Luas Development

Sarsfield

Could a tram climb Bridge St? I find it a challenge to walk up it!

Maskhadov

not a bit out of the way ?

Winters

Sarsfield wrote:

Could a tram climb Bridge St? I find it a challenge to walk up it!

Its much steeper than Steevens Lane I think. The downside is that the area around Christchurch is one of the highest points in the city centre.

Alternatively by putting the tram station under the roadway and atop of the Christchurch Interconnector Station located under High Street the tram could avoid the climb and traffic. All depends on joined up thinking but we all know our government and civil servants dont understand that phrase.

strassenwolf

At last...

today's Indo wrote:

On track: : Missing link will cost €100m

THE PLAN to join up the unconnected Luas lines in Dublin will finally being unveiled tomorrow. The link from St Stephen's Green to O'Connell Street is expected to cost up to €100m.

The route expected to be favoured will run from the Green down Dawson Street, left into Nassau Street and right down the front of Trinity Collge, before crossing O'Connell Bridge.

A public inquiry will first have to be held before the project gets underway.

Meanwhile, Andrea Roche and Junior Minister for Transport Ivor Callely, right, yesterday posed with a tram at the Red Cow Luas Park-and-Ride site to promote the use of public transport over Christmas.

strassenwolf

Irish Independent Breaking News wrote:

Cullen unveils five possible LUAS link-up routes

12:49 Thursday November 24th 2005

The Department of Transport has unveiled five possible routes to link the two LUAS tram lines in Dublin.
Three of the proposed routes cross the Liffey at O'Connell Bridge and continue down Westmoreland Street and College Green, while the others would require the construction of a new bridge.

The Government is now inviting views from the public before deciding on which option to choose.

Transport Minister Martin Cullen has said he expects construction on the line to begin at the end of next year and be completed by 2009.

The Government had been widely criticised for constructing two unconnected LUAS lines in the first place.

I've had a look at the RPA website but there's no sign of the routes. I hope they put them up.

strassenwolf

Well, the options for the link-up are now on view at:

http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=79

Bluetonic

Option B for me.

Maskhadov

Option B looks the option with least hassle. Probably the most expensive as well .

B i suppose

gjim

I'm for option A. Option b is almost a km longer which will add nearly ten minutes to the trip between Stephen's Green and O'Connell St.. If that's your thing then why not have the line twist and turn and loop all over the city - every area will have "coverage" but no one will want to use it as it will take an inordinate amount of time to get to where you want to go. What's wrong with just bringing people to where they want to go in a straight, cheap to build, fast route?

morlan

Option A is the quickest and cheapest. Option C looks interesting as well, linking the lively George's St area into the network.

The problem with option B is that it’d probably be quicker to get off at Stephen's Green and then walk down to Abbey St. It does have the advantage of linking with Pearse Station but the interconnector will link Pearse to Stephen’s Green in the future. No need for duplication.

I really don’t like the idea of having a bridge between O'Connell bridge and the loop line. I think it would spoil this stretch of river. It’s likely that the new bridge would be fairly cheap and nasty too.

My money is on Option A.

dowlingm

morlan

indeed - the last thing we need is Olivia Mitchell screeching that we don't need the interconnector when we have LUAS Pearse-SSG.

The Dame St route is there for the Lucan LUAS by the looks but that still seems a bit crap.

E just means digging up more streets. That leaves A or D, but presumably D means going up Marlborough St - can't recall how wide it is, doesn't look very in Google Earth, especially with a view to triangular junction at Middle Abbey St. - also, would it end up carrying the line north to the Maynooth line and west to Lucan from a College Green junction, the northbound bit looks like a very tricky proposition without some demolition and the line between Middle Abbey St and College Green would need short headways to accommodate the traffic, probably involving making Marlborough St luas only?

bk

What I can't understand is why don't they extend the line as far as Henry Street. You would then be connecting the two main shopping streets, it would be very convenient for shoppers and probably boost the attractiveness of the city centre for shopping over Blanchardstown, etc.

Even better extend it up the length of O'Connel St., that way it could help with the revitilisation of O'Connel St and Parnell St.

I agree A looks like the most attractive option.

Bluetonic

bk wrote:

What I can't understand is why don't they extend the line as far as Henry Street.

The Red Line already serves Henry Street from the Jervis stop.

BrianD

Why not loop it around Parnell Sq?

However, this whole project is typical of political ineptidude and not seeing the big picture. The correct approach would be to extend the green line to a destination on the northside and intersect the red line in the process. Not some misguided notion that the two lines should be connected.

In fact, I only see one reason to link the two lines - engineering and maintinance. At the moment all the maintinance facilities are duplicated. Sure it would be benificial for green line users to be able to get 'deeper' into the CBD. There seems to be some strange logic suggesting that tram users of either line will want to switch to another tram and not another mode of transport.

Cullen suggests that there would be another 5 million passenger journeys accomodated by the extension - I presume he means that the new section of the Green Line would accomodate an average 5 million journeys?

The indirect routes would serve more parts of the city but will the average green line enjoy a scenic route?

Iób

Shortest distance between two points and all that. There used to be cars on it after all. Trams go down much narrower streets in other countries. And then pedestrianise more streets in the area, College Green etc. No imagination as usual

Maskhadov

Actually A might be more logical

SeanW

A would be the most logical were it not for the Metro. That raises the spectre of duplicate tramway. which could end up being abandoned. At least thats what happens in other cities (such as Munich and Berlin) when Metros are built where there was tramway.

Of course they already had extensive tram networks and add to their U-Bahn systems piece-by-piece.

Dublin is nearly virgin territory, so there's no reason to be duplicating new projects.

C gets my vote, I like the idea of the Georges St.-O'Connell bridge route.

loyatemu

why aren't they combining this with the rest of the line to glasnevin junction?
so they're gonna come back in a couple of years and do the other little bit (no more than a couple of kilometres)

or will they get the route approvals seperately and then build them together?

MicraBoy

loyatemu wrote:

why aren't they combining this with the rest of the line to glasnevin junction?
so they're gonna come back in a couple of years and do the other little bit (no more than a couple of kilometres)

or will they get the route approvals seperately and then build them together?

The Transport 21 plan set the timetable for completion of this part at 2008. The extension to Glasnevin is due in 2012.

BrianD wrote:

The correct approach would be to extend the green line to a destination on the northside and intersect the red line in the process. Not some misguided notion that the two lines should be connected.

Isn't this what they are doing?

strassenwolf

SeanW wrote:

A would be the most logical were it not for the Metro. That raises the spectre of duplicate tramway. which could end up being abandoned. At least thats what happens in other cities (such as Munich and Berlin) when Metros are built where there was tramway.

Of course they already had extensive tram networks and add to their U-Bahn systems piece-by-piece.

Dublin is nearly virgin territory, so there's no reason to be duplicating new projects.

C gets my vote, I like the idea of the Georges St.-O'Connell bridge route.

A lot of good points there. A and B both involve duplication of underground routes which have yet to be built but which would render either choice of tram link fairly redundant. There had also been some mention on this board that the bridge at Westland Row would be a problem as it's too low. They must have figured out how to deal with that obstacle.

C is good as it won't be duplicated by our underground plans. Though I'd prefer if it went along York Street instead of South King Street. SKS is a nice pedestrianised street which would be largely lost if there was a tram running along it. There's not much happening on York Street, especially now that it's much more difficult to get to than it used to be.

I suppose the reason they put C and D together is that the option of going over a new bridge between Burgh Quay and Eden Quay is still possible for route C, even though it's not shown that way.

MicraBoy

I'm not sure I buy into this "duplication is a bad thing" argument when it comes to choosing a route. If you take the Green Luas line as running from Bray to Glasnevin and the Metro being from St. Stephens Green to Swords, the amount of duplication is a very small.

The only users who will have duplicated services will be people making the short hop from St. Stephens Green to O'Connell St (lazy fecks ) And I would describe this has having choice not duplication.

I just don't see it as strong argument against a particular route. I would have thought it was more important to have the Green Line connect with Pearse St. station and obviously the Red Line.

dRNk SAnTA

MicraBoy wrote:

The only users who will have duplicated services will be people making the short hop from St. Stephens Green to O'Connell St (lazy fecks ) And I would describe this has having choice not duplication.

Spot on. The reasons for joining the lines are blindingly obvious. It's not being built simply so that people in stephens green can get to o'connell street. It's so that people anywhere along the line can get to o'connell street (and hopefully in the future the broadstone line).

Therefore because it shouldn't simply be a convenient link between two city centre streets, I don't think it should have to take the shortest route. Theres an opportuniy to try to liven up a pretty dull part of the city around pearse street with route B.

By the way, whichever route is chosen, I hope 'disruption to traffic' is not a major consideration in it. Its a short sighted view. Proper public transport should always take the priority. (just tired of hearing people moaning on the radio about disruption to their city centre car journeys.)

mackerski

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

By the way, whichever route is chosen, I hope 'disruption to traffic' is not a major consideration in it. Its a short sighted view. Proper public transport should always take the priority. (just tired of hearing people moaning on the radio about disruption to their city centre car journeys.)

Joining the two existing lines doesn't provide "Proper public transport", except to two very specific corridors. This lessens the legitimacy of slashing the car carrying capacity of, say, Pearse Street for this scheme. It's easy to claim that reduced capacity will encourage people onto the public transport. It's a lot harder to demonstrate what public transport they should be taking. Given that "disrupted traffic" is the very evil that our public transport improvements are trying to tackle, you'd be very foolish not to consider carefully any plan that will lead to more of it.

Dermot

Victor

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=7125&lang=ENG&loc=1852

Cullen Launches Consultation On Luas Link Route
25 November 2005

Transport Minister, Martin Cullen T.D., today (Thursday, 24th November 2005) launched a public consultation process on five potential routes for a new Luas line connecting the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas Lines. This is one of the first steps in the implementation of the project for which funding is being provided under Transport 21. The new connecting line is expected to attract an additional 5.5 million new Luas passengers a year.

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) has carried out a significant amount of technical work looking in particular at various route options. The All five routes run from St. Stephen's Green to O'Connell St. The routes are outlined in a newsletter that the RPA will be distributing widely.

Luas passengers and businesses and homes along the five routes will receive the newsletter informing them about the project. They will be invited to provide their comments to the RPA as part of the selection of a preferred route.

Dublin City Council, together with the Dublin City Centre Business Association, has indicated strong support for such a link.

Minister Cullen said: "I welcome this public consultation process as further evidence of the rapid implementation of "Transport 21". This is the third Luas project on which significant progress has been made since the launch of Transport 21 only three weeks ago. The linking of the two Luas lines will increase the number of passengers using the Luas by 25% and will be an important segment in the overall public integrated transport system announced in Transport 21."

ENDS

Zaph0d

mackerski wrote:

Given that "disrupted traffic" is the very evil that our public transport improvements are trying to tackle, you'd be very foolish not to consider carefully any plan that will lead to more of it.

Do you think that public transport improvements are being carried out with the aim of reducing car congestion?

Victor

http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=161774958&p=y6y775664&n=161775718&x=

Luas extension application marks start of transport overhaul
07/11/2005 - 18:10:17

Ireland’s new €34.4bn transport plan got underway tonight, with an application for the first Luas extension submitted to the Government.

Transport Minister Martin Cullen said he had received a Railway Order application from Padraic White, chairman of the Rail Procurement Agency, for an extension of the Luas network from Sandyford to Cherrywood.

Mr Cullen said it meant the first of seven new Luas projects had started the necessary statutory process required, which will include a public consultation and inquiry before a decision is reached by the Transport Minister.

“Without in any way prejudging the outcome, I very much welcome the fact that the RPA has been so pro-active in advancing the Luas extension to Cherrywood.

“It augurs well for the speedy and effective implementation of Transport 21,” Mr Cullen said.

But there is still controversy over the plan, with the Green Party calling for the Cherrywood line to be built to a Metro standard.

Green Party Transport spokesperson Eamon Ryan TD said: “I welcome the application for a railway order for the Luas line extension from Sandyford to Cherrywood, which will provide a much needed and long delayed service for the people of Ballyogan, Stepaside and Carrickmines.



“However the Green Party wants this railway order process to consider the extension of the proposed Metro from Swords to link to the south side of the city.”

Mr Ryan said it made no sense to stop the Metro at St Stephen’s Green, where a terminal would require four platforms, instead of the two needed for a through station.

He also said connecting the Metro to the southside would provide much-needed increased capacity and the costs of upgrading the existing line would be minimal compared to the benefits of a north-south link.

Under the Green Party plan the Metro would share the Luas track from Cherrywood to the city centre, but would head down on an underground spar shortly before Ranelagh, while trams would travel on to St Stephen’s Green and then north on the planned extension.

jd

Victor wrote:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=161774958&p=y6y775664&n=161775718&x=

Under the Green Party plan the Metro would share the Luas track from Cherrywood to the city centre, but would head down on an underground spar shortly before Ranelagh, while trams would travel on to St Stephen’s Green and then north on the planned extension.

Now that is nuts. Unless they mean an underground tram

mackerski

Zaph0d wrote:

Do you think that public transport improvements are being carried out with the aim of reducing car congestion?

I'm saying that the correct goal is a reduction of road congestion. Cars are a large part of road congestion.

Dermot

spacetweek

Victor wrote:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=161774958&p=y6y775664&n=161775718&x=
Luas extension application marks start of transport overhaul
07/11/2005 - 18:10:17
<snip>
Under the Green Party plan the Metro would share the Luas track from Cherrywood to the city centre, but would head down on an underground spar shortly before Ranelagh, while trams would travel on to St Stephen’s Green and then north on the planned extension.

In relation to the bold section, they obviously just looked at a map and came up with a few nice ideas without looking into it more deeply. To list just a few problems with this idea: platform height, track gauge, extra tracks.

I always thought the idea of upgrading the Green line to Metro would mean the elimination of Luas services on it. The Luas would run from Ranelagh to Stephen's Green (to O'Connell St to Liffey Junction). People heading south on the luas would need to change either at Ranelagh or at Stephen's Green to Metro to continue their journey.

A shared Luas/Metro line is a non-runner.

Victor

spacetweek wrote:

A shared Luas/Metro line is a non-runner.

Depends on what is used. If gauges, voltage and boarding height are the same, it doesn't make much difference.

jd wrote:

Now that is nuts. Unless they mean an underground tram

And what wrong with underground trams?