Luas Development

SeanW

Much of the DART's problems stem from shared track use, a problem that will exist even post Greater Dublin Rail Plan. With gaps of twenty minutes between DARTs in rush hour, it's little wonder that severe overcrowding is experienced.

The DART was built on a shoestring budget and the need for Intercity and Outer Suburban services has grown sharply. Yes the track-sharing is an issue at the moment but that will be fixed - in time.

The Kildare Route project is one big move to segragate a high frequency of local services and a high frequency of long-distance services. About 2/3 of Ireland's long distance network feeds into the stretch of line via Kildare into Heuston station.

However, owing to the low frequency of long-distance trains out Connolly station going in a wide variety of directions, I imagine that DART could be kept to a Metro-ish consitency with long-distance services not losing too much time, by the simple addition of passing loops and triple track sections.

murphaph

GerardKeating wrote:

Not always true, depending of what part on London you are gonig to, HEX is not much faster than the tube.

But the proposed RPA metro isn't a patch on the tube. It will integrate with only the Green Line Luas at Stephen's Green. The proposed DART spur will integrate with that and possibly all IC destinations and all DART destinations with 1 change at Howth Junction, Spencer Dock, Pearse and Heuston. Undeniably superior connections. The superior comfort of Irish loading gauge DART will be most welcome when carrying luggage. If the metro was built to DART spec, and provided proper connections then I'd be a supporter provided a land use plan was drawn up to ensure densities above ground were increased with little difficulty caused by NIMBYs.

People have to look beyond the underfunded DART we have today to a highly segregated one we could have.

Metrobest

Thomond, the term "white elephant" is easy to bandy about and can equally be applied to every rail project in Ireland. So you have to look at the costs and potential benefits. The benefits of the metro are huge - you know, it would make a real difference to people's lives. It would take people out of their cars, free up the streets for cyclists and pedestrians.

I've read interviews with people who live along the high-frequency, reliable Green luas: people like the boss of Today FM. He said something like: "the luas has revolutionised my life, I love it, I never drive into town now." With a metro in place, areas like Glasnevin and Phibsoboro would become trendy villages like Ranelagh, vibrant recreational hubs with a thriving nightlife, and they'd be just a few metro stops away from the city centre and the huge amount of undeveloped land along the overground section of the metro.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a luas to Ballyfermot would have the same effect. Unfortunately, Thomond, I think that in the case of Ballyfermot the planning rot has already settled. Good, vibrant areas have the whole gamut of recreational and infrastructural services, and that's why people want to live in them, or as near as possible to them. Whilst you may slag "garden city" locations such as Glasnevin and Phibsboro, these are developed residential areas with characher, an attraction in itself, and there's a lot to be said for putting in the right transport infrastructure here.

maxheadroom

Metrobest wrote:

there's a lot to be said for putting in the right transport infrastructure here.

Just a small point - I'd agree with you that areas like you've mentioned need appropriate transport infrastructure, I'm not sure that a metro as currently proposed is the right way to go about doing that.

Thomond Pk

Metrobest wrote:

Thomond, the term "white elephant" is easy to bandy about and can equally be applied to every rail project in Ireland. So you have to look at the costs and potential benefits. The benefits of the metro are huge - you know, it would make a real difference to people's lives. It would take people out of their cars, free up the streets for cyclists and pedestrians. .

On the basis of cost per annual passenger it would be a white elephant and if stopped arguing for the sake of it and produced some figures to back up your arguments people might listen to you.

Metrobest wrote:

I've read interviews with people who live along the high-frequency, reliable Green luas: people like the boss of Today FM. He said something like: "the luas has revolutionised my life, I love it, I never drive into town now." With a metro in place, areas like Glasnevin and Phibsoboro would become trendy villages like Ranelagh, vibrant recreational hubs with a thriving nightlife, and they'd be just a few metro stops away from the city centre and the huge amount of undeveloped land along the overground section of the metro. .

If his tax went up to keep a group of PPP investors contracts paid the only type of revolution discussed would be regime change by ballot box. Whether villages are trendy or not is not a valid reason to spend 3.6bn to 5bn when a 500m Luas will perform the same function, I would hardly call Glasnevan or Phibsboro run down and I'm sure residents of these areas would take offence at your scatter gun approach to discussion, yesterday Ballyfermot today D7, when was the last time you spent any real time in either?

Metrobest wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't think a luas to Ballyfermot would have the same effect. Unfortunately, Thomond, I think that in the case of Ballyfermot the planning rot has already settled. Good, vibrant areas have the whole gamut of recreational and infrastructural services, and that's why people want to live in them, or as near as possible to them. Whilst you may slag "garden city" locations such as Glasnevin and Phibsboro, these are developed residential areas with characher, an attraction in itself, and there's a lot to be said for putting in the right transport infrastructure here.

Urban planning and transport provision requires a lot more thought than you have just outlined, you obviously didn't read what I wrote above and you must have been shocked that Dublin's Docklands were converted to a modern Urban environment when the money could have been spent on nice low density suburbs. I couldn't be bothered listing the references from the New Development Plan Transport Section you wouldn't read them.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

stuff

Man, that was the fluffiest post I've see in a while. It had no substance whatsoever.

Metrobest

Thomond Pk wrote:

Whether villages are trendy or not is not a valid reason to spend 3.6bn to 5bn when a 500m Luas will perform the same function.

I wish you'd read the report on the metro before shooting from the hip on this. Here's the link: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/jct/metro-report/_Toc72561310

FYI, the costs of the metro are based on PPP over three decades, so the the equivilent cost of a luas line you mention would be €1.5- 2bn

From the report:

metro report wrote:

Appendix Nine - Benefits of a Metro

Some Metro systems are not cost effective in terms of operational revenues from the 'farebox' being sufficient to cover direct operational cost. Some others do cover operational costs, but the surplus operational margin is not enough to repay capital outlay (or in a PPP situation insufficient to cover the access / usage charge).

However, a Metro system has to be seen as a 'national and / or a city asset'. One can be confident that the necessary financial support to cover operational deficits or capital cost deficits will be more than covered by financial savings by the avoidance of disbenefit that can be seen as the benefits of having an effective Metro system or network.

Many benefits arise from having a Metro system as a passenger transport carrier, as summarised as follows:-

· Mass movement of passenger flows - less congestion
· Quicker transits for passengers - less stress, ready to work
· Safer travel - less accidents and personal injuries
· Environmentally friendly - less noise, pollution
· Comfortable travel - pleasure to travel, not a chore
· Quality of life improved - relief from constant traffic flows
· More frequent travel - more use of retail and leisure facilities
· Road traffic remaining can travel quicker - lower operating costs
· Reduce demand for bus transport - save capital / operating cost
· Improved communications - attracts external investment

The effect of the disbenefits - financial and physical - are not borne directly by national Government, but are borne by -

- consumers directly,
- by local communities,
- by businesses,
- and Governmental bodies such as
- local Government,
- bus operators,
- hospitals,
- historic monuments, etc.

Because they are so widespread, they are rarely summarised to evaluate the cost to the national economy, thus become hidden and forgotten. A view from the DTO is that disbenefits cost in the region of, currently, €2 billion per annum. Dublin Chamber of Commerce has provided estimates ranging from €1.27 billion to €8 billion.

Metro solutions are initially expensive in isolation, but they are a long term asset and solution to offset the hidden costs of the disbenefits of road congestion that quickly become accepted, with reluctance, as inevitable..

MarkoP11

That of course is the textbook answer you could replace Metro with Luas/Dart/Monorail

dowlingm

well I don't know where Today FM's boss lives, but I think even the most hardened car driver would consider a tram that goes right past the front door of his work (T-FM is on Abbey St). It is good to have a media supporter though.

"metro" as an idea (mass transit segregated from other modes at short intervals) is fine, but it doesn't need separate branding, just 2/3 car DART sets for maximum commonality of driver training, parts and maintenance, flexibility of transfer to other parts of the network etc.

Thomond Pk

MarkoP11 wrote:

That of course is the textbook answer you could replace Metro with Luas/Dart/Monorail

You beat me to that answer Marko,

Metrobest I'm still waiting for the Platform for Change information; just to return to the PPP angle you keep raising, government bonds cost 2.85% PPPs cost 8% if you deduct 285 from 800 you get the cost of the PPP it is 515 basis points per year which over 30 years would give finance costs of about 3bn on 2bn giving a real cost of 5bn including finance and excluding the rolling stock that doesn't integrate with any other transport mode.

SeanW

The RPA proposed Metro is joke from start to finish, end of story.

There is no reason to use a PPP as these just cost a hell of a lot more in the long run - government should borrow and pay back the loan over time.

The gauge issue is another nutjob, it's more or less established that it would be nuts to build a Metro to non-Irish gauge, no reason the DART and Metro cannot share port access, maintenance facilities, rolling stock, pooled equipment orders etc. Even doing this it would be very easy to maintain complete segregation from the IE network in revenue operation (e.g. no track sharing by passenger trains).

You make good points on the need for public transport on the Northside, but there are simpler solutions, build an Irish Rail station at Glasnevin Junction, build some Northside Luas, or - in time - a proper, efficient (non RPA ) Metro.

But the DRP MUST come first if the existing network is to have any future at all.

weehamster

SeanW wrote:

The RPA proposed Metro is joke from start to finish, end of story.
You make good points on the need for public transport on the Northside, but there are simpler solutions, build an Irish Rail station at Glasnevin Junction, build some Northside Luas, or - in time - a proper, efficient (non RPA ) Metro.

The Metro would not really serve the northside that much. Only that areas that are lucky enough to be near a stop i.e.The Mater, DCU, Ballymun. How does these 3 stops serve the northsider who are not near these stops but near the route? Not good coverage.

The Dundrum to Ballymun/Sillogue Luas line would serve the Northside far better than the metro as there are far more stops and therefore giving a better coverage. Also this line at Whitehall can split heading to Howth Jtn. as well as heading to Ballymun/SillogueWill the metro split to Howth Jtn in the future? I dont think so. Dropping this Luas route by Mary O'Rourke for a metro was a very bad idea.

If there is to be a metro, Stick to the 'Platform for Change' Metro route using the Broadstone line (owned by CIE) and heading towards Finglas where it splits into 2 routes. One going to the Airport and continuing to Swords and the other way going through West Dublin i.e Blanchardstown, Liffeyvale, Clondalkin, Tallaght and then the route turns heading to Stephens Grn going through, Kimmage and Harolds X.

Lets do this properly and dont build a metro just for the sake of one.

Oh ye, theres also the Lucan to Spencer Dock Luas line too. Dont forget about that.

But all this is secondary behind the Dublin Rail Plan to extend the DART.

Metrobest

Thomond Pk wrote:

You beat me to that answer Marko,

Metrobest I'm still waiting for the Platform for Change information; just to return to the PPP angle you keep raising, government bonds cost 2.85% PPPs cost 8% if you deduct 285 from 800 you get the cost of the PPP it is 515 basis points per year which over 30 years would give finance costs of about 3bn on 2bn giving a real cost of 5bn including finance and excluding the rolling stock that doesn't integrate with any other transport mode.

As far as I'm concerned, the financing of a particular project is essentially a seperate issue from the merits of that particular project. PPP should not be used as a convenient tool to argue against a particular project.

Platfrom for change is on the DTO's website, so I suggest you download that, or you can buy yourself a full copy in the Government publications office.

MarkoP11

Three words

Cost
Benefit
Analysis

QED

Metrobest

Six words..

Positive, according to the metro report

SeanW

But proposals which would come into competetion to the Metro, such as the Interconnector, were not considered by that O'Reilly report, which surgically removed itself from having to examining any other project except the Metro.

The Dublin Rail Plan is deperately needed and the O'Reilly report didn't examine it at all - but it did reccomend the Metro, even though the Metro and the DRP may end up in conflict for funding. The terms of reference for the Metro report were very narrow.

You still haven't said anyhting about the gauge issue in recent months ...

MarkoP11

Have a look at Luas it scored 1:1.76 when at the planning stage, a higher CBA than the metro did. The stragic rail review has a number of projects with CBAs of 2 and even 3

anyway how can you trust this ?

Although the RPA has deemed the figures for each of these costs and benefits to be
commercially sensitive information, they have permitted the cost benefit ratio to be
published. There is a positive cost benefit ratio of 1.31 to 1 benefit value of [refused
permission to publish] million over cost value of [refused permission to publish] million.

The costs do not include the financing cost which as has been shown here is much much greater for a PPP then if paid for directly all of a sudden the CBA is negative

Of course relying wholy on CBA as the answer is flawed since to do so encourages the design and contruction of the bare minimum system at minimal cost in a race to get brownie points.

End of the day what we all want is value for money while getting a decent public transport system. Luas an the ideal solution to link up the various transport modes in low density areas, secondary corridors etc you can get a lot of Luas for comparatively little cost plus its easy add to

murphaph

Is there any point in arguing about the proposed RPA metro -v- interconnector again? Really? We all know where we stand and it doesn't look like anyone's gonna move from their position. Perhaps we could return to the thread of Luas Development and avoid further metro/interconnector talk?

Thomond Pk

Metrobest wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, the financing of a particular project is essentially a seperate issue from the merits of that particular project. PPP should not be used as a convenient tool to argue against a particular project.

Interesting that you have changed your tune so much, one is inextricably linked to the other as you well know.

Metrobest wrote:

Platfrom for change is on the DTO's website, so I suggest you download that, or you can buy yourself a full copy in the Government publications office.

I suggest you read it then and look at the differences in cost between the DTO figures and the RPA figures they are substantial because the DTO planned their route to integrate with the IE network and therefore save a lot of capital cost by avoiding parrallel routings that are un-necessary

mollser

Theres a lot of engineers around sandyford at the moment spraying the roads and grass verges with Red and yellow paint - it looks like markings for the proposed luas tracks and road alignments.

Is this a very positive sign? Would this type of work normally be going ahead before the final decision is made and funding promised?

MarkoP11

If it is the RPA it could be a big waste of time since the route has yet to even reach the works order stage let alone a public inquiry

There is clearly a better route through Sandyford which requires less land take but the RPA are ignoring it

They already have there survey done so there is not need to waste money

robfitz

mollser wrote:

Theres a lot of engineers around sandyford at the moment spraying the roads and grass verges with Red and yellow paint - it looks like markings for the proposed luas tracks and road alignments.

It's just some traffic lane realignments and yellow boxes on roundabouts.

strassenwolf

And here's Olivia Mitchell's take on LUAS development (and other matters) from the Irish Times of August 26th

*********************************************************

Transport needs dose of joined-up thinking


Dublin's various transport plans desperately need a single co-ordinating body, writes Olivia Mitchell.

The Dublin Port Tunnel, the true cost and knock-on effects of which are only now coming to light, highlights the urgent need for a single body to oversee transport for the entire city. Such a body would ensure not only co-ordination in the planning of the various transport projects, but also co-ordination in their delivery.

The absence of such a body, which would operate to an agreed agenda and establish spending priorities, means the many agencies involved in Dublin transport continue to operate in isolation.

As far as the tunnel is concerned, it seems there has never really been any widely agreed and accepted consensus about its expected role and contribution, and about how it would mesh with traffic flows and other transport projects in the greater Dublin area. The result is that it now seems to be creating as many problems as it solves, and all these problems have costly solutions.

For example, the M1/M50 roundabout will have to be enlarged to cope with the traffic headed for and from the tunnel. Unfortunately, work on this project will get under way just as the tunnel is about to open, causing yet more congestion.

Meanwhile, down at the port end of the tunnel, the congestion caused by the opening of the tunnel itself, and from the port's growth, is giving rise to demands for an eastern bypass to turn the C-ring M50 motorway into a full circle.

Although debated and examined endlessly, the decision on an eastern bypass to complete the M50 circle has never really been made.

Similarly, from time to time, we have been tantalised with the suggestion of a second major port in north Dublin.

These decisions need to be made by a single transport body before any more costly and irreversible investments are made. Otherwise, transport planning in Dublin will remain in disarray with the many agencies involved promoting their pet projects.

Other questions remain unanswered. For instance, why does the tunnel have a capacity of 80,000 vehicles a day when only a potential maximum of 9,000 trucks will use it? If the toll for cars is aimed at dramatically reducing car usage, why then does the truck-only tunnel get two lanes each way while all the rest of the M1 traffic gets only one lane?

Why, if we are spending three quarters of a billion euro to get HGVs off our city streets, have we not banned from the streets the biggest and heaviest of those HGVs - those which won't fit into the tunnel?

Even more crucial, but still unanswered, is the question of whether all port-generated HGVs that fit will be obliged to use the tunnel.

Another project with all the potential for similar pitfalls to those now besetting the tunnel is the interconnector rail tunnel between Heuston and Connolly stations. This is a project for which Iarnród Éireann is lobbying extensively and comes with a price tag of several billion euro. In an ideal world where money is plentiful and no hard choices between projects need to be made, this would be a very worthy project. However, whether it should be our priority for Dublin is a question that needs to be assessed very carefully.

We have already, as taxpayers, paid for a Luas line between Heuston and Connolly. We have paid three quarters of a billion for the port tunnel to take all the heavy traffic off the quays between Heuston and Connolly. Do we really need to triplicate that investment or could a fleet of buses do the same job a lot more cheaply and release vital funds for more transport projects throughout the city?

I fully support Iarnród Éireann's plans to improve commuter and intercity services, and its plans for a Connolly Station bypass are crucial. However, building a new interconnector tunnel for several billion euro might be gilding the lily.

CIÉ would undoubtedly like to be the recipient of all the money being spent on public rail projects. But would a heavy rail tunnel really be the most appropriate transport solution in an entirely urban setting? Perhaps a citywide network of Luas lines might be more useful, and cheaper. And because a network of Luas lines would run largely overground, it would certainly be far more accessible and user-friendly.

Minister for Transport Martin Cullen has often spoken of the need for "connectivity"or "joined-up" public transport. This is necessary, but there is also a need for "joined-up"thinking at the planning stage. There are two dozen bodies currently competing for funds for their own priorities. Transport decisions need to be made and delivered with objectivity and not by a myriad of agencies operating to their own agendas.

Olivia Mitchell, Fine Gael TD for Dublin South, is the party's spokeswoman on transport
*********************************************************

strassenwolf

And the reply from Barry Kenny (of Iarnrod Eireann) in the Irish Times

**********************************************************
WHY RAIL TUNNEL IS NEEDED FROM DUBLIN DOCKLANDS TO HEUSTON
Back to Top

Madam, - It is ironic that Olivia Mitchell, Fine Gael transport spokesperson, in an article headlined "Transport needs dose of joined-up thinking", describes a project which delivers a joined-up integrated public transport network as "gilding the lily" (Opinion & Analysis, August 26th).

Iarnród Éireann's proposal to build a 5.2km interconnector tunnel from Docklands to Heuston Station - costed at €1.3 billion, not "several billion" as described - is at the heart of our Greater Dublin integrated rail plan, which would quadruple from 25 million to 100 million the number of passenger journeys on Dart and commuter services each year.

To suggest that the interconnector would "triplicate" the purpose of the Luas line between Heuston and Connolly and the Dublin Port Tunnel is to completely misread the purpose of the proposed link. The interconnector would deliver a second high-capacity rail link through the heart of the city centre, providing the crucial capacity to dramatically increase the number of services and consequently commuter capacity on the Northern commuter line, Maynooth and proposed Dunboyne/M3 commuter lines and Kildare commuter line.

These are the transport corridors with the highest projected population growths in the country - over 200,000 additional residents in a 15-year timespan.

It is not a question of the interconnector being a nice, optional extra inner-city link. It is a clearly essential piece of regional infrastructure if these expanding communities are not to be condemned to gridlock because of inadequate public transport capacity.

Furthermore, it would provide total integration between all rail-based modes of transport in the Greater Dublin and national context. It would allow for two high-capacity lines: Drogheda and Northside Dart to Kildare via the interconnector, and Maynooth and Dunboyne/M3 to Bray/Greystones, intersecting at Pearse. With inter-modal transfer points at Connolly, Docklands, Pearse, St Stephen's Green and Heuston, it would link all Dart, Commuter, Luas and Intercity lines into a cohesive integrated network. It also provides an opportunity to provide an Airport to Heuston Dart line, linking south of Portmarnock on the existing network.

To the suggestion that we would "like to be the recipient of all the money being spent on public rail projects", Iarnród Éireann and CIÉ do not propose the interconnector as the one and only plan. Dublin and the Leinster area is way past "either-or" transport solutions. We do, however, believe that to serve the commuter belts of Dublin, Louth, Meath, Kildare, Wicklow and beyond, the interconnector is an essential part of any transport plan, whatever Metro or Luas options are decided upon.

Regarding the "pitfalls" that Ms Mitchell warns of, no other major recipient of National Development Plan funding has as strong a record of on-time, on-budget project delivery as Iarnród Éireann, with many projects coming in better than budget. The interconnector would also be delivered without any adverse impact on transport in the city during the construction stage.

Ms Mitchell concludes by referring to the "agendas" of various transport bodies. The only agenda to which we are operating is our public service obligation to ensure we can meet the needs of the communities we serve. To achieve that, the interconnector is a must. - Yours, etc,

BARRY KENNY,
Manager, Media and Public Relations,
Iarnród Éireann,
Connolly Station,
Dublin 1.
**********************************************************

strassenwolf

Olivia uses the ropes... (also from the Irish Times)

**********************************************************
'INTERCONNECTOR' RAIL TUNNEL FROM DUBLIN DOCKLANDS TO HEUSTON

Madam, - I welcome the rapid response from Barry Kenny of Irish Rail (August 30th) to my questioning of the priority a Government should award the proposed CIE interconnector tunnel (Opinion & Analysis, August 26th). The debate will, I hope, force a rigorous assessment of the priorities for public transport investment rather than allow such decisions be made by the "loudest voice".

I do not question that the tunnel would provide a Rolls Royce service for commuters from the greater Dublin area, once they actually got to the city. The problem with the heavy-rail grand plan is that such a tunnel has the potential to absorb all available resources and leave the rest of Dublin - areas such as Swords, Lucan and Templeogue - bereft of any rail service. If it is judged that extra cross-city capacity is needed, over and above that provided by Luas and buses on the quays (shortly to be HGV-free), then why is the existing disused tunnel between Heuston and the Docklands area not being pressed into service? To give a clear view of where I stand on this issue, let me state what Fine Gael unequivocally supports as immediate priorities.

We support the immediate quadrupling of the Kildare line to allow for increased capacity and services as well as the electrification of the Drogheda line into Connolly or into a new Spencer Dock station. We see the construction of a new station in Spencer Dock, to ease the bottleneck at Connolly, as essential. We support the development of a new spur line from Dunboyne to the city centre, which the Connolly bypass will facilitate. We support the construction of the Luas network as promised by the Government, including the Metro/Luas to Dublin Airport and to Swords.

There are even aspects of the interconnector itself that we do support. For instance, the extension of the Maynooth line to Spencer Dock and on to Pearse could make sense, as would the suggested link from Heuston to Glasnevin junction.

If all of these investments were made, we would then have both the extra capacity and the integration between DART, Luas, commuter and intercity rail that we all want to see. after that, perhaps the taxpayer might consider coughing up for CIÉ's proposed underground city-centre circular tunnel.

I do appreciate the engineering appeal of the apparent simplicity of a tunnel from Connolly to Heuston. However, a tunnel with underground stations at Pearse Street, Stephen's Green, High Street (the centre of Viking Dublin) and Heuston is fraught with construction, planning and traffic disruption difficulties. Such difficulties are not the reason for my reservations, but I mention them because they make the normally reasonable Mr Kenny's assertion of a €1.3 billion price tag impossible to credit. Equally lacking in credibility to anyone who has ever witnessed the on-street construction environment of an underground station in a populated area is the assertion that because the tunnel is underground there would be no traffic disruption.

Commuters from the ever-expanding towns of the greater Dublin area as well as those living within the metropolitan area need urgent access to rail services. The job of Government is to identify and prioritise those projects which can give maximum early benefit to consumers and the best value to the taxpayer.

My contention is simply that the interconnector is not first on the critical path of meeting those objectives. Consequently I believe it is not the first hole we should dig. - Yours, etc,

OLIVIA MITCHELL TD, Fine Gael Spokesperson for Transport, Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.
**********************************************************

luckat

By the way, the sensible way to bring a Luas from Ranelagh and through Rathmines would be to turn it up Leinster Road (a big wide road) and run it up to Harold's Cross, then down along Harold's Cross Road and Clanbrassil Street, over Christ Church and down Dame Street.

Apart from Emmet Bridge, every road involved is wide and spacious; Emmet Bridge would have to be widened, but that would be no harm at all.

Bringing the Luas through the two catchment areas of Rathmines and Harold's Cross/Clanbrassil Street would make it available to immense numbers of people.

Zaph0d

luckat wrote:

By the way, the sensible way to bring a Luas from Ranelagh and through Rathmines would be to turn it up Leinster Road (a big wide road) and run it up to Harold's Cross, then down along Harold's Cross Road and Clanbrassil Street, over Christ Church and down Dame Street.

Apart from Emmet Bridge, every road involved is wide and spacious; Emmet Bridge would have to be widened, but that would be no harm at all.

Bringing the Luas through the two catchment areas of Rathmines and Harold's Cross/Clanbrassil Street would make it available to immense numbers of people.

I think this is a terrible idea. (no offence meant to luckat). In general rerouting public transport along meandering routes to hit as many catchment areas as possible just doesn't work. The longer the start-end route becomes compared to the direct route, the less competitve the service becomes with other forms of transport.

Just think about this case. Say you are starting from the junction of Leinster Road and Rathmines Road. Now you can get into town by heading north up to the bridge, into camden street, Aungier st, south Great Georges street and there you are at the central bank, a 2.5km journey.

Or else you can head south west along Leinster road which itself is a km long. then you can head north up Clanbrassil street to Christchurch. Journey length: 4.5km. That's 80% more than the direct route.

A healthy person could walk 2.5Km in about half an hour. I imagine the tram could manage a 4.5km journey in city centre traffic in about the same time.

luckat

Good point, zaphod - but the Grove Street alternative is kind of curly and kludgy too.

The Leinster Road option seems unlikely, looked at on a map - but when you realise that many cyclists use Leinster Road to cut across between these two routes into the city, it's not that unlikely.

And the roads involved are *broad* - important in laying tramlines.

BrianD

It is clear that the representative from FG knows as much about public transport as her peers in FF. I heard her on the radio the other day quoting some simplistic and ridiculous survey. Has not got a clue.

Since when does templeogue need a rail line? She keeps on going about rail based transport as if its feasible to run a line into every suburb! Lucan is on a rail line and had a station (now a private residence). Why have FG not being pushing for the State to buy the house and reopen the station? Why no FG push to electrify the Maynooth line (I presume there is a typo in the above article where she refers to electrifying the Drogheda line). They were right behind the less than wise extension of the DART to Greystones.

Furthermore, she fails to understand the radical changes that the interconnector can bring. The existing DART line may be erased in favour of, say, a Howth-Kildare line and a Greystones -Maynooth etc. These just being examples. The interconnector is not just an inner city metro.

strassenwolf

I thought OM made a few good points in her article and her letter, as did BK in his letter. I think it is important that the interconnector should be built, but I agree with her that it is a bit fanciful of BK to suggest that

Barry Kenny wrote:

The interconnector would also be delivered without any adverse impact on transport in the city during the construction stage.

Perhaps this could be put down to inexperience on the part of Iarnrod Eireann about just what is involved in building a project of the magnitude of the interconnector.
The port tunnel is one thing - It goes under the suburbs and there is no need to build stations along the way. The interconnector would be an entirely different matter and I don't think a bookie would given me any odds on the project "not having any adverse impact on transport in the city".