Luas BXD

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue May 11, 2010 9:56 pm

I respect your position; If I lived beside the route I probably would want it as well even if it did inflate my tax bill; according to the EIB website both the Tuam Motorway and Metro North project are two of three Irish transport projects under assessment. The third is listed below

The PPP contract comprises the design, construction, operation and maintenance of 16.5km of dual carriageway on the Arklow to Rathnew section of the N11 and of the N7 Newlands Cross Junction


There is no mention of the interconnector or any other rail project.

I too pay tax on bad banks and have paid taxes for a war that I didn't agree with but the economic climate has changed; public expenditure needs to be cut dramatically and I would prefer to think that the focus would be on the projects that are most viable rather than a project that puts an underground through areas with such low population densities.

I have no back up to sugguest this but I would suspect that the Anglo Irish bank situation may change to one where upon expiration of the deposit guarantee scheme that it may be split into a new good bank where performing loans will be transfered and a lot of the existing debt owed by Anglo Irish bank which trades at a significant discount will not move to it but stay in the bad bank which will be declared insolvent; giving the opportunity to walk away from a lot of the junior debt which stretches to billions. At least AIB and BoI are now able to stand on their own 2 feet without further help and should from 2011 by paying corporation tax start to repay the assistance that they have received.

Things are not going to be pretty for the next few years and I do not believe that Metro North is the answer to Dublin's transport problems on a sufficient scale to warrant the cost. The hope is that like the 1990's that the payback of low taxes and low inflation and better public services will come for the difficult 1980's and that this time the lesson will be learnt to cut expenditure early and in sufficient quantity.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Tue May 11, 2010 11:08 pm

cgcsb wrote:how about instead of that, we can four track the northern line to Drogheda, but instead of putting the new tracks next to the current ones(probably not possible), move them a few KM west and provide a station at the airport, the new tracks should continue towards heuston instead of Connolly, have a small underground section under Finglas, connect to the currently dissused liffey junction and on to Heuston via the Pheonix park tunnell. The new tracks could be very high spec, almost entirely overground through open country, and trains could hit their max speed (200km/h) for most of their journey. This would give us a main line rail connection to the countries main airport and would allow for a new direct service: Cork-Limerick Junction-Portarlington-Dublin Heuston-Dublin Airport-Dundalk-Belfast. This would free up the current Northern line from Drogheda to the city centre for as many DARTs as ya like. Also it would mean that around 4million people would be within 10km to a train station that could take them to either the countries largest airport or the city centre of either of Ireland's 3 metropolitain areas. journey times between Airport and Heuston could be around 10 minutes, and around 18 mins to Drogheda, also about 15 mins would be cut off the Belfast-Dublin journey. Heuston would have more capacity because Cork trains would terminate in Belfast instead of Heuston and Belfast trains would terminate in Cork instead of Heuston. A new depot could be constructed near the airport to allow Galway and Limerick trains to terminate at the airport instead of the city centre, this frees up more terminal capacity in the city centre, and allows most people in Ireland to access the airport without changing in the city centre. The extra capacity on the Northern line might make the interconnector unecissary because the lack of Belfast trains terminating in Connolly would reduce the bottle neck. Metro would no longer be required, Swords could be served by express feeder busses to the airport, or Malahide, Drumcondra already has a station, Ballymun and DCU should have the QBC improved to actual QBC standard, not a glorified bus lane.


Actually, I have to say in terms of the island's future infrastructure requirements say for 2030, I've always thought it would make sense for a new/re-newed hi(gher!) - speed line to be built from Belfast to Cork, via Dublin Airport and heuston, instead of trundling into Connolly. That is a piece of national infrastructure and not really part of Dublin's metropolitan transit system.
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Wed May 12, 2010 7:14 am

With the Phoenix Park Tunnel you could theoretically get a line to Blanchardstown without building any new lines; albeit that you would need to refit the tunnel itself and probably need to reconfigure track where the tunnel link joins the Maynooth line to or including a route facing West vs the eastern path that heads towards Liffey Junction and Spencer Dock that the (freight only line) currently takes. It could reach the airport on the routing envisaged for the now abandoned Metro West scoping exercise and reach the Northern line via the routing envisaged by the IE Dublin Rail plan. It would be a great idea long term as it would make say a Belfast to Cork journey much easier but would be very expensive which would be difficult for the current fiscal set up. Great idea to park up and re-examine when finances improve.

The absence of an EIB application for the Interconnector is very worrying.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Wed May 12, 2010 12:57 pm

PVC King wrote:That graph you posted above is lazy in the extreme and about as relevant as the vast majority of the figures which underpin the Metro; see the true picture above. In any event even when the market was out of control the maximum completion rate across the County of Fingal was about 9,000 units and that included the much larger development area such of Blanchardstown which now stretches from Castleknock to the South Meath Fringe. In addition there was significant development at Malahide, Donabate/Portrane, Rush/Lusk, Skerries and Balbriggan not to mention the estates in Fingal that feed off Leixlip and Ashtown. In the basis that 90,000 houses were built in Ireland in 2006 and of these 6,000 were built in Fingal it is likely that 1,100 houses will be built across the entire county; except that one off houses now make up 25% of completions and you don't build those in Swords. Taking that on todays figures and you are talking about 733 houses across the entire borough; Swords may get 200 houses a year.


hmmm - I'm not quite sure how to take that. Lazy, it certainly isn't. The point I made was twofold:

* growth in population WILL occur (the para on pop forecasts - to help you I even subtracted the component of pop growth which is connected to the economy (migration). I even tried indicate where the growth will come from (aging population, people deferring having children, more single person households - all of these mean more households and are independent of the economy - as a by-the-by there is by all accounts another baby boom underway ...

* the additional households will need to be housed unless prices are to rise unsustainably and to create another property crash in 30 yrs time! The purpose of the graph was to demonstrate that the likely levels are nothing like those of the boom years, but that there would be additional housing, but more likely at a level seen at the start of the boom before housing went crazy. You do have a habit of reacting quite hysterically when the point being made is actually far closer to the one you were making than you realise.

I then made the point that I thought that planning policy should seek to concentrate future growth along a small number of corridors where infrastructure (not just transport) is being provided. MN corridor has more capacity than most and that is a positive - notwithstanding the financial case for the project - and I have to say the difficulty about someone such as yourself making such specific arguments about the viability of the MN scheme is that none of us have seen the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and therefore none of us can say for sure - that suggests a slightly more conciliatory tone to any debate rather than an absolutist one.

I live 200m from Paddington where the Heathrow Express terminates; it is my local shop; you see very few people descending the stairs and escalators with cases; the vast bulk of them take the Express into Paddington and then for a modest fare take a taxi to Mayfair or the City or wherever their destination is. Of course you see people who take the Piccadilly line into London and change but few of them have cases and few of them would complain if they had to take a bus for 30 mins into Dublin CC versus the 1 hour and 3 minutes the tube takes to Oxford Circus (considered to be the most central point). If a Dart extension were built that would be real progress as it would hit Connolly 18 mins Spencer Dock for Connolly and the additional 2 stops to Stephens Green would take max 25 mins.


I envy your salary - a taxi from Paddington to the City would set you back about £20. Also, I've been on the Piccadilly line myself many times in general and specifically to the airport. There are a very significant number of passengers using the Underground, with the heathrow express/taxi combo most used by business travellers on expenses. Buses in the transport world are always considered less likely to achieve modal change (from private to public) that fixed rail connections. Dublin CC could be 15 mins from the airport - think what a competitive advantage that would be for Dublin CC as a city to do business and visit. The bus is entirely reliant on traffic, albeit that the Dublin Port tunnel has improved consistency.

It does and the real worry is that when the either or decision gets made and it is either or because the combined inpact on borrowing would add roughly a billion to the EBR for about 5 years; that they approve MN and do not approve the interconnector on the basis of their complete loathing of SIPTU/NBRU and addiction to PPPs.


Well, hopefully at least one of the projects will get the go ahead! Failing that you could fall back on the other comment above which correctly stressed that there is no need for this to be paid from current spending, but rather the cost could be deferred over a longer period of time - we don't need to repeat the interest on interest argument - I accept it's a more expensive way of doing it in the long run, it is however less outlay on a year-by-year basis.

First Group run the aircoach service in Dublin and do a great job; rail is different as the road space is government controlled; allthey need to do are paint bus lanes and it is regulated; other than the UK I have not visited any European country which privatised rail; SNCF provide a great service when they are not on strike and D-Bahn would wipe the floor with Veolia.


There are private operators in Sweden and Germany to name but two. I have no ideological beef with IE - they're just rubbish at running a train system. I'm not saying you could ever directly privatise them - I was reacting to your arguments against PPP/Private Operators.

Ennis has a number of services that take about 3 hours mush of it down to the indirect Limerick Junction Route being longer; not ideal but driving the 145 mile journey wouldn't take much less once you factor in Dublin City traffic. There is room for improvement over time.


This was my point. There's no reason for the service not to continue onto Limerick Junction and make the connection. They've just not thought about it as a system - room for improvement over time isn't the issue - they've designed it to be useless to the consumer - either to prove their point that they don't believe in regional services, or because they couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, let alone a well connected, integrated public transport offering.

I'll take it that the demographic forecasts date from the 2006 Census; the same year Anglo Irish Bank's profits peaked. Population growth will be very modest for the next 10-15 years as the accession state population goes elsewhere with their families. Wild forecasts based on demographics that weren't sustainable led to a banking bust that will slow the economy down for years. With the IDA's help growth of 3% will be just about acheivable.

The logical place to develop is along the four interconnector corridors and the Luas extensions. It is a long way to the twelve pins mountains if you go west.


Like I said the 500k figure excludes all migration (a very negative assumption over a 20yr period) and is based purely on demographic trends as explained above. We'll just have to disagree on the relative merits of western sprawl versus intensification and some greenfield to the North - my central point is that whichever new housing is provided in the future, it should be far more concentrated and much more closely tied into existing and/or planned infrastructure, which improves the sustainability of the communities and also the viability of the schemes, although you'll always have the chicken and the egg issue.

I find the €1bn Tuam Motorway just as offensive as Metro North; pouring concrete for the sake of it in both cases.

I am in 100% agreement.
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Wed May 12, 2010 1:05 pm

PVC King wrote:With the Phoenix Park Tunnel you could theoretically get a line to Blanchardstown without building any new lines; albeit that you would need to refit the tunnel itself and probably need to reconfigure track where the tunnel link joins the Maynooth line to or including a route facing West vs the eastern path that heads towards Liffey Junction and Spencer Dock that the (freight only line) currently takes. It could reach the airport on the routing envisaged for the now abandoned Metro West scoping exercise and reach the Northern line via the routing envisaged by the IE Dublin Rail plan. It would be a great idea long term as it would make say a Belfast to Cork journey much easier but would be very expensive which would be difficult for the current fiscal set up. Great idea to park up and re-examine when finances improve.

The absence of an EIB application for the Interconnector is very worrying.


Absolutely. I think in (say) 10 yrs time when the Enterprise service is acknowledged to be worse than useless and we're on a more favourable part of the economic cycle, there could be a very strong case for linking all the major economic drivers on the island together (Belfast-Dublin Airport-Dublin Heuston-Cork) - journey time 3.5hrs??? (just a thought). This would be very much a national project as it would radically enhance connectivity to and from the airport for the whole island, with resulting tourism and economic benefits - as you rightly say - one to park for now, but perhaps worth getting into the Regional Planning Guidelines and Development Plans to protect alignments etc.
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Wed May 12, 2010 1:33 pm

ppjjobrien wrote:* growth in population WILL occur (the para on pop forecasts - to help you I even subtracted the component of pop growth which is connected to the economy (migration). I even tried indicate where the growth will come from (aging population, people deferring having children, more single person households - all of these mean more households and are independent of the economy - as a by-the-by there is by all accounts another baby boom underway .


Any such baby boom will not have transport requirements for 20 plus years; the net in migration has turned to net out migration and with the IDA creating only 20,000 jobs per annum it would take 40 years for unemployment to disappear; net out migration is far more likely.


ppjjobrien wrote:* the additional households will need to be housed unless prices are to rise unsustainably and to create another property crash in 30 yrs time! The purpose of the graph was to demonstrate that the likely levels are nothing like those of the boom years, but that there would be additional housing, but more likely at a level seen at the start of the boom before housing went crazy. You do have a habit of reacting quite hysterically when the point being made is actually far closer to the one you were making than you realise..


I just see red when anyone talks about Swords having a population of 100,000; if Burke and his cronies hadn't filled the first mile surrounding the town centre with Urban Sprawl and then maybe if development was made very difficult in the rest of the borough then a significant uplift would be possible. Sadly the sprawl exists and development patterns will be far more dispersed firstly in National terms and secondly within the greater Dublin region. Why interconnector is so superior is that it allows for development to be spread accross four existing rail corridors and the two Luas extensions which both contain a lot of zoned and serviced development land; Developing those areas first will cut the likely Luas operational losses on these two extensions; extensions which were clearly built prematurely in the cases of City West and Cherrywood.

ppjjobrien wrote:I then made the point that I thought that planning policy should seek to concentrate future growth along a small number of corridors where infrastructure (not just transport) is being provided. MN corridor has more capacity than most and that is a positive - notwithstanding the financial case for the project - and I have to say the difficulty about someone such as yourself making such specific arguments about the viability of the MN scheme is that none of us have seen the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and therefore none of us can say for sure - that suggests a slightly more conciliatory tone to any debate rather than an absolutist one. .


I have no desire to be absolutest but I am always concerned when CBA's are withheld and when a scenario is run that is entirely dependent on very ambitous development targets; when GDP was growing at 6-10% a year and when housing completions were header ever higher I had was not talking about Metro. But the economic picture has utterly changed: look at the three articles below.

LONDON (Dow Jones)--Bank of England Governor Mervyn King warned Wednesday that the banking crisis has turned into a potential sovereign debt crisis and governments must tackle excessive fiscal deficits without delay.

In a press conference, King said he had seen the details of fiscal plans by the new U.K. Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and that they provided a "very strong and powerful agreement to reduce [the U.K.] deficit."

They include "a very clear and binding commitment to accelerate the reduction of the deficit in the lifetime of the parliament," King said, adding: "I think it will diminish some of the downside risks because of the action that will be taken to deal with the deficit."

Commenting on the lessons of the Greek debt crisis, King said it didn't make sense to run the risk of an adverse market reaction, and lawmakers need to "get ahead of that."


Spain to slash wages to cut deficit
Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:29
Spain has said it will cut state employees' wages and slash investment spending in a bid to reassure markets that it can get its budget deficit under control and halt the spread of the European debt crisis.

'We need to make a singular, exceptional and extraordinary effort to cut our public deficit and we must do so now that the economy is beginning to recover,' Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said.

Meanwhile, new figures show that the Spanish economy eased out of recession in the first quarter of 2010 as it recorded growth of just 0.1%.

In the toughest deficit cutting moves by far by the Socialist government, Zapatero said the government planned to save €15 billion in 2010 and 2011 with a series of cuts including a reduction of more than €6 billion in public investment.

Civil service salaries will be cut by 5% in 2010 and frozen in 2011, sparking immediate anger from unions, who have already put the brakes on a government move to raise the retirement age to 67 from 65.

The measures were announced after European Union and International Monetary Fund officials agreed at the weekend on a €750 billion emergency fund for weak euro zone countries that have been hit by a debt crisis.

Economists said that after the weekend EU meeting it became very clear Spain and Portugal, and particularly Spain, would have to go the extra mile in cutting the deficit. They said today's actions were based on 'the Irish model'.

The pressures on Zapatero to act rose during the week as US President Barack Obama called him on yesterday and urged him to be 'resolute' in efforts to implement economic reforms.

The measures will now reduce the budget deficit to 9.3% of gross domestic product this year, from 11.2% in 2009. It will fall to 6% in 2011 and be reduced to 3% of GDP by 2013, the government said.

Spain sees first quarter growth of 0.1%
Spain eased out of recession with 0.1% growth in the first quarter compared to the preceeding quarter, the government statistics' office said in a preliminary report today.

The figures from the National Statistics Office confirmed a provisional report from the Bank of Spain released last week.

Spain, Europe's fifth largest economy, entered its recession in the second quarter of 2008 as the global financial meltdown compounded a crisis in the Spanish property market, which had been a major driver for growth in the preceding years.

The economy continued to contract until the fourth quarter of 2009 when it shrank 0.1%. Year on year, the economy shrank 1.3% from the first quarter of 2009, it added.

Spain is the last major world economy to emerge from recession.


The parrelels with Spain are striking a property bust leading to a deep recession. Before people think we can go off balance sheet or wave two fingers to the Commission

EU plans better budget co-ordination
Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:52
The European Commission has proposed that euro zone countries submit their national budgets to the EU for what it calls 'peer review' before they go to national parliaments.

The Commission also said it would call on national leaders to agree a permanent crisis resolution mechanism. The proposals come days after EU leaders backed a €750 billion rescue fund for euro zone countries.



The Commission said the recent crises surrounding euro zone debt had exposed the vulnerability of euro zone countries and underlined their interdependence. It said the time had come to draw 'far-reaching lessons' about the way economic policies were dealt with.







ppjjobrien wrote:I envy your salary - a taxi from Paddington to the City would set you back about £20. Also, I've been on the Piccadilly line myself many times in general and specifically to the airport. There are a very significant number of passengers using the Underground, with the heathrow express/taxi combo most used by business travellers on expenses. Buses in the transport world are always considered less likely to achieve modal change (from private to public) that fixed rail connections. Dublin CC could be 15 mins from the airport - think what a competitive advantage that would be for Dublin CC as a city to do business and visit. The bus is entirely reliant on traffic, albeit that the Dublin Port tunnel has improved consistency..


I'll let you in on a little secret; the heathrow connect service costs only £7.90 and takes 33 mins versus the £6 the tube costs and takes over an hour; the saving is less than minimum wage. A minicab costs about £15 to the city and a black cab about a tenner to the West End. Without getting off point; half an hour which is what the aircoach takes post port tunnel stands up well to any City; few cities have an airport less than 10 miles from their City Centre.


ppjjobrien wrote:Well, hopefully at least one of the projects will get the go ahead! Failing that you could fall back on the other comment above which correctly stressed that there is no need for this to be paid from current spending, but rather the cost could be deferred over a longer period of time - we don't need to repeat the interest on interest argument - I accept it's a more expensive way of doing it in the long run, it is however less outlay on a year-by-year basis..


It still goes on the National debt and will show up in the national accounts as borrowing; I would favour the interconnector being paid for directly from borrowing and then the debt paid down over 20-30 years on a standard amortisation model.


ppjjobrien wrote:There are private operators in Sweden and Germany to name but two. I have no ideological beef with IE - they're just rubbish at running a train system. I'm not saying you could ever directly privatise them - I was reacting to your arguments against PPP/Private Operators. .


I've not come across them as my time in Frankfurt displayed only Stadwerke Frankfurt on the ticketing; if it works it works but my view is clearly contaminated by the UK experience.


ppjjobrien wrote:This was my point. There's no reason for the service not to continue onto Limerick Junction and make the connection. They've just not thought about it as a system - room for improvement over time isn't the issue - they've designed it to be useless to the consumer - either to prove their point that they don't believe in regional services, or because they couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, let alone a well connected, integrated public transport offering..
;

Neither do I; without the GAA summer loadings to Croke Park; Irish Rail would have lines to Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Belfast at best. There is no way the demand exists to connect other cities unless the government gave the funding to build a line that was at least as quick as driving; the 2 hours plus from Limerick to Galway was clearly known to Dept of Transport before the project was sanctioned. A symbolic gesture and a waste of taxpayers cash.


ppjjobrien wrote:Like I said the 500k figure excludes all migration (a very negative assumption over a 20yr period) and is based purely on demographic trends as explained above. We'll just have to disagree on the relative merits of western sprawl versus intensification and some greenfield to the North - my central point is that whichever new housing is provided in the future, it should be far more concentrated and much more closely tied into existing and/or planned infrastructure, which improves the sustainability of the communities and also the viability of the schemes, although you'll always have the chicken and the egg issue.


Sadly it is usually the young that leave because they can't get graduate jobs; they then meet people from the host country, settle down and stay put. Unless the employment situation turns around dramatically the population will in my view stay static for decades to come; placing a higher tax burden on the population by building vanity projects will deter employment growth and make it more likely that more people have to leave; exacerbating the situation still further.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ppjjobrien » Wed May 12, 2010 1:49 pm

Well, I think we've exhausted most avenues of debate!

I would make two points on planning for the future:

1. We need to be careful not to conflate economic and demographic drivers of population change and hence future demand/requirements for housing provision, and the number of people is not the same as the number of households. The demographic ones are relatively robust and are not limited to whether we have a baby boom now, or not. Society is aging (more households), there are more single person households (same number of people but more households) and so on. Even if there is out-migration (in the next 1-5 years), there will be an increase in the number of households. The world has not ended.

2. My educational and professional background is both as an economist and planner. Yes, you've guessed it a jack of all trades, master of none. However, there is one economic consistency, which is that of cycles. We are going to have a very difficult time ahead - no question, but it will not last forever. Planning for things that are 20 years away and assuming pessimistically that today's climate will continue, is a recipe to plan for failure. Yes, for the next few years we need to accept pain, but then we need to move to a pro-active investment policy which plans for success. This is a more sustainable way of planning for a sustainable future than the slightly hysterical and fatalistic discourse of boom and bust that so dominates the Irish media ... to borrow a phrase from the UK - keep calm and carry on ...
ppjjobrien
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:44 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Wed May 12, 2010 2:11 pm

The World certainly hasn't ended but the capacity to borrow endlessly has.

Yes household formation sizes are a relevant issue however; there is a cycle in the use of property;

1. Grow up at home - 3 bed semi 16 to the acre suburban town
2. Go to college - specialist student accom or damp pre 63 bed sit
3. Rent flat with mates - City Centre flash location e.g. Smithfield
4. Buy flat with girlfreind - Docklands or Parnell St depending on income
5. Buy house or large apartment with now wife - Anywhere once there is space

I am not advocating that we do not plan for future growth I am merely pointing out that with 4 Dart Routes that extend out 10-20 miles in 4 very different directions all with green field and brownfield development opportunites as well as 2 Luas lines both extended into green fields that a seventh line is simply not 'critical' there is an element of choice and it this point of the economic cycle where goverment is burdened with a lot of unforseen private sector debt that prudence is the key word particularly when you are dealing with multi-billion euro projects that will lose money operationally.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby ac1976 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:17 am

Luas link up plans being finalised
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0622/luas.html

Railway Order to be published 30th June and the RPA wish to proceed in advance of Metro North, cost 170 Million

Let's hope the get the go-ahead...

The RPA guy was on Morning Irleand and they are saying it will be done along with the Metro works, arrrrrrrrr:mad:
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Luas BXD

Postby missarchi » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:22 am

new bridge - 10 points = 4am?
Surely that's a typo?
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:14 pm

ac1976 wrote:Luas link up plans being finalised
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0622/luas.html

Railway Order to be published 30th June and the RPA wish to proceed in advance of Metro North, cost 170 Million

Let's hope the get the go-ahead...


This is a very prudent decision as it delivers an affordable link up of the existing and expanding Luas network; I would hope that in a large section of the application that the RPA would concentrate on the flexibility of Luas and the unique advantage it has over underground systems to be extended incrementally and regularly. A very positive move would be to grant the commercially minded Aircoach (& Dublin Bus if they were interested) an exemption from paying tolls on the Dublin Port Tunnel; no doubt a token DHL walker on each service could provide the freight to get around the toll contract.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Frank Taylor » Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:02 am

Buses are already exempt from Dublin Port Tunnel tolls
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:16 am

Then it would make total sense for Aircoach and Luas to partner a new service from the end of the red line extension to the airport via the tunnel on a single ticket. When the Luas line link up is complete the options would be far more numerous. Should the lights at the airport be rigged to favour buses the journey time to the point would be 15 minutes to the point?
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Frank Taylor » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:59 pm

Aircoach's Dalkey and Greystones routes stop at the O2/point depot a total of 63 times each day in each direction. Journey time 19 minutes. 8 euro single. 14 euro return.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:25 pm

So on that basis with a journey time of 7 minutes to Busaras and adding 2 minutes to Abbey then the City centre is already accessible in less than half an hour from the airport. One would imagine that once the link up is done it will be possible to route trams from the Point to Sandyford giving St Green in less than 35 mins from the airport. Not bad
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Frank Taylor » Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:56 pm

There is no proposal to allow trams to transfer from the green line to the red line. They will intersect but there won't be a junction.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Luas BXD

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:03 pm

ac1976 wrote:Luas link up plans being finalised
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0622/luas.html

Railway Order to be published 30th June and the RPA wish to proceed in advance of Metro North, cost 170 Million

:


or approximately 17 million taxi fares for people too lazy to walk the relatively short distance from Stephen's Green to Jervis. Uhis link is not necessary. Give the 170mil to the schools
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby Frank Taylor » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:09 pm

The tram goes to grangegorman, phibsboro, cabra, broombridge. It's expected to carry 7.5-10 million additional passengers per year.
Frank Taylor
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:38 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Luas BXD

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:16 pm

Frank Taylor wrote:The tram goes to grangegorman, phibsboro, cabra, broombridge. It's expected to carry 7.5-10 million additional passengers per year.


so walk to Jervis and get on it. God knows the population (of Ireland) is lazy and fat enough.

waste.

of.

money
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby cgcsb » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:32 pm

wearnicehats wrote:so walk to Jervis and get on it. God knows the population (of Ireland) is lazy and fat enough.

waste.

of.

money


Oh ffs, would you kindly look at the rpa's website? the line isn't just a link up. It goes further into the northside and ads cabrs, phibsborough and granggorman. It also connects with the maynooth line at broombridge. I'd like to see you walk from stephen's green to broombridge, it'd take well over an hour.
cgcsb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby wearnicehats » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:40 pm

cgcsb wrote:Oh ffs, would you kindly look at the rpa's website? the line isn't just a link up. It goes further into the northside and ads cabrs, phibsborough and granggorman. It also connects with the maynooth line at broombridge. I'd like to see you walk from stephen's green to broombridge, it'd take well over an hour.


so start and finish it on oconnell st then - FFS why do they need a new bridge across the liffey??
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby SeamusOG » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:21 pm

Frank Taylor wrote:There is no proposal to allow trams to transfer from the green line to the red line. They will intersect but there won't be a junction.


That seems a little short-sighted. Even if the initial plans do not envisage use of such a junction by any particular service, it would be a mistake not to allow for such a service in the future, especially given the minimal cost involved.

Cost, of course, can't be the factor, given that the plans include construction of an unnecessary bridge and a longer route than was the original plan for the link-up. And it would seem sensible to include a junction so as to minimise closures and disruption in the future, should a service using such a junction be desirable (if, indeed, it isn't desirable already).

I'm racking my brains here to think of any tram system I've seen which includes a situation where lines intersect but there is no possibility for trams to travel from one line to the other. I wonder what the logic of not having a junction can be?:confused:
SeamusOG
Member
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:59 pm

Re: Luas BXD

Postby adhoc » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:55 pm

The two lines will intersect - twice - allowing for trams to transfer from Red to Green and vice versa. The RPA indicate that these 'engineering links' will be for occasional use by trams out of service. If they indicated they were for regular passenger services they would be required to complete a study on all the other new possible passenger movements for the EIS.

http://www.rpa.ie/en/news/Pages/RPAAppliesforLuasBroombridgeRailwayOrder.aspx
adhoc
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 9:50 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Luas BXD

Postby PVC King » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:55 pm

That appears very shortsighted; Dick Gleeson's figure of eight idea always seemed like a good one to me. The Eastern end of the Red Line would considerably benefit from a link to Sandyford / Cherrywood allowing occupiers to front office in the IFSC/North Wall and use cheaper back offices in the business parks.
PVC King
 

Re: Luas BXD

Postby jimg » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:48 pm

The proposed route is terrible (splitting the line and building an new Liffey bridge). Soon after this emerged as the preferred route (after a public consultation which didn't include this route at all), the RPA published some cost estimates on their website (which I cannot find anymore). This preferred route was estimated to cost 70% more than the simple and direct route via Westmoreland St. and lower O'Connell St. The RPA should be forced to publish their evaluation of the routes; this route is worse than all the others in terms of cost, disruption during construction, operational efficiency or utility. Linking the Luas lines is a very worthwhile project but it's hard to have enthusiasm for such an illogical and convoluted route.
jimg
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: Zürich

PreviousNext

Return to Irish Planning Matters