Agreed that the if the Luas link discussion should be moved eleswhere - perhaps here is more suited.
And just as this is a public transport thread, perhaps it is appropriate to acknowledge the day's shocking events in London - our thoughts are with the people of our neighbouring capital.
jimg wrote:it is nonsense to suggest that I am being "incredibly disengenious" to include short journeys in my calculation. I did it for simplicity and in actual fact it understates the advantages of having a linked up system. If you restrict the analysis to longer journeys, the relative advantages of integrating the system actually increases. For example, if you only consider journeys of five stops or greater in length, then there are almost THREE TIMES as many journeys possible on the linked up system.
I can't believe that people are refusing to accept this? It's almost an axiom of transport systems that when you increase integration, the utility of the entire system increases. Imagine what trains/the DART would be like in Dublin without the loop-line bridge (ah sure, it's only a twenty minute walk from Connolly to Pearse!). Imagine the London Underground if they hadn't developed every opportunity to provide interchanges between lines where they come close to each other.
jimg wrote:There are a number of active "fronts" in the discussion...the one I see to be most active in is the question of the utility of integrating the system. Whether the green line is extended via O'Connell St or any other route does not have a huge bearing on my argument in that regard. Obviously if you don't see any value in joining the two lines, the question of route is almost moot. Also if you see no utility in joining the lines, then any aesthetic cost (or financial cost for that matter) associated with doing so will seem excessive.
Agreed jimg with much that you say - a point well made about the Loop Line. Saying that, I do point out that my objection to the cost and potential aesthetic damage of this link is that there doesn't seem to be sufficient utility derived if it goes solely
to O'Connell Street.
I appreciate that it brings you right up to the Red Line and so in that way offers greater integration, but unlike the Loop Line, it does not offer full integration allowing you to travel continuously, nor does it allow the efficient moving of rolling stock from one line to another. Having to get off in O'Connell Street and walk over to the Abbey Street stop and wait for another tram for a potentially very limited amount of people in itself generates inconvenience.
I'm not sure how you can rate these various elements and come up with a winner, and I do not deny that this link would indeed be hugely convenient for people as a handy way of getting to the northside and back - but not much faster.
I know this is really going around in a circle because the central issue as you say Jim is the utility derived - and of course we don't even know if the terminating-at-O'Cll St concept is even a runner on the part of the relevant authorities.
Just the aesthetic issue I feel consitutes a substantial element in this proposal, and along with the vast financial factor, and the greater transport needs of the capital at a time of great pressure on public funds for competing infrastructural projects, that this link is not a priority and the Luas could be better integrated and the public better served with an alternative cross-Liffey route.