't make much difference when you already have the machine in the ground. And you would want the metro at Charlemont to connect with the fabulous new Luas line towards Leeson St.

CatInABox

Moving the tunnel portal from Charlemont station to Beechwood station is estimated to add €72 million to the cost of. I'd doubt that you could run a Luas line where you want for much cheaper.

There's also the fact that adding a second destination onto the line is a reduction in capacity for people who don't want to go to that area. The Luas stations are already packed in the morning, and that's with only one destination, adding a second will mean some people will be waiting for longer, with more people packed onto the platforms.

I also don't see how you can ignore the experts at the NTA, and say that they just need to add more trams. They're saying that they're going to be at capacity soon, but you think differently? How many years of running a rail system do you have under your belt? Or is it just years of being a commuter on a different system in a different country?

strassenwo!f

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I can see there is a degree of convenience to a number of people, but that is not the same as there being a significant benefit to the community. Construction and operation of the service you propose would also discommode some other people.

Some peole would be discommoded, those at the traffic lights at Dunville Avenue, for example. But other people would see an advantage, those in the Baggot Street / Leeson Street area, who would no longer have to walk so far to their trams.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In general, it will be faster to get off and walk than to wait for your infrequent tram.

I'd be hoping for an initial tram frequency of around every ten ninutes at peak hours. (outside of the peak hours I'd say every twenty minutes, or every half hour, would be sufficient).

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I don't know how much it would cost either, exactly, but a good guess would be between 75 and 100 million excluding the cost of all the disruption caused.

100 millon? Well that sounds pretty good. For delivery of the LUAS to a whole new area of the city, especially one of the busiest ones.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Not necessarily. And even if it is, say, 30 million euros or even 100 million euros cheaper, doesn't mean that it represents better value.
if it means that the TBM can continue towards areas which don't have a tramline, and it seems can nevr have one, then it's good.

Is it just a kilometre from St. Stephen's Green to Beechewood?

It is 1.72 km, but 720 extra meters actually doesn't make much difference when you already have the machine in the ground. And you would want the metro at Charlemont to connect with the fabulous new Luas line towards Leeson St.

I hope I have answered that earlier in the post.

Yes, the machine would be in the ground, and needs to be told where to go. The southwest of the city needs rapid public transport into and out of the city. it is pretty clear that areas in the southwest have been identified as areas where no LUAS line is feasible. The TBM should be going there.

It is fairly clear that it woud make it more efficient for everybody

antoinolachtnai

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Some peole would be discommoded, those at the traffic lights at Dunville Avenue, for example. But other people would see an advantage, those in the Baggot Street / Leeson Street area, who would no longer have to walk so far to their trams.

That isn't necessarily the same as the system being of actual benefit to the society or the economy. The people in the southwest of the city in particular would benefit a lot more from an Adelaide Road bus lane.

Yes, the machine would be in the ground, and needs to be told where to go. The southwest of the city needs rapid public transport into and out of the city. it is pretty clear that areas in the southwest have been identified as areas where no LUAS line is feasible. The TBM should be going there.

It is fairly clear that it woud make it more efficient for everybody

No it's not clear. You haven't made any case at all, other than 'a luas extension is a good thing' which is not necessarily true, 'a luas project is always cheaper than a metro' (which is untrue) and the implied 'a luas is better than a metro' which is both an untrue statement and incorrect inference.

You could take the tunnel to Beechwood and then turn towards Rathfarnham. That way you'd get the benefit of maximising the Green Line capacity, serving the south west city and not tearing up major thoroughfares in the city centre for years.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

Here you go, strassenwo!f. Just FYI, if you ever want to check your post history quickly, there's a "Find All My Posts" option in the top right hand corner.

Thanks, I'll know now how to check.

I can't understand how I could have written that, but I must have.

It has been clear to me all along that it is one change to get into the city, under the current metrolink proposal. It's two changes to get to somewhere like Grangegorman, but just one to get to the city.

But what does anyone think of the above proposal on this thread, which would allow people to travel between Cherrywood and the City centre with 0 changes, between Cherrywood and Baggot Street/Leeson Street with 0 changes, and between Cherrywood and Grangegorman with 0 changes?

It looks like it could be an improvement on the current plans.

marno21

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thanks, I'll know now how to check.

I can't understand how I could have written that, but I must have.

It has been clear to me all along that it is one change to get into the city, under the current metrolink proposal. It's two changes to get to somewhere like Grangegorman, but just one to get to the city.

But what does anyone think of the above proposal on this thread, which would allow people to travel between Cherrywood and the City centre with 0 changes, between Cherrywood and Baggot Street/Leeson Street with 0 changes, and between Cherrywood and Grangegorman with 0 changes?

It looks like it could be an improvement on the current plans.

It's 2 changes to get from Cherrywood to Grangegorman, however the bulk of the traffic, e.g. Milltown/Sandyford to the city centre is direct, and south of Sandyford to the city centre is 1 change

The Luas/Metro should not be setup around minority journeys

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thanks, I'll know now how to check.

I can't understand how I could have written that, but I must have.

It has been clear to me all along that it is one change to get into the city, under the current metrolink proposal. It's two changes to get to somewhere like Grangegorman, but just one to get to the city.

But what does anyone think of the above proposal on this thread, which would allow people to travel between Cherrywood and the City centre with 0 changes, between Cherrywood and Baggot Street/Leeson Street with 0 changes, and between Cherrywood and Grangegorman with 0 changes?

It looks like it could be an improvement on the current plans.

It would be an improvement on the current setup if there was a way to deal with the road crossings that you are just happy to say the cars can wait a bit longer on but not on the current plan.
However the current plan is being done with a budget beyond anything we’ve spent before so there is zero chance of a metro going SW and a luas extension along with whatever works would be needed to sort the current crossings as that would cost billions more.
The current plan is a good one overall it obviously has a few issues that need tweaking.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Thanks, I'll know now how to check.

I can't understand how I could have written that, but I must have.

It has been clear to me all along that it is one change to get into the city, under the current metrolink proposal. It's two changes to get to somewhere like Grangegorman, but just one to get to the city.

But what does anyone think of the above proposal on this thread, which would allow people to travel between Cherrywood and the City centre with 0 changes, between Cherrywood and Baggot Street/Leeson Street with 0 changes, and between Cherrywood and Grangegorman with 0 changes?

It looks like it could be an improvement on the current plans.

If the core service is every few minutes, then changes do not cause any real delay. If the fare is cheap, and not increased by changes, then there is no real issue.

If Metrolink is one of many metro lines, which together with Luas and Dart make a serviceable network of rail based public transport, then Dublin will be a pleasant place to live and work in.

If the design is sub-optimal, then so what if it is built and used. Luas was critisised as a white elephant, but once built, it went to under-capacity in short order.

The Gov should press ahead and build Metrolink ASAP and let its success speak for the 2nd and third metro lines.

salmocab

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Gov should press ahead and build Metrolink ASAP and let its success speak for the 2nd and third metro lines.

This is the thing, if this gets built I’ve no doubt that we will go from politicians objecting and using crayons to route it away from their constituencies to clamoring to have one right through.

strassenwo!f

CatInABox wrote: »

Moving the tunnel portal from Charlemont station to Beechwood station is estimated to add €72 million to the cost of. I'd doubt that you could run a Luas line where you want for much cheaper.

But you're talking about the extra cost of tunnelling from Charlemont to Beechwood. Under the arrangement outlined above, with a tramline between Peter Place and Baggot Street Bridge, you wouldn't need to tunnel to Charlemont at all. What cost savings would be involved there?

CatInABox wrote: »

There's also the fact that adding a second destination onto the line is a reduction in capacity for people who don't want to go to that area. The Luas stations are already packed in the morning, and that's with only one destination, adding a second will mean some people will be waiting for longer, with more people packed onto the platforms.

That's true. But there is no question that the Baggot Street area is busy, with lots of workers, and it's probably the busiest non-central area there is in Dublin. Adding a peak-time LUAS service to the area could bring lots of benefits.

CatInABox wrote: »

I also don't see how you can ignore the experts at the NTA, and say that they just need to add more trams. They're saying that they're going to be at capacity soon, but you think differently? How many years of running a rail system do you have under your belt? Or is it just years of being a commuter on a different system in a different country?

I absolutely do not ignore the people at tne NTA, and I would doubly underline that if I could, or the good work that they do. And I've never run a tram system.

But the fact remains that there are tram systems in the European Union which are running trams at a rate of 30 tph, with street crossings. The people running the trams in Dublin need to speak with the people in Berlin or Vienna, or other cities, to see how it can be done.

Many (or most?) posters from overseas, like me, are posting here to contribute their little bits of new information, to try to make Dublin and Ireland as good as it can be. My bit about tram throughput in Berlin and Vienna is part of that.

salmocab

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Many (or most?) posters from overseas, like me, are posting here to contribute their little bits of new information, to try to make Dublin and Ireland as good as it can be. My bit about tram throughput in Berlin and Vienna is part of that.

I think you may be posting here under the misapprehension that anything said has any bearing in what will happen.
Your also just ignoring the difficulty at Dunville Ave. It’s not enough to tell us what other cities are doing you need to address the 2 proper crossings and the other minor crossings. You’ve said cars can just wait a bit longer but that suggests you don’t know these crossings and are happy to brush them aside.

strassenwo!f

I'd doubt that anything written on this board would have any direct bearing on what will happen in Dublin.

But this board allows people to remind readers of what is happening in other places. In this case, that there are are tram systems, with several car interactions, which are running 30+ trams per direction per hour.

Sam Russell

Dunville Ave is a problem because the design of the Luas Green Line went for the cheap option of a level crossing instead of a proper bridge. The original line had a low bridge that could accommodate cars but not buses. It is a case of cheap today costs more tomorrow.

Let us not repeat the cheapskate option with Metrolink. The extra tunnel to pass Dunville Ave is small beer compared to cost of raising the track. The interchange at Tara might cost a block of flats and a swimming pool, but they could be built locally on another site, but trains cannot swerve out of the way.