Luas Central – Which Route?

Originally posted by d_d_dallas
Reading in the Sunday Papers that new transport minister Cullen wishes to link the two Luas lines via Dawson/College Green/Westmoreland St. Obviously this infers a massive amount of traffic being banned from these parts, hence would allow for partial pedestrianisation, ala proposals for Stephens Green at Grafton St end.

I saw this claimed on the front of the Sunday Times. It was a very mediocre bit of journalism though. Was it reported more credibly elsewhere or was this just a kite?

There is a piece in todays Irish Times about linking the two Luas lines

A good day for Dublin Transport,

A piece in the Sunday Business Post has stated that the so called Interconnector has now moved to phase 2 in the Dublin transport jigsaw. The question is when will phase 2 be formally announced?

Are we in phase one???

Is phase one all about chatting vaguely about something while compiling detailed financial projections for the project… on the back of an envelope of course.

A few comments on Newstalk 106 y’day suggested that the Luas could go underground from Dawson Street to Westmoreland Street under Trinity. A bit expensive I would have thought. Having had a good look at the area today I think that there are definately serious considerations regarding the suitability of Nassau St, Grafton St and College Green for the trams. They are very narrow and where will the bus routes go? Theres a genuine problem here.

Also I think this story goes to show that despite all the rhetoric the Government have absolutely no master plan for an integrated transport system in the city. Its all multi-agency reports that take no account of each others plans or perspectives. Not enough private sector input (apart from consultants of course). And little or now actually political will to commit to a plan and push it through.

what about s king street, s william st?

What about Sth King Street – Drury Street and Demolish eircom building at end of Drury Street and run Luas through to Dame Street to emerge where Snap Printing is (so we ain’t knocking anything older than late 80’s here). Makes for a new vista facing onto Central bank plaza.

Opens up Drury Street to luas trade, allows Buses etc to deal with the Grafton/Nassau street issue, creates new street (retail opportunities) as well as new view of Central Bank as well as finding use for Sth King Street!!

What do you think?

Originally posted by Rory W
What about Sth King Street – Drury Street and Demolish eircom building at end of Drury Street and run Luas through to Dame Street to emerge where Snap Printing is (so we ain’t knocking anything older than late 80’s here). Makes for a new vista facing onto Central bank plaza.

Opens up Drury Street to luas trade, allows Buses etc to deal with the Grafton/Nassau street issue, creates new street (retail opportunities) as well as new view of Central Bank as well as finding use for Sth King Street!!

What do you think?

Rory W,

Can you be a little more specific as to where you want the route to go? Are you saying bring it along South King Street, followed by Stephens Street Lower then down Drury Street? Where would you take it after the intersection with Drury St and Exchange Street? There is alot of tight corners to be taken in that area.

Phil – read the post. Im saying knock the buildings between Exchange street and Dame Street i.e. Eircom & Snap printing thus creating a new street as such

Does that Eircom building run all the way to Dame Lane?

Yep

Originally posted by Rory W
Phil – read the post. Im saying knock the buildings between Exchange street and Dame Street i.e. Eircom & Snap printing thus creating a new street as such

Rory W,

When I first read your original post on this matter I was confused because you seemed to be giving the impression that the buildings which face you at the bottom of Drury Street are modern 1980s buildings. The buildings at the bottom of Drury Street on Exchequer Street are called the Exchequer Chambers and were built in 1901 (according to the sign over the door). The other buildings either side of these seem also to be from late 19th or early 20th Century stock. There are alot of Eircom Buildings behind it and they face onto Dame Lane as you said. I just went out to look at the buildings facing you at the bottom of Drury Street because I could not recall the 1980s buildings you were referring to. The older stock don’t appear to just be facades as they can be seen from Andrew’s Lane. Were you referring to this section of the street are were you referring to somewhere else? Finally, and I am not being smart here, there is no need to take the “Phil – read the post” tone when you are not making yourself fully clear.

Originally posted by phil

The buildings at the bottom of Drury Street on Exchequer Street are called the Exchequer Chambers and were built in 1901 (according to the sign over the door). The other buildings either side of these seem also to be from late 19th or early 20th Century stock.

Those buildings are quite intact inside and whilst there is some case for putting the Luas on a route other than College Green; Drury St and South King St is not the way to go.

Personally I think the Luas should go the original route as the drawings are done and it is only a question of submitting an application for a time extension of the original application.

If another route is to be considered I would favour Dawon St onto Nassau St, Lincoln Place, Westland Row Pearse St and College St.

It is longer but it could serve to open up Pearse St as an attractive development location again. The way it is; is an utter disaster almost 1km of entirely dead frontage, even fireworks has closed down.

that exchq st./drury st route would cost at least €100m in c.p.o.’s and thats never gonna wash with the RPA.Yeah eircom own that whole block(including the shops on that section of exchq st and the offices above) and it is huge, you can get a good look at it from the eircom (not the public) car park entrance beside Andrew’s lane theatre.Have often wondered what eircom plan to do with the site….The Pearse st. idea is a good one,TCD and the corpo have been running that neighbourhood down for years

TCD may be affected by Luas link line
Tim O’Brien

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) may seek to have the walls and railings of Trinity College Dublin moved back at Nassau Street and lower Grafton Street to accommodate the proposed Luas link line through the centre of the city.

The agency said yesterday that there were difficulties in accommodating both Luas and buses along the narrow central city streets around the college, and while it “would have respect for the built environment”, the RPA “wouldn’t rule out moving the wall and railings to take land”.

The RPA would have to seek a railway order from the Minister for Transport before proceeding with such a proposal.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2004/1104/2756841846HMTRINITY.html

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin
TCD may be affected by Luas link line
Tim O’Brien

The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) may seek to have the walls and railings of Trinity College Dublin moved back at Nassau Street and lower Grafton Street to accommodate the proposed Luas link line through the centre of the city.

The agency said yesterday that there were difficulties in accommodating both Luas and buses along the narrow central city streets around the college, and while it “would have respect for the built environment”, the RPA “wouldn’t rule out moving the wall and railings to take land”.

The RPA would have to seek a railway order from the Minister for Transport before proceeding with such a proposal.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2004/1104/2756841846HMTRINITY.html

that’s the end of that idea then

There is not only railing along that section of Trinity. There is also that coach house just inside the railings at the corner of Nassau Street and Grafton Street.

so the thing is we are taking the buses as a given and trying to reroute the luas, maybe this is the wrong way around. do 30% (or whatever) of Dublin Bus services really have to come that way? is there are rule against having buses anywhere in sight of Leinster house? can more buses use Pearse Street, particularily if TCD opened up a more obvious cross College pedestrian route (hopefully without knowing down N&bros).

The 80s building I referred to is on Dame Street (Snap Printing) ok so its a refurb of the 1960s office block that stood there before (and became Dublin’s first derelict office block in the late 70s early 80s). My point was none of the remaining victorians on Dame Street would have to be touched.

The Drury Street/Exchequer street building I am think of is Central Hotel chambers accessed from Dame Court (the bit with the horrible mirrored glass bit on the ground floor). Its the one next door to Markeys shop – if memory serves.

I know it ain’t going to happen but just a suggestion.

I feel it’s important that Luas goes through College Gn. The 3 elemnts of beautiful historic buildings, a public space and trams going through creates a certain special something in european cities.

Originally posted by Rory W

I know it ain’t going to happen but just a suggestion.

Yep 😉

Originally posted by Devin
I feel it’s important that Luas goes through College Gn. The 3 elemnts of beautiful historic buildings, a public space and trams going through creates a certain special something in european cities.

I tend to agree with you.

A chara, – There is much talk of the linking-up of the two new Luas lines through Dublin city centre. The obvious solution is for Trinity College to let the Luas through its grounds at Nassau Street.

The Luas could then proceed up Tara Street and across Butt Bridge to link up with the Red Line in Abbey Street.

This solution would be cheap, and would open up the vista and atmosphere of Trinity College to the ordinary people of Dublin.

The students and staff would have to put up with some little disruption, but the sacrifice of their cloistered peace would be much appreciated by the rest of us. – Yours, etc.,

MUREDACH DOHERTY, Lower Beechwood Avenue, Dublin 6.

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin

I tend to agree with you.

I meant that in relation to the comments above about Newstalk 106 saying it could go underground between Dawson St & Westmoreland, & people saying where will the buses go.

There was a sceme for a road through there in the 1800s… have an image somewhere of the proposed bridge

The Luas connection to O’Connell Street seems wrong – could an alternative route of Stephens Green North/Kildare Street/Tara Street/Abbey Street not be a better solution, enabling southern commuters connect with the IFSC and O’Connell Street???

One question – are the re-laying of underground services on O’Connell Street at the moment illogical if the luas is to coonect via O’Connell Bridge, necessitating the relaying of all services again?!!! For less disruption and creating a wider city centre they should go via Tara Street, necessitating no new crossings of O’Connell Street and connecting Tara Street to the Luas.

😉

A chara, – There is much talk of the linking-up of the two new Luas lines through Dublin city centre. The obvious solution is for Trinity College to let the Luas through its grounds at Nassau Street.

The Luas could then proceed up Tara Street and across Butt Bridge to link up with the Red Line in Abbey Street.

This solution would be cheap, and would open up the vista and atmosphere of Trinity College to the ordinary people of Dublin.

The students and staff would have to put up with some little disruption, but the sacrifice of their cloistered peace would be much appreciated by the rest of us. – Yours, etc.,

MUREDACH DOHERTY, Lower Beechwood Avenue, Dublin 6.

This was supposed to run from Nassau Street to Moss Street and was to link up with an intended bridge at the Custom House. Circa 1850s

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin

This was supposed to run from Nassau Street to Moss Street and was to link up with an intended bridge at the Custom House. Circa 1850s

Thank Christ that it was never built, they were a very destructive bunch our Victorian Rail scheme proponents. I fear that we are stuck with the loopline for ever, and to think that one scheme even involved a rail line over the Liffey from Tara St to Heuston. On a more positive note the interconnector is included in the DDDA 2003 masterplan along a clear route as a clear objective on one of only two maps.

BTW I strongly agree with Luas going around the dead side of Trinity as it would provide better access and density opportunity benefits than the mere bonus of an aestetic bonus on College Green.

I strongly believe that the buses must not become the meat in the sandwich as it is difficult enough to make the bus system attractive as it is.

Whats wrong with the LUAS and Dublin Bus sharing College St/Nassau St? Can it really be that difficult to implement a system that both modes can use the same stretch of roadway. It happens everywhere else in Europe why not here?

I would like to see LUAS extendend towards the east as mentioned earlier but first things first. Get both lines linked up and the fastest way has to be over O’Connell Bridge.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

That is a very interesting image. It must have been early 1850s as there is no Museum Building in the background.

The original Light Rail Order proposals for the central portion are still available in the Civic offices in Tallaght and probably elsewhere. It showed shared running for Bus and Tram in Nassau street. This happens on tram systems all over the works and personally I think teh opportunity for more of it should have been taken with the two existing lines. The corner with Dawson Street looked like it was very tight with the footpath being clipped back ( anyone who uses this crossing wil know that it can be very crowded with pedestrians). The stop in Dawson Street was between Molesworth Street and that small laneway just north with the next one in front of the Westin.

Although some roadways are shown with different traffic flow s, so there may be minor tweaks required, I would imagine that the new proposals will be almost identical. It worked then and the recent changes have only served to reduce the interface with private traffic.

By the way has anyone noticed that the Luas bridge at Charlemont is being clad with some type of spandrel panels ?

Congrats and best wishes Paul on the new look.

JJ

I’m concerned about the wirescape. I know it’s an old chestnut but what will be the impact on College Green?
Surely poles will be needed roughly in the area of the entrance to Trinity, where it won’t be practical to suspend from buildings? And if the posts on Stephen’s Green are anything to go by God help this Green if they are needed.
I don’t like the idea of wires crossing over views of either the BoI or Trinity, esp where the bends and curves in the roadway will necessitate a less than straight run of cabling. Fair enough Harcourt St’s has worked exceptionally well, but it’s an almost straight run of cables, with no poles, and the dark red of the Georgians negate much of their impact. What will they be like in front of/alongside white, staightlaced classical set-pieces?

I don’t know the answers but it’s a big worry. Ok many other capitals in Europe put up with it, but does that mean it’s therefore acceptable in Dublin if other practical routes are possible?
Equally the views of O’Cll Bridge, the portico of the House of Lords and the BoI colonade are issues to be considered.
Does anyone have any pics of what the impact, if any, might be?

I agree that is a great unknown Graham but two other potential changes worry me a lot more. Any alteration to the front of Trinity which has been deemed necessary by the RPA to accomodate the new line. I likes Trinity the way it is with the curved railings and intamacy around the provosts residence, I would not be at all happy if they messed either of these up.

The second major problem that a Luas line would have is the O’Connell Monument it is a very wide statue and I’m not too sure that there would be suficient space to get a Luas line around it, retain 2 lanes of traffic, a bicycle lane and widen the footpaths ala the O’Connell St plan. The more I think about it the more that down the left side of Pearse St then into Hawkins St and accross to Marlborough St via a new bridge makes sense.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Ok many other capitals in Europe put up with it, but does that mean it’s therefore acceptable in Dublin if other practical routes are possible?
Equally the views of O’Cll Bridge, the portico of the House of Lords and the BoI colonade are issues to be considered.

The new trams in Bordeaux have no overhead power supply. They went for a new kind of power supply specifically for aesthetic reasons. The system they used is called “Innorail”. It consists of a 3rd rail that only becomes live when the tram is directly above it (otherwise pedestrians would wander onto it and get fried). Anyhow, they’ve just put it live and I gather it has some teething problems but is likely to be a success.

trams in london used to have a slot in the middle of the tracks with a live track beneath the surface. it must have been a pain in arse for getting clogged up with crap. i don’t know how it was drained.

I thought it was generally accepted that the Luas wirescape is pretty minimal. To me Luas’s wires in College Gn. would be better than the current narrow pavements / constant fumes and harrassment of traffic.

a tongue in cheek view… Frank McNally in The Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/weekend/2004/1106/3987879409WK06FRANK.html

Would we not be better off putting the money in to the ‘interconnector’ ??

That really is the question isn’t it – does the comparitively short walk through the city’s finest and soon to be most pedestrian friendly streets warrant a light rail link? The cost is huge, and no doubt it would have been cheaper had it been done at the same time as the Green Line. The alterations necessary to accomodate it seem neither aesthetically nor practically appropriate on the face of it – I haven’t read the Light Rail Order pertaining to this area so cannot comment on the details, but on the face of it is any link at all necessary, i.e, if a bus route was proposed to link the Green to O’Cll St at a cost of €50-€60 million it’d be laughed out of it.
Would a link via Westland Row to the IFSC offer greater value for money?

I think you pose some good questions here Graham. I was considering a more approriate route for Luas Green and I think turning east down Nassau St and down Westland Row would be a much more visionary route. Visionary in that it would be recognising that the city centre is expanding and that areas such as Grand Canal Dock and Spencer Dock are now import city qurters whcih not olky need to be integrated into the city and accessible from the city but also need to be seen as places that are accessable from other areas of the city. Just as weit was felt to be unsatisfactory to terminate the Red Line at OConnell St so I think it would be a mistake to see the Green Line only go this far. Visually I think the Luas wirescape would be a real retrograde step for College GReen and Westmoreland St just as the debate is developing towards moving these streets away from traffic towards pedestrians. All in all I think an underground interconnecter combine with a new fares structure and integrated ticketing would provide the most cost effective and best solution to tying up all these transport strands – Luas Dat and Mainline, as well as buses.

I agree with Stphen C on this one that there is a viable route that will deliver some serious benefit as it will open up some areas for higher density development if it were to go down Pearse St. Trinity Court has destroyed this once fine street ensuring that all the local facilities have closed due to the bad element associated with it.

Trinity College can print as many glossy brochures displaying the inner yard as it likes but it has destroyed Pearse St by turning it’s back on it, there is as John Devlin says a full dead kilometre between Westland Row and College Street, you can’t even buy a piece of fruit.

I also agree with Peter that it is not going to kill anyone to move from Stephens Green to O’Connell St, it would be fine to have built Luas on this route in the original phase but to do so now would be an error.

I feel that many arguing for this route are doing so purely on aestetic grounds as they wish to see Luas turning the arc around the front of Trinity, it is the only time that I have ever seriously questioned Frank McDonalds reasoning.

Commitment to the a full implementation of the Iarnrod Eireann Dublin/East Coast Rail plan is the only solution to the Dublin Transport question,

@Diaspora wrote:

I feel that many arguing for this route are doing so purely on aestetic grounds as they wish to see Luas turning the arc around the front of Trinity

I don’t think you’re right there. It’s logical that light rail should go through the most central part of a city because that’s where all the action is.

I think linking the lines is vital, as they should have been from the start.

Dawson St, Nassau St and College Green make sense as the shortest route, and would provide a link between the two main shopping areas (yes, I realise it’s easily walkable). And I agree that having trams running around College Green will look lovely (though that’s not enough reason to build it on its own).

In the short term, the Westland Row route has advantages, as it would integrate with DART was well as the Red line, but we should hopefully be getting the Interconnector a couple of years later, so it will be integrated at Stephen’s Green anyway. Therefore I would advocate going the shorter and cheaper route.

I don’t see a problem with busses and trams sharing road space on Nassau Street. If you eliminate cars from Dawson Street and Nassau Street, there shouldn’t be any problems.

Any more travel advice?

The turn from O’Connell St into Abbey St would be a nightmare with trams coming from three angles, there is also the O’Connell monument which no-one seems to factor in.[/QUOTE]

The original scheme split the track as the crossed the O’Connell bridge with one on each side of the monument. The central area behind teh statue then became one huge island platform. It showed a link turning into Abbey Street on the west side ( at that time the line to Connolly did not exist ). The movements here with crossing traffic, pedestrians and trams would be very complicated I think.

Suppose the lines merely crossed with passengers walking to Abbey Stop to change lines, then theres a crossover issue to be tackeled as the inbound tram needs to get to the other track for the outbound journey. As I see it if this is placed behind the stop then you would have the crossover in front of the GPO. In any event the newly laid surfacing will take a hammering.

JJ

it should run on an elevated line down Dawson Street, climb over Trinity College, do a loop-the-loop, come back down at Hawkins House and have a floating terminus on the River Liffey with ladders and slides linking on to the Boardwalk at Eden Quay

They should put the trams underground.

There’s mixed signals coming out here – is the idea to physically link the Green line with the Tallaght line, or just to bring them close together – with the Green trams looping round O’Cll Monument and go back the way they came?
If the latter is the case, which I thought it was, this scheme is nothing short of ridiculous and hugely wasteful of public money if it’s simply to bring people closer to the other line. It’s about 8 mins walk from the Green to here. The trams would take at least 3 anyway.

Anyone remember why the green line was prevented from coming across the liffeyl? It was Garrets campaign in the Irish Times where he ‘worked out’ that the numbers didn’t add up, and people believed him. Bit like the ‘madness’ of running the red line through the Red Cow.

With the news of Bewleys closing coupled to this It’s been a bad month for our ex-Taoiseach.

FWIW I think they should link up. It’s okay saying that it’s only a short walk, but if you have to do it twice a day five days a week driving becomes much more attractiive.

No it was Mary O’Rouke giving into the likes of the AA rather than Garrett’s Measuring tape & numbers thing (which he denies doing anyway)

I am very interested in your idea to take LUAS thro Trinity have you looked at options through the grounds, I believe Trinity are planning a major re-developemnt of the North entrance onto Pierse etreet this includes taking down 6 terraced Victorian houses on Pierse Street

Rob

Joining of Luas lines
05 Nov 2004

“Join the lines as soon as possible’ say Dublin City Businesses

The Dublin City Business Association (DCBA) has welcomed the announcement from Minister for Transport, Mr. Martin Cullen T.D. on his intention to join up the Luas lines and has called for its progression as soon as possible.

The significant impact of the Luas on business in the city centre is demonstrated by the increase in customer volumes since the operation of the Southside and Northside Luas.

The popularity of Luas is attracting new customers to the city centre and this is a very encouraging illustration of the success of government policy on transport. “We are delighted that the Minister is pursuing this and would encourage him to progress it as a matter of urgency. It is obvious that the public wants it joined up.” Said Tom Coffey, CEO of the DCBA.

Dublin City Centre accommodates 250 million visitors each year and although access has improved significantly through Quality Bus Corridors, extra bus capacity, cycle lanes etc. the DCBA believes that the public transport service needs to be effectively integrated and expanded. “We are disappointed by the performance of the Dublin Transport Office in delivering an adequate public transport system for the needs of the city as it is now.

Its performance needs to be reviewed and, where relevant, the organisation needs to be reformed and made more accountable. Dublin is a great city and needs an effective public transport service to reach its full potential. Plans without effective and on time implementation are not much use to the public.”

The DCBA is the representative organisation for city centre retailers and property owners. Collectively its members employ 25,000 and contribute in excess of €400 million annually to the Exchequer. “

Article Ends

http://www.dcba.ie/press/index.cfm?id=278

Any thoughts?

How about from the current Line B terminus, around in front of the Shelbourne, along Hume Street, Ely Place and down Merrion Street/Merrion Square, Westland Row, Lombard Street and then either a new bridge across the Liffey or continue up to O’Connell Street and cross there.

Such a route would also have the advantage of running right in front of the Dept of Finance in Merrion Street, allowing the public to show the beancounters therein that the public prefer rail based transport to their preferred option of buses 😀

7/7/2005

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.

It would probably be best to see the six routes under consideration before making ones mind up.

I read in todays Irish Times that the Ten Year Capital plan is being held up ‘by the evil economists’ in the Department of Finance well those are Tim O’Briens words in the Irishmans Diary section.

Will the routes be made public or for the Ministers eyes only?

It would appear that the RPA have binned Dick Gleeson’s figure of eight without even costing it, I do not feel it is such a good idea to treat the relevant Local Authority with such contempt.

There has been some good discussion on http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=274229&page=5&pp=20 and http://www.platform11.org on this subject.

I am not so sure that there is consensus on the impact of the wirescape on College Green as of yet on this forum and because there are only two options being pushed by the RPA on this I think we should try and see if a consensus is possible. The first or preferred RPA option is the 5bne metro which is limited to 3 carriages vs 8 on DART or Arrow commuter trains, it would serve a very low catchment population and cannot be extended to the original Harcourt St line under this works order on procedural grounds.

Secondly the original route which I think they regard as second prize.

http://www.p45.net

80 – 100 million for just more than one kilometre of light rail…… what a joke. I’ll bet the proposals just mention that they
line will stop beside the other line rather than a straight through link that could carry passengers from Sandyford to Heuston etc.
Given the sorry history of cost over-runs on this project I wouldn’t consider this proposal from that RPA technocracy. Why is an alternative route – via Merrion Square, Matt Talbot bridge not cnsidered?

Either way expect it to be completed at 2020, costing 1,500,000,000 excluding VAT and other costs!

And also, whatever happened the northside line…..? A huge gap in our public transport.

@J. Seerski wrote:

And also, whatever happened the northside line…..? A huge gap in our public transport.

Sure it will be there in 2007 if you believe the Sunday Times! In an article on 100% mortgages, they quoted a couple buying an apartment in Santry, stating that the LUAS will be operational to Santry in 2007.

“via Kildare Street and Exchequer Street over a new bridge across the Liffey between Capel Street and Butt Bridge.” Que?

Some of these routes seen to be really bizarre and totally unfeasible. Is this the intention I wonder. For example there is no way that DCC could allow a Luas line to go down part of Georges St. Its a vital route out of the city.
I am amazed that there is not even a mention of sending the line through Trinity (expensive and divisive but with some proper planning might actually be a good idea) or Merrion Sq, Westland Row, Pearse, Tara St and passing over Matt Talbot Bridge and terminating at the white elephant station the RPA built at Connolly. After all what is this stop going to do once the Docklands extension is completed. This route would also have the added effect of linking the Luas with three DART stations. “Integration” and all that.

And I agree what happened to the figure of 8 scheme.

What gobshites!

As for the idiots buying overpriced houses in Santry in expectation of their shiny new LUAS line.

The reality for Santry is that if the RPA supply a North side transport corridor it will not go through Santry, it will be a fully segregated light rail line that will go through Ballymun and enter the Dublin Airport complex just east of the M50/Ballymun junction and use the land within Dublin Airport. The facts on the ground are that the Old Airport Road North of Santry is basically a giant logistics park/ surface carpark there is little employemnt and literally no residential population. A Luas to Ballymun could in contrast be extended on street to Dublin Airport in tandem with a heavy rail spur to Swords, I would hate to see the journey times between Swords and the City Centre if the route were partially on street and diverted via Ballymun.

It has been confirmed that Trinity have received no approaches on routing Luas through the College and indeed no approach since 2002 when there were discussions on a metro routing from Stephens Green to the Airport via Tara St, TCD are apparently entirely opposed.

I like the idea of the termination via Matt Talbot Bridge I think that areas around Townsend St and Moss St could really benefit from that, there are two concerns that I have with the earlier part of the route. The first would be the section between the Shelbourne and the Start of Merrion Row as this area is already crowded and secondly the turning circle at Merrion Row. I think that a routing turning right at the end of Dawson St and onto Nassau St and Lincoln Place would acheive almost as much and critically would take full benefit of the positives in the later stages of the route such as integration with DART at both Pearse and Connolly, would bring Pearse St back off life support and would give the visual of trams running beside the front elevation of the Custom House.

Maybe we should all be realistic here. As already said, worthwhile ideas like the figure of eight, going through Trinity and running the two Luas lines end into end at Macken Street are not even being given consideration.
Absolutely childish suggestions like going down George’s Street and Parliament Street, main thoroughfares for half the bus routes and taxis in the city, are being included just to make up the numbers.
There’s even talk of bridges between Capel Street and Butt Bridge, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that actually appears in the RPA submissions and isn’t a Business Post cock-up.
The mind has already been made up on this one. If it goes ahead – it’s going down this Central Corridor.
And I hate to repeat myself but where exactly is the terminus going to be:- on O’Connell Bridge.
I think it’s a disgrace that the RPA are pretending that they are going to link the lines when from what I can see this is not physically impossible.
The only way to join them is at a major interchange area (at the O’Connell Monument) or run them right into each other a la the Macken Street solution.
With that in mind (and based on the presumption that this project will go ahead regardless), why do you need to leave the lines ten yards apart.
Why not run the Sandyford line as far as College Green and leave it at that? That two-hundred yard walk would be shorter than the journey anyone undertakes while transferring from Metro to Metro in Paris or Tube to Tube in London.
It would probably save a bomb and also stop them destroying O’Connell Bridge and Westmoreland Street.
As has been said time and time again, the cost-benefit ratio on this link-up is an absolute disaster.

The lines could still run together at Beresford Place at the end of Abbey St with minimal fuss. Destorying the top of OC St with a luas terminus would be criminal.
Once the RPA ‘agrees’ its route does the City Council have any input? Or is it straight to ABP?

As far as I know it is straight to a public enquiry at ABP but DCC as owners of the land would be fully represented at the enquiry stage.

all this gets the RPA out of a hole with Metro – after all, it was supposed to run to the Green but they chopped out the bit from O’Connell Street to try and reduce the alarming estimated cost.

That’s an interesting idea Kefu about going as far as North Grafton St, allowing commuters to avoid the congested Grafton St (esp in the mornings with all the deliveries) whilst bringing you that bit closer to the Red Line if desired.

Of course this would never pass as a proposal though, as the appeal of a ‘link’ has to be there, even if in reality the RPA’s favoured O’Cll Bridge proposal may very well not physically link either.

That Matt Talbot/Pearse/Connolly scheme has always been a favourite for me also Stephen, though how this ties in with the greater rail plan for Dublin I’m not sure. It it is compatible, I’d jump at it.

what about IE’s interconnector ! ??? luas just can’t travel fast enough on street in the city centre … through little fault of its own too, seems some people just don’t get what to do when they see a red light …

The interconnector will happen regardless of what happens to Luas it is the only system that can support the continued passenger numbers required to support section 49 development contributions further out. If you were travelling inbound on the Red line one would change at Heuston to Dart and again at Stephens Green back to Luas. Two changes are required as would be required from Luas to Southern Dart with changes at Heuston and Pearse unless you stayed on Luas to Spencer Dock.

What is your reading of Luas almost one year in Peter?

@Thomond Park wrote:

The interconnector will happen regardless of what happens to Luas

Very optimistic. Dept of Finance are running their slide rule over it at the moment and I understand that they don’t like it. But of course P11 must keep up the pretence that they are not the Emperor with no clothes.

Ewan,

I think that with the exception of very few people that the benefits of the interconnector are very plain to see on both a convenience level (i.e. not having all Meath & Kildare commuters dumped in Spencer Dock) and a cost analysis basis. This is a project that can take Dept of Finance scrutiny and will facilitate the roll out of Dart type capacity and frequency for extensions to Balbriggan, Hazelhatch & Maynooth over the life of the 10 year plan.

The Metro is flawed both technically and on a cost analysis basis as Dublin Airport will never justify the passenger loadings to support it, estimates of above 3.4m air passengers and 435,000 airport employees using metro are optimistic based upon current airport use, estimates of a total of 5.8m users from the airport are wildly optimistic for 2015. This figure is slightly over 25% of current Luas user numbers which cost about 200m proportionally. An expenditure of 3.6-5bn under these circumstances is highly questionable given the population density along its route.

Luas for Ballymun with possibly spurs to Santry and Finglas are the answer.

It should also be noted that you have had strong opinions re Platform11 on IRN for some time

So it looks like what should have been the simplest of the Luas extensions to the Point is even under threat.
In hindsight, it appears that the removal of the ramp at Connolly was probably worthwhile:-
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2005/0820/3808988766BZLUASYARN.html
Just a thought. But considering the major issue regarding the IFSC extension appears to be potential damage to underground wiring, what about the possibility of having an elevated line.
You could run it right up the middle of Mayor Street and continue on. If designed right, it could be an addition rather than an eyesore and I bet it wouldn’t be any more expensive.

Rumour has it that the Central Route has been abandoned and that the Luas will be going to westland row and linking up at the irish life centre.

A physical link, or a pair of look-like-a-link lines on a map?

@Graham Hickey wrote:

A physical link, or a pair of look-like-a-link lines on a map?

I know what you mean. I always laugh at the map when I’m getting a ticket at the LUAS stop. What do them tourists think. “get off at The Four Courts and it’s just a short walk to Stephens Green”. :confused:

From what I can gather from JPD’s rumour, it will run from Stephens Green via Dawson, Nassau, Lincoln Pl. Westland Row, Pearse, Tara, Butt Bridge & Sráid na Mainistreach. Not my favoured route to be honest. Would have prefered the LUAS down College Gr. & Westmorland St. This would be the most cost effective route to connect the two lines. Go figure.

The Cherrywood line will definatly go ahead next year, I’d put a slice of me arse on that one. The Mayor St. line via IFSC1/2 and ‘Point Village’ (fitting name for the village-like architecture proposed) will also go ahead IMO]has[/i] to.

I don’t see the point of the Westland Row line. Sure, it connects with Pearse, but what about the proposed Grand Canal Cock LUAS line? I thought the IFSC LUAS was going to run from Spencer Dock across Macken St. Bridge and either terminate at Grand Canal or possibly continue on to Merrion or Fitzwilliam. This would satisfy the Pearse Street catchment area.

Having a line on Westland Row AND Grand Canal would be a bit silly really.

edit: Grand Canal ‘Dock’ not ‘Cock’. The keys are close together 😮

Morlan take your rump out of the bacon slicer it will be fully operational during the public enquiry.

Frank Allen has really done it with that routing; it is going to hit massive problems in planning;

But on the Westland Row route, while I fully welcome the idea if the ‘rumour’ proves to be correct, how is the equally difficult planning problem of the height of Pearse Station bridge to be overcome?
Is half of Westland Row to be dropped by a metre?

Personally I favour a Western alignment but if the RPA metro isn’t built the only way to integrate the airport line with the Luas Green line is via either Pearse or Tara St stations and Tara St would be equally problematic in relation to loss of road space on Tara St itself and low clearance on Luke St. I’m sure dropping the roadway by a metre is technically possible.

Where is the perceived need for this extra metre clearance coming from? Luas already passes under the loopline at Beresford Place (clearance – 5m). Westland Row has a 4.93m clearance – a whole 7cm difference. There is no difficulty with Luas passing under the Westland Row Bridge at the current street level.

It was raised on P11 – whereas I don’t have the measurements, this was noted as quite a problem for the Westland Row route, it being especially lower than other bridges or something along those lines…

Double-decker buses can travel under it… I don’t see why the LUAS can’t. Probably a safety issue for minimum clearance. I would’t like to see Westland Row lowered, I think it would spoil the street somewhat.

I’d tend to agree, but surely there’s a comparitively unobtrusive way to do this if necessary.
Yes mimimun clearance sounds like that was the problem here – whether 7cm makes all the difference as adhoc describes I don’t know.
Then again think of how tight it already is on Beresford Place…

@INM wrote:

Metro line key feature of new transport plans

THE Metro rail line, linking Dublin city with the airport, is definitely going ahead, the Government will announce tomorrow.

A 10-year transport plan for the nation, to be unveiled at Dublin Castle, will also see an interconnector between Heuston and Connolly stations, and there will be a new docklands train station.

The Irish Independent has learned details of the huge investment plan for road and rail, especially in the Dublin region.

The framework for investment over the next decade involves particular commitments:

* An estimated &#8364]

* €1bn to be invested on an interconnector rail link between Heuston and Connolly stations, and linking all mainline and Dart services.

* The €600m completion of the Eastern bypass.

* A new train station and spur line at Spencer Dock.

* Significant upgrading of the Maynooth line.

* €1bn a year, every year, for the completion of major road projects.

The 10-year transport plan has been the most closely guarded secret in government for years.

Unveiling it tomorrow, the Taoiseach will conjure up a vision of easy commuting in the future through the planning of investment now.

He and senior ministers see the integrated concept as the major plank of their case for an historic third consecutive term in government, with an implied risk to the delivery of the plan if the voters should break with the ruling Coalition.

And the Government is expected to counter political flak over the heavy investment in transport infrastructure in the capital – cockpit of the next general election – by announcing a series of smaller projects around the country, including the refurbishment of the Western rail corridor.

Some sections of this line, which formerly ran from Sligo to Limerick, are likely to be re-opened. A necklace of road projects will relieve traffic bottlenecks elsewhere.

AMBITIOUS

But the main focus of the blueprint remains on Dublin in what is described as “the most ambitious transport plan in the history of the State”.

The metro service from the city centre to the airport will take a route that services Dorset Street and Dublin City University, according to the plans.

The interconnector between Heuston and Connolly stations will be located entirely on the south side of the river Liffey – instead of consisting of a loop running along both banks, as had been previously envisaged.

A feasibility study into the “M50’s big brother” is further expected to recommend the beginning of construction on the so-called outer orbital route. This will place a new C-ring motorway outside the existing M50, enabling motorists to travel from Drogheda to Wicklow via Naas.

The upgrading of the Maynooth line, plagued by a lack of capacity, has long been expected. What is not yet clear is the Government’s intentions in relation to Dublin Bus, which says it has been starved of resources for its fleet.

The Government has asked the company to outline how it can operate a more efficient service, with the widespread operation of private buses on city routes under active consideration.

Senan Molony
Political Correspondent

Roll on Tomorrow so that the above can be clarified

Connolly to Heuston? I thought it was Spencer Dock to Heuston.

No mention of the LUAS link in that article.

i really do hope they finally go ahead with that metro. they have been putting it off for far too long now.

i heard some information about this on the one o’clock news today. they didn’t mention the metro on the news though. fingers crossed….

The most over announced story in history! Keep in mind that the plan is from 2007….meaning that you have to vote the arseholes back in if you want to see all your shiny metros and luas entensions. And if the alterbative get in sure we’ll have to reassess the plans then…to suit changing needs. Bullshit. Martin Cullen ihas to be the most ineffectual minister ever. Still no sign of integrated ticketing… announced by Lowry in 1996. No doubt it is part of the PLAN!

well said.

Hmmmm…….I think the Luas should wrap around the corner of Stephen’s green, down Merrion Row, swing left into Upper Merrion St, past the Government Buildings and the National Gallery, down Westland Row (and link with Pearse St.) and pretty much run under the DART line to link additionally with Tara St. and onto Connolly Station. College Green is too congested as it is. The O’Connell St. – Grafton St. access is the main spine of Dublin, so I think all Dublin’s eggs should be put in one basket. I’m sure the lands under the DART line are owned by CIE, so easy and cheap to redevelop. The proposed route would run past some of Dublin’s most magnificent buildings and squares and would link up with the DART line in 3 places. I think it would serve to develop the lands north of Pearse St, along Townsend St and on to the Quays. Any comments??

so its all a big suprise – luas to the airport first and then the metro taking a more westerly route not joining up dcu and so on!

actually the news website I got that from seems to have changed its mind and is now saying two metros, one to the airport linking dcu etc, another to west dublin. i don’t know, i guess it will be clear in a few hours.

Platform 11’s take:
http://www.platform11.org/news/news.php?year=2005&no=14.html

So according to the Post, the leading contender for this is the Westmoreland street route but the main contender is Westland Row, Pearse and a new bridge to Marlboro Street. I guess the object people raise is the Westland Row bridge, but ignoring that, this seems like a much better route, no digging up O’Connell Street, no wires getting in the way of this and College Green, a chance to rejuvanate Marlboro Street and a new pedestrian route across the river.

Marlboro Lights Rail Street

@Frank Taylor wrote:

Marlboro Lights Rail Street

:rolleyes: 😀

Personnaly I believe that if we wish to reinforce the north south axis on O’Connell St. – College Green the luas must go down Westmoreland St. Otherwise you will reinforce the drift of the city centre to the south east. But on downside, and its a big downside the wires of the tram would seriously damage the area in terms of visual clutter. How come the trams in San Francisco can (built decades ago) have there powere lines in the ground but the luas has its over head.

Trams in Bordeaux use underground powering as well – no overhead wires. This is what should be done for Luas through College Green … would cost a bit more but would definitely be worth it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_level_power_supply

I am not sure that the BART is underground powering, at least not when it is running on the surface. In any case there are plenty of overhead cables around San Francisco – the Muni and some buses are electrically powered. Sparks are visible at night.

The RPA were in Pearse Street this morning (between the fire station and Shaw Street) with their theodlites obviously with a view to possible routes to join up the two Luas Lines.

The RPA have published 5 options for the central corridor. Options C and E seem to be there to make up the numbers. Option D could be a winner.

RPA Luas Line BX document

can we have a poll?

yep a poll would be good.

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. What to you guys think?

Option A would be my choice. Option C would link George’s St into the network, that’d be nice too. The other options link Pearse with Stephen’s Gr. but the interconnector will join these two in the future anyway,

Which of the proposed routes do you prefer? From St.Stephen’s Green terminus OPTION A runs along St.Stephen’s Green North, turns north into Dawson St., west into Nassau St., north into the lower part of Grafton St., passes the main entrance to Trinity College, crosses College Green and runs north along Westmoreland St.. Approaching O’Connell Bridge the two tracks separate to run each side of the traffic median on the bridge and continue into O’Connell St. running each side of the median to connect with the Red Line at the junction of O’Connell St. and Abbey St.. Possible stop locations include Dawson St., Westmoreland St. and O’Connell St

From St.Stephen’s Green terminus OPTION B runs along St.Stephen’s Green North, Merrion Row, turns north into Merrion St. Upper and Merrion Square West, crosses the Clare St. junction into Merrion St. Lower and Lincoln Place and continues north along Westland Row and then west along Pearse St.. At the western end of Pearse St. the line turns north into Hawkins St., having crossed Townsend St., and continues to Burgh Quay. The line crosses the Liffey to Eden Quay on a new Luas bridge. From Eden Quay the line continues north along Marlboro St. to connect with the Red Line at the junction of Marlboro St. and Abbey St. Lower. Possible stop locations include St.Stephen’s Green North, Merrion Square West, Westland Row, Pearse St. and on a new Luas bridge.

From St.Stephen’s Green terminus OPTION C runs along King St. South and Stephen St. Lower and then turns north to run along South Great George’s St. as far as Dame St.. The line then turns to run along Dame St. and College Green towards Trinity College and then along Westmoreland St. towards O’Connell Bridge. Approaching O’Connell Bridge the two tracks separate to run on each side of the traffic median on the bridge and continue into O’Connell St. running each side of the median to connect with the Red Line at the junction of O’Connell St. and Abbey St.. Possible stop locations include South Great George’s St., Dame St. and O’Connell St.

From St.Stephen’s Green terminus OPTION D runs along St.Stephen’s Green North, Dawson St., Nassau St. and the lower part of Grafton St. as far as College Green. From College Green the line continues around Trinity along College St. as far as Pearse St. where it turns north into Hawkins St., having crossed Townsend St. and continues to Burgh Quay. From Burgh Quay the line crosses the Liffey to Eden Quay on a new Luas bridge. From Eden Quay the line continues north along Marlboro St. to connect with the Red Line at the junction of Marlboro St. and Abbey St. Lower. Possible stop locations include Dawson St., College Street and on the new Luas bridge.

From St.Stephen’s Green terminus OPTION E runs along St.Stephen’s Green North. At the Dawson St. junction the line splits with one track for trams heading north towards the Red Line running along Dawson St. as far as Nassau St. while the track for trams coming from the Red Line extends further east along St. Stephen’s Green North and runs along Kildare St. and Nassau St. before rejoining the other track in Nassau St. at the Dawson St. junction. From Nassau St. the line would continue into the lower part of Grafton St., College Green and Westmoreland St.. Approaching O’Connell Bridge the two tracks separate to run on each side of the traffic median on the bridge and continue into O’Connell St. running on each side of the median to connect with the Red Line at the junction of O’Connell St. and Abbey St.. Possible stop locations include Dawson St. (for trams heading towards the Red Line), Kildare St. (for trams heading towards the Green Line), Westmoreland St. and O’Connell St.

Poll
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4474

I chose Route A.

There’s no need to waste money on longer track alignments and bridges over the Liffey. All we need is for the two lines to be linked in the middle, as they should have been in the first place!

Line A offers the quickest route for the least amount of cash.

My second choice would be Route C.

but a new bridge put the line on marlboro street; meaning, ultimately the luas extension to dit will run up marlboro street, opening it up for development and keeping o’connell street uncluttered.

I voted A. Route B is very long and would add at least 5 mins to the trip from Stephens green to O’Connell St. making the tram potentially slower than walking. Also, the B route runs closely parallel with the DART from Pearse duplicating the rail coverage east of the central north/south axis of the city strenghtening the lop-sided east/west spread of rail provision in the centre of town.

option a would be my choice too. i guess if they go with option b the bridge over the liffey will look a bit like the bridge at charlemont with the stop being on the bridge.

A for me too.
But why isn’t Grafton Street even under consideration? Its omission is even more glaring looking at those maps. The shortest, straightest route is the only one not illustrated.

@ctesiphon wrote:

A for me too.
But why isn’t Grafton Street even under consideration? Its omission is even more glaring looking at those maps. The shortest, straightest route is the only one not illustrated.

In fairness the footfall on Grafton St. would make the building & operation of Luas a nightmare. It was pedestrianised 20 years ago for good reason.

ok, so the metro is supposed to be running from swords to st stephens green right? so why not just continue it to ranelagh and have it surface there, and on to bray as planned, you would have a collosal central line, that would be capable of carrying huge amounts of passengers. The luas trams could be used on other lines. I mean if this is what they are sarificing just to link them it is very short sighted! And there are no idea options, obvisouly grafton street would be the most logical just simply route wise, but there is no way or how that could ever happen, unless they decided to just dig up grafton and put in a tunnel…

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

In fairness the footfall on Grafton St. would make the building & operation of Luas a nightmare. It was pedestrianised 20 years ago for good reason.

Was it pedestrianised because of the high footfall or did the footfall come about after pedestrianisation?

What about pedestrianising Chatham Row, Clarendon Street, South WIlliam Street and WIcklow Street?

All of these streets seem to have been sacrificed to access roads for the Brown Thomas car park. With two new undeground lines delivering customers by the thousand to Stephen’s Green, more luas stops in the area and existing car parks on Drury Sreet, Stephen’s Green and Andrews Lane, is this car park really worth it?

ok, so the metro is supposed to be running from swords to st stephens green right? so why not just continue it to ranelagh and have it surface there, and on to bray as planned, you would have a collosal central line, that would be capable of carrying huge amounts of passengers. The luas trams could be used on other lines. I mean if this is what they are sarificing just to link them it is very short sighted! And there are no idea options, obvisouly grafton street would be the most logical just simply route wise, but there is no way or how that could ever happen, unless they decided to just dig up grafton and put in a tunnel…

Agreed 100% – Plan B

On balance, having another bridge across the Liffey is less visually damaging than having lower Grafton Street and College Green poled and cabled, and Lower O’Connell Street and Bridge destroyed with poles, cables, platforms and attendant features.

Or why not go Plan D and have the best of both worlds? :rolleyes:

B is perfect for serving Pearse Station which is also set to become a hub of sorts under Transport 21. A bit of a roundabout route all right having to double round the Trinity site, but something has to give. A pity it couldn’t join the red line further west – suppose the RPA want it as close to O’Connell Street as possible…

Line D is my preference. It would minimise disruption to O’Connell Street and provide a good connection with the Dart closeby at Tara Street. 2 new platforms could be constructed in front of the existing Abbey Theatre and by walking just around the corner to the red line platforms a good connection is possible here too. Then in time the line can be extended on up Marlborough Street or wherever it is to be taken.

I also think maybe after the trams reach here they could travel on to the Point Depot, thus removing the future problem of the red line going in and reversing out of Connolly. This would be achieved by running 2 routes: Sandyford – Point (bypassing Connolly) and Tallaght – Connolly

I was surprised by your choice, Graham, you having such an affinity for O’Connell Bridge.

As it stands, the bridge has an equal, balanced amount of river space either side of it, as it deserves. Ripping up College Green would only be temporary. A bridge would be permanent, a bridge that would be designed and built under a very tight budget. We could end up with an awful concrete heap of shite, further spoiling the view down the river – the loop line is bad enough.

The proposed LUAS bridge will also be a tram stop, cluttered with ticket machines, shelters and other paraphernalia, and would further obstruct the view of the Custom House.

Route A would be constructed in the least amount of time. It would provide the fastest connection for people travelling between Line A and B. Makes sense to me…

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Agreed 100% – Plan B

On balance, having another bridge across the Liffey is less visually damaging than having lower Grafton Street and College Green poled and cabled, and Lower O’Connell Street and Bridge destroyed with poles, cables, platforms and attendant features.

Or why not go Plan D and have the best of both worlds? :rolleyes:

B is perfect for serving Pearse Station which is also set to become a hub of sorts under Transport 21. A bit of a roundabout route all right having to double round the Trinity site, but something has to give. A pity it couldn’t join the red line further west – suppose the RPA want it as close to O’Connell Street as possible…

@ctesiphon wrote:

A for me too.
But why isn’t Grafton Street even under consideration? Its omission is even more glaring looking at those maps. The shortest, straightest route is the only one not illustrated.

Luas down Grafton is NEVER going to happen. It’s the most important retail street/public space in Ireland. The affect on businesses there would be disastrous.

I’m sure anyone living in Dublin would agree.

It also duplicates the route of de proposed metro which makes the route selections outlined in this process farcical.

Routes A; D & E follow almost the exact route of de metro

Route B after taking an unnecessary jaunt to O’Donaghues then almost replicates the existing Loopline alignment

Only route C offers any additional coverage but then returns to the metro alignment

None of the above should be built

Route B for me.
I like the link with Pearse Stn (DART/maybe Interconnector) & being able to go between Museum & the national Gallery/merrion square.
Traffic Chaos on Pearse Street during construction though.
Existing Railway bridge over Westland row would be a problem as well

@Morlan wrote:

Luas down Grafton is NEVER going to happen. It’s the most important retail street/public space in Ireland. The affect on businesses there would be disastrous.

I’m sure anyone living in Dublin would agree.

I agree that it simply couldn’t be allowed to happen if it were an on-street arrangement.

Though I’ve never understood why it could not be built down Grafton Street under the street.
i.e.
Step 1: Dig up 50-100 metres of the street, moving the utilities to the side.
Step 2: Cover over this section so that work on track preparation can continue along this section under the street.
Step 3: repeat step 1 on the next 50-100 metre section of the street;
Step 4: repeat step 2.

Repeat these steps as long as is necessary.

The advantage of this would be that it would give the most direct route – no need for awkward corners at the top and bottom of Dawson Street or conflicts with buses and other traffic in this area. No more than 50-100 metres of Grafton Street need be affected at any one time. However, it would be more expensive.

where would you start the cutting? Harcourt street?
I think it would be a disaster for St Stephens Green & I’m not sure where it would link up with the other line as it is so close to the Liffey.

@LOB wrote:

where would you start the cutting? Harcourt street?
I think it would be a disaster for St Stephens Green & I’m not sure where it would link up with the other line as it is so close to the Liffey.

I don’t think it would be necessary to start cutting as early as Harcourt Street, and if you did have to then the whole idea would be a non-starter (Harcourt Street itself and the Cuffe Street-St. Stephen’s Green South corridor would be finished as a route for private traffic).

So parallel to the current LUAS tracks on the Green is the only option. The road space there is practically unused now that traffic does not/cannot go around the Green along that side. That side of the Green is somewhere between 250 and 300 metres long – plenty long enough to lower the track by 4-5 metres.

There would also be plenty of distance to surface the line before crossing O’Connell Bridge (or even a new bridge across the river).

But I’d agree with you, it would be pretty unsightly in an area as nice as St. Stephen’s Green.

What worries me most about the prefered option is how it copperfastens the much criticised Bus Atha Cliath principle of An Lar`ism or,for the OAP`s ,Pillarism…..
My own pref was for C or the Great George Line.
I look to this in the spirit of trying to offer commuters a tantalising view of another Dublin which presently lies only metre`s from their Bus/Tram and which is crying out for people to come along and repopulate it.
With the present Transport Ministers appearing to be pre-occupied with losing such important things as Road Safety advisers and personal secretary`s (7 in two years.?? Shurely shome mishtake ??) I am reluctant to commit any great confidence to seeing ANY elements of T21 constructed in my lifetime.
I am also concerned at the ease with which all the great and the good are now galloping off to commence new Billion Euro projects whilst leaving the existing ones half finished……
Glass half-full..?………Nah…….It`s half-empty still.

The more you look at the bigger picture on the likes of P11, the more you realise the extent to which all of the above, as has been said, replicate other planned infrastructures – to the degree that unless you are fully in the know about the intricacies of Dublin transport, the city’s needs, the capacities of various modes, and interconnectivity, you really cannot make an informed call on the proposed routes (me included), save what your general preference would be.

Hence it merely seems to me :), that all of these proposals, some of them quite different, and some if not all in one way or another replicating other planned or existing routes, reinforce the notion that this link is only being built for the sake of building a link. It doesn’t seem to matter where it ends up, what route it takes or what it serves along the way – just ‘as along as a link is built’, at an astronimical cost, then all will be well with Luas at last.

Especially regarding Plan B which I voted for on architectural/urban design grounds. If this route is taken it will probably take longer as jimg says than to walk to the Northside. Even with the most direct Plan A, it will probably save you about two/three minutes. So unless the linking of the lines offers real advantages in interconnectivity, the transference of rolling stock, and the opening up of the Northside for Luas extension, there really is not point in doing this.

Morlan I voted for B as it avoids College Green, i.e. saves College Green from wires and poles, as it does with O’Connell Bridge and Street.
Even if the cables have ‘minimal’ impact on College Green as will be spouted, personally I couldn’t care less – cables are cables: wires that will clutter the views of our finest buildings. Admittedly it’s more than a bit ironic objecting to such features on O’Connell Brdge considering it was for these very reasons it was built in the first place, but I firmly believe that had Dublin trams survived 1949, efforts would have been made long ago to rid the city centre of unsightly cables especially College Green.

Likweise having a major platform and all the ancillary crap that goes along with it will destroy Lower O’Connell Street; the very introductory stretch of the thoroughfare that requires the most coherence to establish the nature of the street. And as for the possible cable junction at Abbey Street 😮 – it doesn’t bear thinking about.

Route B avoids these issues, and although cables running by Government Buildings is a price that has to be paid, as is an undesirable additional bridge on the Liffey (even if well-designed), they are not as serious as the clutter that would be generated on our principal city streets – at the very time efforts are being made to declutter Dublin’s streetscapes.

It does not surprise me to see Route A emerging as the favourite from the online poll on grounds of directness, cost, etc. However, as someone who has, from time to time, had the misfortune to traverse the city centre by bus, it strikes me that any alignment involving Dawson St., College Green, etc, will be disastrous for all other modes of transport. Following changes in traffic management over the last number of years, the Nassau St – Suffolk St – College Green route is reserved almost exclusively for buses and taxis, and yet is chronically congested most of the time.

If much of this bottleneck is to be commandeered by a Luas alignment, untold disruption will be caused to every across-town bus service that currently struggles to crawl through. The connection along alignment A represents the best solution for those who are already fortunate enough to live in Ranelagh, Beechwood, Dundrum, etc, and the worst solution for everyone else who does not. The thousands of commuters who travel on 10’s, 11’s and 46’s of various descriptions will indeed be faster walking across town, just so that those lucky enough to zoom in on the Luas can connect with the Red line three or four minutes faster. (I assume no-one will be foolish enough to suggest that all bus commuters can disembark on Stephens Green and squish onto an already crowded tram to complete their journey. To those who suggest the possibility of shared-surface – this simply results in both trams and buses getting stuck in the mother of all traffic jams)

In my own opinion, Route B offers the best all-round solution for Dublin City Centre. It means that the critical stretch of Nassau St & College Green can continue to serve bus-travellers – the interaction occurs on St Stephens Green North, where part of the over-generous footpath could be sacrificed to facilitate all transport modes. Route B acts almost as a mini-inner-orbital, connecting three or four major radial transport routes (Buses 7, 10/46A, Dart, and the Luas itself) and also opens up a part of the city centre currently less accessible by public transport. In the longer run, it may have spin-off benefits of improving the Westland-Row, Pearse St. area, rather than adding another unwanted layer to the congestion around College Green. That this route also meets with aesthetic approval is merely an added bonus.

@paddyinthehouse wrote:

St Stephens Green North, where part of the over-generous footpath.

This is a joke yes? Since when has any pavement in Dublin, let alone on the Green of all places been considered generous?!
If you refer to the paving that encircles the Green, this is the only element left that holds the place together as some form of a square. It cannot be touched.

Good points about congestion]That this route also meets with aesthetic approval is merely an added bonus.[/QUOTE]

– the merely. It’s an important consideration 🙂

I’ve been trying to think up more sensible routes than the one through College Green on http://www.harpingon.blogspot.com

I’d really appreciate comments and suggestions there.

I have heard that the RPA are holding an open day this Friday at the Fitzwilliam Hotel about the Luas link options. RPA Staff will be there to answer questions and take comments. Its on all day as far as I know.
jj

I have heard that the RPA are holding an open day this Friday at the Fitzwilliam Hotel about the Luas link options. RPA Staff will be there to answer questions and take comments. Its on all day as far as I know.
jj

Have you a link there?

I looked briefly, Feargal. First of all your motivating assumption I think is wrong. Westmoreland St. and O’Connell St. are the widest in the city. A two track tram line uses the road width of one and a half traffic lanes. Westmoreland St. has six traffic lanes in parts, so claiming that running a tram line down it would take up all the road space is not even an exageration – at most it would lose 25%. Secondly I don’t agree with your priorities; your objections to the use of various streets seems to be on the basis that the street is required for cars and you propose instead to take entire streets from pedestrians along the Fleet St. axis (these are genuinely narrow streets, you’ll barely have room for a footpath).

I think Luas should go down Grafton Street on its way to O’Connell Street ( 🙂 ) . Is this route up for consideration?! In Amsterdam, trams go down a busy shopping street, Leidsestraat, with no great problems (below). Would help to clear some people off Grafton Street too!! There are always too many people on it! And it’s the shortest, most direct route … no right turns!

Agreed Devin. Its much the same on Zurich’s car-free Bahnhofstrasse, the main shopping street in the city.

Admittedly, its a bit wider than Grafton Street. It would be interesting to get a response to this from the RPA at Friday’s clinic.

It’s just not going to happen, lads.

Have you forgotten about the fuss kicked up over Harcourt St?

We’re allowed to dream….

Anyhow, the fuss over Harcourt St. was the work of one woman seeking publicity for her not wildly successful business. If the RPA need a publicist for possible (but not probable) work on Grafton St., they should hire her.

I don’t have much faith in your average Grafton Street Pedestrian to not get knocked down. Hard enough to walk down the street without idiots not watching where they’re going – there would be a fatality every week.

I was half joking. Of course it would never happen because of the people, even though it would be right in every other way.

@adhoc wrote:

the fuss over Harcourt St. was the work of one woman seeking publicity for her not wildly successful business.

She was so full of crap!!! At one point she said people were going to come out of the nightclubs and fall in front of the trams! :rolleyes: The things we have to go through to get a decent city!!

Surely nothing more than a case of her trying to maximise her compensation for loss of earnings?
While we’re dreaming about Grafton Street- on the poll thread it was suggested in response to my query about using Grafton St that the route could go under rather than along Grafton St, whixh set me thinking- couldn’t Route B go under Trinity and out at Hawkins St? Or even emerge on the north bank and travel up Marlborough St?
I won’t be at the meeting- could someone bring it up on my behalf?;)

Pardon me ctesiphon – when I posted that, I hadn’t yet read the poll thread where you suggested Grafton Street (but for me going underground would defeat the purpose).

My view on routes is that the ‘consultation process’ is a charade and that there was only ever one route; the original 1995 route – now ‘Route A’ … Time will tell, I suppose.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I voted for B as it avoids College Green, i.e. saves College Green from wires and poles, as it does with O’Connell Bridge and Street.
Even if the cables have ‘minimal’ impact on College Green as will be spouted, personally I couldn’t care less – cables are cables: wires that will clutter the views of our finest buildings.

Would you feel this way if the poles & cables could be put underground through this area as has been done in Bordeaux and other places? (I ask this as a strong supporter of ‘Route A’)

@Devin wrote:

I think Luas should go down Grafton Street on its way to O’Connell Street ( 🙂 ) . Is this route up for consideration?! In Amsterdam, trams go down a busy shopping street, Leidsestraat, with no great problems (below). Would help to clear some people off Grafton Street too!! There are always too many people on it! And it’s the shortest, most direct route … no right turns!

While the Leidsestraat appears busy, it’s mainly people going to and from the centre. It is not Amsterdam’s ‘Grafton Street’ which is Kalverstraat and there is no trams going down that street.

To call for busy trams to go down, which is easily Ireland’s busiest pedestrians’ street is by someone who has never been there, either physically or mentally :rolleyes: .

Route A is the original design and was altered by Mary O’Rouke who pathetically caved in to so called experts who represent city centre business, and created the situation we have now. 😡

I am surprised that route B seems to be the favourite. Again it must be by people who have never driven down Pearse Street, using the busiest east southside to east northside route. If the Luas goes down here, where does the traffic go? The East Link? :confused:
Check these out during peak times

@Devin wrote:

Pardon me ctesiphon – when I posted that, I hadn’t yet read the poll thread where you suggested Grafton Street (but for me going underground would defeat the purpose).

No bother.:)
I agree about going underground- and to be honest I wasn’t entirely joking about Grafton Street on the Poll thread either. It’s something that bugs me about this- the most sensible route from a directness point of view is to go down Grafton St- the mess that happens at the top of Steeven’s Lane would be part of my grounds for this. It’s something I also feel about the buses that go past Molly Malone- it makes so little sense for them to go along Suffolk Street and Dame Street when they would be far better going along in front of the Provost’s House.
I understand Graham’s arguments about the visual side of College Green, and your counter-arguments about putting the works underground, and weehamster’s arguments about Pearse Street (though those pictures hardly show it at its worst- not by a long shot!). I just think it’s a pity that there doesn’t seem to be any real debate or imagination from many quarters about real options- like adhoc says, we’re allowed to dream.

But as you say, the route could well be a done deal.

The funny thing is that there aren’t actually that many options when you think about it. Ok, we could have the Green line veer away from the city centre completely (who’d want to travel there anyway :rolleyes: ?) but if you want to offer those on the Green line city centre destinations, then you’re constrained by a limited number of choices of how to cross the Liffey. I actually hate route B because of the new bridge – an extra rail bridge in such close proximity O’Connell bridge doesn’t appeal to me at all. I think that having too many bridges will ruin the linear/arterial feel of having a river running through the centre of town. The loop line is ugly enough; the combination of a new bridge, the loop line, Butt bridge will almost completely hide the river from O’Connell bridge. However, I’m not sure why they didn’t consider routes over Grattan bridge or Butt bridge. The former, in particular, had many supporters in previous discussions about the link up. The latter I guess is part of the most central and important South-to-North traffic artuary in the city. I’m still strongly in favour of the A route but would prefer a route over Grattan bridge than the B route which is longer, slower and more redundant (given that the east end of the city centre is already well served by rail).

I’d be interested in seeing how a poll restricted to actual Luas users would turn out.

Referring to aesthetics:
@Graham Hickey wrote:

It’s an important consideration

So you’d be prepared to sacrifice whatever is left of the view of the river from O’Connell bridge? Do you not think that another rail bridge over the Liffey will (in combination with the bridges already there) in very close proximity to O’Connell bridge will completely destroy the arterial feel of the river. Also the bridge will have to be at a funny angle to join Hawkins st with Marleborough street. In terms of aesthetics, this will have a far more serious impact on the city centre than some overhead wires and poles. Seriously, how much do the crossing wires already on O’Connell St. hurt the aesthetics of the street? Hardly at all would be my opinion.

@weehamster wrote:

Route A is the original design and was altered by Mary O’Rouke who pathetically caved in to so called experts who represent city centre business, and created the situation we have now.

Yes indeed. It would be interesting to canvass her now, as a mere senator, over which of options A-E she favours. Or if she has any other bright ideas to throw into the mix.

@jimg wrote:

I’d be interested in seeing how a poll restricted to actual Luas users would turn out.

I think the opinions of those who don’t currently use it would be at least as important- which route would be the most likely to attract them, etc. But agreed- separation of opinion would be important (if that’s the point you’re making?:) )
I rarely use it, but its route still has an impact on how I navigate town and around, not least the problem of getting tyres stuck in the rails. (But there’s another thread for that debate. ;))

I guess you’d have a lot of the Green Line users finding a direct link to Pearse quite an attractive proposal.
Red Line users might opt for the quickest direct link to locations on the Green Line (Line A).

Perhaps the RPA should carry out a survey on Luas passengers.

A all the way. If we try to get the link-up to do too many things and serve too many places it will be a joke. We know a stretch of line is to go from the city centre to Broombride via Broadstone under T21, so let the green line run Sandyford (Cherrywood) – Broombridge (where interchange with Maynooth-Bray DART will be possible) via Route A and a continuation straight up O’Connell St. Under T21 the interconnector at Stephen’s Green will make many of the reasons for running this line via Pearse redundant, so we’ve got to view everyhing in context of T21 and beyond and not try to do to much with one mode.

Murphaph, can you explain how you run two tram lines into each other at right angles? Because for all the world this so-called connection between the two lines seems physically impossible to me, not least for reasons of capacity. Please someone explain this for me because I can not get my head around it?

Accidentally posted twice. Apologies.

jimg I could not agree more with you about the bridge, it’s a horrible idea. Indeed I ranted on about a proposed mere pedestrian bridge at this location on another thread; as you say yet another bridge squeezed in here would destroy how the Liffey interacts with the city, and the basic rhythm of bridges spaced every few hundred metres spanning the river. And especially coupled with the Loop line behind/overhead.

I think you’re perhaps skewing things a bit mentioning cables on O’Connell St 🙂 – it is College Green that is by far my main concern. Indeed just walking along it today I was plotting where the cables would go and it’s even worse than I previously thought, especially the notion of cables stretching by the House of Lords portico on College St – really terrible.

Likewise on the Green itself, the poles and cables will be plonked right in the middle of the view of the Bank of Ireland from Grafton St, and of course Trinity’s West Front when viewed from the Green, Dame St and the approach from Westmoreland St.
There’s no option here, the cables will have to be erected right out in the middle of the Green, and supported by poles. What makes the College Green cabling so much worse is the fact it’s on a bend – hence it doubles back on itself, intensifying and densifying the clutter suspended in the air.

And they’ll crudely pass right by Gandon’s & Johnston’s magnificent screen wall, completely clashing with the graceful curve that it is, and no doubt attach themselves to it too, then around to College St cutting right across the whole Lords facade and portico, and onwards to Westmoreland St. Here they’ll neatly invade on one of the most impressive views in the entire city – the approach to O’Connell St. Then they’ll reach out into the middle of the bridge suspended on naff silver posts as per St. Stephen’s Green, then they’ll split and encircle O’Connell Monument! And again, as for the cable junction at Abbey St, goodness knows what it may end up like.

I’m not one bit opposed to the route, it is logical: the shortest, the quickest, the neatest – on a map.
The potential impact on the historic core of the city is quite another matter. By all accounts it may not be as invasive as I imagine, but some renderings wouldn’t go amiss in light of the highly sensitive locations this route is passing through.

If the cables could be ditched, and the platform placed on O’Connell Bridge rather than the street, I’d be all for it. But neither of these will happen, especially the former which would appear to be a technical impossibility given the location of the rolling stock’s electrical infrastructure, which seems to be on top.

I agree about the potential of more western routes like Butt Bidge – just it doesn’t seem to be central enough for the RPA.
I saw what seemed to be them measuring up O’Connell Bridge just before the routes were announced 🙁

@kefu wrote:

Murphaph, can you explain how you run two tram lines into each other at right angles? Because for all the world this so-called connection between the two lines seems physically impossible to me, not least for reasons of capacity. Please someone explain this for me because I can not get my head around it?

The groove at the intersecting point is very small so there’s no risk of derailment.

Route A just won’t work unless all the buses are pushed east and west. The problem is that the tram does not have the capacity to service this route by itself. Anyone coming into town on the 46A and hoping to change to the tram would be sorely disapointed. Also it duplicates any future underground metro.

Although there is much critisism of route B i don’t think it is fair. Consider. whichever route is picked westland row is going to be reserved for buses or trams. Cars will be diverted completely away from dawson street kildare street nassau and westland row. Route B has the least impact on buses because all the bus routes will CROSS the tram line , not run alongside it.

Pearse street is set for a radical change anyway and having the tram run along it would allow it to be a new shopping street which dublin really needs.
It connects with the Dart.

The new bridge is a bad bad idea. but running the tram line along D’Olier street is a good idea, since the Irish Times is relocating. D’Olier street could also see a new lease of life.

Keeping O’Connell street uncluttered is a point well made but the tram could turn left or right onto Abbey Street.

Route B finally ends the Trinity Effect where everything to the east of the College is dead by comparison with College Green.

The tram can’t service route A properly so why not do something different ? Route B really is very very good , EXCEPT that ugly extra bridge.

Thanks Morlan, that explains it.
I still think there are serious question marks as regards capacity.
I don’t believe the Tallaght line can currently handle a single extra tram considering they are often left queueing for up to ten minutes at Busarus and Abbey Street but I’m sure the RPA have this all in hand.

@weehamster wrote:

To call for busy trams to go down, which is easily Ireland’s busiest pedestrians’ street is by someone who has never been there, either physically or mentally :rolleyes: .

If you re-read the post, you’ll note from all the exclamation marks that the suggestion of Luas going down Grafton Street is made in JEST! (Of course it would never happen!)

@weehamster wrote:

While the Leidsestraat appears busy, it’s mainly people going to and from the centre. It is not Amsterdam’s ‘Grafton Street’ which is Kalverstraat and there is no trams going down that street.

Leidsestraat may not be quite as busy as Kalverstraat, but it is primarily a shopping street (rather than “mainly people going to and from the centre”).
Kalverstraat is too narrow to take trams anyway, even if it weren’t a busy shopping street.

The discussion on routes is now starting to become split between here and ‘Luas Central Corridor’.

I agree with what murphaph said on ‘Luas Central Corridor’, that Route B would seem to be trying to do ‘too many things’. To be heading straight for the centre of town (as the Green line does), then suddenly making a detour way off east, only to come back to the centre again just doesn’t have the ring of sensible transport planning about it.

In discussing Dublin’s public transport plans, there are seemingly endless influencing factors to be taken into account in how it is all going to best knit together, and it is easy to get bogged down in conjecture. But I strongly feel it’s better to build this light rail route as originally planned (Route A). Some, not all, of the buses will have to be redistributed east and west.

I don’t know if you are aware, but on Leidsestraat there is only a single track. The trams (narrower than LUAS) wait their turns on the bridges where the stops are also situated. On another note: doesn’t the street have an over abundance of tacky signage.

ed Images

No I strongly reassert that route A requires moving the buses out of the way , otherwise it will be messy for both tram and bus.

Route B might be the longest but in terms of speed will not be far behind route A as the roads it uses are nice and straight.

The improvement to the whole city center east of trinity cannot be understated. I feel that the point has to be repeated: it will tie in the whole pearse street area back into the city. And the City is in dire need of more retail space.

Just as pedestrianising Grafton Street allowed it to become the focus for Shopping on the southside, route B will allow east of trinity to become a destination in itself.

It might sound dirigiste but you should use transport infrastructure to send people where you want to send them not where they want to go! the M50 is a case in point of building roads where people want to go. Route B allows for MORE people to go to more places than before, and that is the crux of my point.:)

Ah, I know. I took the photo (in case you thought I got it off the internet).
Signage wise, yes, both Leidsestraat and Kalverstraat have been let go. And Damrak, the introduction to the city after you come out of the train station, is terrible! We think we’ve got problems with the tone of O’Connell Street!! :rolleyes: … Still, the vast majority of the city is immaculate 🙂 .

The discussion on routes is now starting to become split between here and ‘Luas Central Corridor’.

Yes I agree. I will move to the other thread for further discussion.

By the way, one thing I noticed was that the three online polls on this subject (here, boards.ie and platform11 before it went belly up) had the same curious pattern of voting; the ‘A’ option led ‘B’ for a week or so initially until a sudden surge in votes for B put it ahead. I know internet polls are just a bit of fun but does anyone else find this a little bit odd?

Yes, strange alright. Then again, as has happened with other polls, the more something is discussed the more things seem to change, Dublin Bridges a case in point….

The maps are here though, so maybe they could be brought over to the other thread too?
Went along to the ‘Open Day’ today – very informative and pleasant, though what exactly the purpose of it was is anyone’s guess: it’s not as if the RPA reps were being swayed by what anyone was saying as far as I could make out….

But they were very helpful – a number of interesting things arose. If Route B goes ahead as planned, Foleys pub on the corner of Merrion Row and Merrion St will have to be demolished – the trams won’t make the bend otherwise. A great pity, as it’s a lovely stock brick Georgian building, albeit stuffed with PVC, while irritatingly the poor pastiche Georgians next door aren’t affected!

If the George’s St route goes ahead, the very substantial Georgian, perhaps Wide Streets Commission building on the corner of George’s St and Dame St will have to be demolished or partly demolished, as the trams won’t make this corner either. Saying that, I fail to see how they can make the Dawson/Nassau bend and not this broad spacious one! Perhaps it’s to keep the existing traffic lanes free.

Ger Hannon was particularly annoyed over the myth that was started in the Irish Times about the Trinity wall – it, nor the Provost’s carriage block, will have to be touched in any way, shape or form should Route A be chosen. There is also no issue about Luas turning this corner, not the Dawson bend – it fits fine :). Did Garret ever ‘clarify’ this matter?

The OPW paving on St. Stephen’s Green north would not be affected either, or if it is during construction will be reinstated. As most people know the current terminus on the Green is going be enlarged, but after the Christmas rush.

As for the Tara St/Butt Bridge option, another rep came across as rather vague on this – seemingly a mixture of the route being too congested, and it being too far from O’Connell St being the problem. But another rep by contrast said they’d like to get it as close to Connolly as possible to integrate the various rail modes, but proximity to the city centre would seem to be a priority…
On this route, the traffic congestion argument seems void to me as if the Luas is already coming up Pearse St, traffic volumes are already limited. So whatever limited traffic there is on Pearse St is going to be flowing onto Tara St also; Tara St doesn’t get most of its traffic from anywhere else.

In terms of which is the favoured route, it was funny, constantly all the reps were trotting out the same thing – ‘oh there’s no favoured route, that’s why we’re having this consultation’ – over and over again.
Yeah right 🙂

Even on what was the most popular route thus far amongst the public coming in, it was a bit vague – though judging by the clusters constantly around A and B, I think that says it all.
One rep (not mentioning names :)) really disliked the Pearse St/Route B option, almost to the point of him finding it difficult to imagine the traffic implications could ever be dealt with on Pearse St, while another rep liked this route as it affords the regeneration of Marlborough St into the future with a Luas extension north, as well as improving Pearse St itself, and Hawkins St. They were both coy in there avoidance of mentioning favourites.

As for cables etc, kinda went on a bit of rant at them :o, and got two different answers. One was of the ‘huh huh, well with digital photography nowadays we can just airbrush them out’ variety, along with ‘well O’Connell St with ah the Pillar, was a hub in the city in the days of yore, sure a platform in the middle will be just like the olden days’. Indeed when it was put to him about the cluuter behind O’Connell Monument, he even said that it mightn’t even go there – it ‘could go up near the Spire like it used to’ – pointing to the Plaza!! 😮
‘Sure it’ll all have to be dug up anyway’ – while another man there suggested there would be public support for this, which I’d question….

Ger Hannon seemed more conscious of the effect on the city centre, which is why the deviation off down College St was included as a proposal in Route D – it maintains the two roadways of O’Connell St and generally doesn’t interfere with the street, especially if a Luas extension north happens as planned in Transport 21 – Marlborough St would get it instead. The usual old Harcourt Street case was brought out as an example of cables working well in a sensitive area, but at least it was acknowledged that College Green is very different upon it being pointed out. It was noted that cables nowadays are not like the ‘knitting pattern’ or something of old….

On the crucial issue of whether the central corridor will actually link with the Red Line, believe it or not this is by no means set in stone. It’s still up in the air! ‘It’s being looked at.’ The rep speaking said they’ll either put a right angles terminus here, or curve them to join with the Red Line – but both were given equal weight on the few times it was mentioned. Very very surprising.

Try ploughing a tram through this lot – oh the joys of Town on December 8th…

NEVER AGAIN

I’m trying to switch the Luas discussion back here from the poll discussion as it’s becoming fragmented.
@Graham Hickey wrote:

jimg I could not agree more with you about the bridge, it’s a horrible idea.

Graham, given that you voted B, are you saying that the poles and wires would cause more aethetic damage than rail bridge running at 65 degrees across the river east of O’Connell bridge? Such a bridge would be a permanent blot, like the loop line bridge while poles and wires have come and gone on the streets of Dublin.

It might sound dirigiste but you should use transport infrastructure to send people where you want to send them not where they want to go!

I disagree very strongly. If the government are spending money on any infrastructure, then it should maximise utility. Transport infrastructure has utility by allowing people to get to where they want to go. As for the idea that the Luas will transform Pearse street/Westland row into shopping streets, that’s a fantasy. The reason Pearse St/Wesland row are the way they are is because the buildings are owned and used by Trinity; running the Luas around them will do nothing to change this. And if you did change this, the nearby presence the Luas would be irrelevent. The Luas has hardly “regenerated” Abbey St. as a shopping destination, did it? It’s the same as it ever was – as are Harcourt St. and the other streets the Luas currently passes through.

Luas actually is regenerating that part of town. Arnotts is expanding into Independent House and will face the street properly instead of having it as a back entrance.
Capel Street has seen very significant change and buildings that were derelict there for years are now being redeveloped.
I wouldn’t want to suggest that any noteworthy development has happened yet but there is a very visible Luas effect that will not be fully apparent for five to six years.

Likewise further west along the Red Line is improving hugely, or is about to, though admittedly how much of this is directly attributable to Luas is questionable alright.

It is difficult to compare the impact of a bridge and that of cables as you’re not comparing like with like, but on a personal level yes I’d view the impact of a new bridge as relatively less damaging than cables and poles on the proposed A route. If the Loop Line bridge wasn’t there, it’d be a very tough call as obviously the poles and cables of the new bridge would fall right in view of the Custom House. But that view is destroyed now, and clearly we’re never going to get it back, even with a redesigned model which seems in itself a non-runner.
That view is lost forever. And as much as I love this section of the Liffey, almost like a pool of water captured between O’Connell and Butt bridges, it’s not as if its virgin territory in terms of inappropriate development, or is one of the city’s scenic jewels. College Green most certainly is, as is the College Street area.

Again I’d say if a telecoms company proposed suspending such cables on poles through the city centre, there would be absolute uproar from all sectors, fuming over the impact on what is one of the finest buildings in Europe of the 18th century. Trinity’s ‘streetscape’-like facade could probably take it a little better, but certainly not the Bank of Ireland, the set-piece that it is.

Also, none of this is being thought of in terms of a refurbished College Green – think, the trees will not be there anymore, much of the signage clutter and appalling lampposts will go also. Instead of being left with Grattan and his lamps in the centre, beautifully framing the newly exposed BoI and Trinity, we’ll also have cables and poles all about the space, and more exposed than they would be as the Green currently stands.

Perhaps I’m thinking of this in an overly photographic/picturesque fashion, but on the other hand none of this has been given the slightest consideration by the looks of things. At the open day it was patently obvious the architectural impact of Route A simply wasn’t on the radar, and the fact it probably has Frank McDonald’s support puts the icing on the cake. One suspects he is the barometer by which a lot of political heads base their actions nowadays (otherwise for the better).
The ‘Harcourt Street Case’ is not remotely comparable to College Green, it cannot be used as a cogent argument for the acceptability of such features.

And how will these strutures be passed in terms of legislation – surely telecoms cables would not be permitted as negatively impacting elements on the setting of major protected structures, but Luas would?
The arguement could me made that other European cities put up with cables and poles passing significant buildings, well I think these look awful too – some of the street scenes in Devin’s Amsterdam images alone look so very ugly as a result of tram cables. It’s not something we should have to ‘put up with’.

In 2005, it’s a disappointingly retrogade step to be erecting cables cables through the historic city centre.
The fact that nobody in planning seems to care, or at least publically discuss the matter to put minds at rest is even more so.

And just to clarify jimg, your post gives the impression I said that about public transport going where authorities want it to go – it’s someone else’s…

Just a quick couple of points,

A version of the Citadis tram (the one we use) can run without overhead cables, instead relying on a conducting track running between the rails, underneath the vehicle. It is constructed in short sections that only energise when a tram is covering them, meaning they are quite safe to step on otherwise! I think Lyon uses this system in it’s visually important areas and then the trams switch to overhead supply in other places.

Personally I like tram wires, but I’m odd like that and I don’t feel that College Green should be preserved like a huge outdoor museum piece, the tram returning to Dublin is living history so I don’t feel it’s a bad thing to erect what are pretty thin cables overhead, they can of course be strung from supporting wires, attached to buildings such as Trinity and the BoI, eliminating the need for poles, but then again-we have umpteen poles in the form of lampstandards there already, so what’s the difference-the tram poles in the old days used to support the street lights too, maybe if poles are used they could be dual purposed like the original system.

I think an area like College Green will actually benefit from the trams running through.

I’d have to agree. A cheapo bridge arseways across the Liffey or a few wires across College Gr.. hmm.

You can forget about powering Luas via the tracks, it’s too expensive. A few cables across College Gr. really wouldn’t be that noticable. Those trees and other clutter will be removed over the next 4 years with the rejuvination plan.

Trams should return to College Green where they rightfully belong.

Who says it has to be a “cheapo bridge arseways across the Liffey”, surely they can come up with a decent design solution. Abbey / Marlborough is the logical place for the lines to connect.

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

Who says it has to be a “cheapo bridge arseways across the Liffey”, surely they can come up with a decent design solution. Abbey / Marlborough is the logical place for the lines to connect.

Its arse ways because Hawkins Street and Marlborough Street don’t line up. However I’m not sure about the cheapo bit. No matter how crap it may look, it will be expensive. That is certain. 😉

Look people. O’Connell Bridge was designed so it can handle trams, which is why it’s so wide. Don’t start to overcomplicate things. Stick to route A, the original design, straight forward and cheapest option. And don’t forget, under the transport 21 plan, the line will continue up O’Connell Street heading to Liffey Jtn.

Sorry about that Graham. I often don’t attribute my quotes at all – I did in that case because I wanted to address a particular question to you.

If you get your wish and the B route is chosen, you will end up with the worst of both worlds – an angled bridge ruining the “water space” between O’Connell bridge and Butt bridge AND poles and wires on college green a few years later when the Lucan Luas gets built (coming down Dame St.)

I don’t think they will go for the insulated third rail system initially for financial reasons (as Morlan points out) but at least you’d have the option of installing such a system in the future (when the 2025 IAP for College Green is proposed). The bridge will be there forever.

Some very valid points there. Changed your mind yet Graham? 😀

@jimg wrote:

If you get your wish and the B route is chosen, you will end up with the worst of both worlds – an angled bridge ruining the “water space” between O’Connell bridge and Butt bridge AND poles and wires on college green a few years later when the Lucan Luas gets built (coming down Dame St.)

I wouldn’t be sure that the bridge itself would need to be at an angle. Hawkins Street and Marlborough Street are not offset by much. I’d think the angle could be removed as the trams cross Burgh Quay, i.e. if the trams were to cross Burgh Quay at an angle, leaving a straight run across the bridge. (Though I might need to borrow Garret’s measuring tape to prove that:) )

the offset is fairly insignificant & could be easily resolved by a slight turning of the tram on burgh quay & coming on to the bridge itself ….

I don’t understand why you lot are trying to justify the building of a new bridge when there’s ample space on O’Connell Bridge already. Route B just seems like a complete waste of cash to be honest.

I’m fairly confident that route A will get the go ahead anyway.

Entirely separate from the Luas ‘Route B’ plan, a new Liffey pedestrian bridge in this location was proposed in the 1998 O’Connell Street IAP. I think putting any kind of a bridge there – for Luas or for pedestrians – is a load of cack. Just because there are streets lining up (approximately) on each side does not mean you have to put a bridge there. I’m all for ‘connectivity’ but it can be taken too far. Too much damage has already been done over the past 30 years with putting bridges in the wrong place on the Liffey (a major bugbear of mine 😡 ).

On the Route Poll thread (https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4474&page=2), ‘a boyle’ says that Route B will allow the Pearse Street/Westland Row area to become a shopping destination – I wouldn’t have thought these streets, made up of 18th & 19th century commercial and private buildings, were that suitable for this. Somewhere like Westland Row I think fulfils its purpose very well as it is.

If you live on the southern leg of the dart, I suppose having the Luas Green line come to Westland Row station is attractive … you’d be able to get for example from Sandymount to Dundrum without bearing the full brunt of the city centre.

But really, why should the eastern rail corridor be connected up to both Luas lines in two different places in the city centre? I just think Route B is daft!

The Lucan Luas and/or the George’s St link will prove disasterous for views of the BoI – next time you’re in town, stand outside Habitat, look across and weep at the notion of wires cutting across that magnificent building – there’s little worse one could do to it if they tried.
Cables would not be permitted in front of the Custom House you may be gauranteed, yet a building of equal significance that is affected even more so with its splendid vertical proportions, is simply disregarded.
You cannot have horizontal black cables crossing a crisp white building composed of sweeping columns – you just can’t.

I really don’t understand this, how the city centre wasn’t considered at the very beginning – you can bet anything were cables to have been finally removed in say the early 1990s from an antiquated tram system, they would have featured prominently in F Mc D’s positive splurge at the beginning of the Construction of Dublin, describing it as one of the major contributing factors in the improving the city centre in the boom years – ‘opening up views’ of the Bank of Ireland for the first time in 100 years, ‘decluttering’ the city centre, ‘cleaning up’ the space after decades of neglect.

Really – sorry but I value the spaciousness and ‘clean’ views in our city centre – it is such a retrograde, backwards step to take, using the antiquated technology of suspended wires above our streets in 2005 in such sensitive areas.

It’s not just about views of significant buildings, but also the overall clutter generated which we could more than do without. Morlan’s picture up there is helpful to a degree, but does not show the view from the ground where wires tend to ‘pile up’ in one’s field of vision.

Okay it’s not the end of the world to have cables, Trinity isn’t going to self-combust, and the everyone just might be able to get over the shock horror of it all ;), but it’s a sad move 🙁

I have not heard any mention of Anglesea Street and Fleet Street being used in the link-up. Could these streets be a partial solution to Graham’s problem?

Perhaps I am so addled by the thought of traffic being removed from College Green (for Luas) that I can’t yet contemplate what wires running in front of the buildings would look like. The buildings and the space can’t be enjoyed at the moment; it is a dirty, noisy, hostile area where it is best to keep moving. The gain of Luas going through seems immense.

@murphaph wrote:

A version of the Citadis tram (the one we use) can run without overhead cables, instead relying on a conducting track running between the rails, underneath the vehicle. It is constructed in short sections that only energise when a tram is covering them, meaning they are quite safe to step on otherwise! I think Lyon uses this system in it’s visually important areas and then the trams switch to overhead supply in other places.

This is interesting. Luas running without overhead wires doesn’t seem so far-fetched if the same type of tram does so elsewhere. I don’t see why it is so unlikely to happen, as a few people have said.

I think we need to remember that a city is a living breathing thing and therefore a degree of compromise wrt ‘views’ and so on will always be necessary. The live wires and associated supported wires on the Luas are a lot less intrusive than many older installations in other European cities.

When you’re standing looking at a feature building your brain can disregard things like wires, they can’t be seen in the same light as say the loop line bridge which really does obstruct views.

Personally I can’t wait for trams across O’Connell Bridge and up the street and I don’t consider myself an arcitectural heathen or anything 🙂 Get the cars out of the city centre north-south axis and you’re in business for a very pedestrian fiendly city core.

@Devin wrote:

This is interesting. Luas running without overhead wires doesn’t seem so far-fetched if the same type of tram does so elsewhere. I don’t see why it is so unlikely to happen, as a few people have said.

Edinburgh is in the process of getting a Luas like system. The use of the third rail system has recently been ruled out there on grounds of cost and lack of reliability. The only city to use the system to date has been Bordeaux where its had problems.

Theres some new alternatives such as dynamos and batteries which can allow short sections to operate without overheads but these are relatively untested so I can’t see them being considered..

Personally I think the overall improvement in the street that will ensue will more than make up for the visual impact of the cables.

JJ

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Cables would not be permitted in front of the Custom House you may be gauranteed, yet a building of equal significance that is affected even more so with its splendid vertical proportions, is simply disregarded.
You cannot have horizontal black cables crossing a crisp white building composed of sweeping columns – you just can’t.

I just don’t think it will be as bad as you say, Graham.

Have a look at these pictures of the Parliament building in Melbourne. Might give you an idea of how it would look in College Gr.

Good example Morlan. Only that photographs are not the best for picking out detail, and either way that scene is still ugly to me have to say, ugly and messy.
Agreed, they do not impair one’s enjoyment of the building, but equally they certainly don’t contribute to it either.

And in Australia, as in the US, there is something of a colonial culture of hanging cables about the place, even in urban areas, for transport, telecommunications and electricity.

Were London, for whatever bizarre reason to introduce such a system to their city, I can’t imagine them going for a suspended cable system in the centre, where there just isn’t such a culture. Could be completely wrong on that, and of course Manchester has a cabled system, but I cannot see it being used in the heart of London where such pride is taken in their streetscapes and furnishings.

And yes, most people couldn’t care less about what system is used, and it is highly subjective. Just very simply I don’t like cable systems on city streets. Some people find them charming, and European and cosmopolitan and all the rest of it – I don’t….
Sorry!

I dare you to advocate cables in front of her face – look at her there, shivering in the corner. How could you be so cruel to such a defenceless creature?

🙂

Poor little shivering, defenceless lamb 🙁

Right lads, bring on the cables! 😀

College Green is my favourite part of Dublin, a beautiful spot of the city. However, we have to move forward with our public transport system. It so happens that College Green is one of the most important arteries through the city. Trams through here are meant ot be as it’s the most logical route for pubic transport. Private fehicles will inevitable be banned from this area anyway.

Graham, do you admit to the fact that trams will HAVE to come through here at some stage over the next decade? It’s going to happen whether you like it or not. With that in mind, route A is the most logical route to connect line A & B.

Poor lamb.

The battle of the College Green cables, eh? I see the picture shows that the army are already in place to keep the peace…

Didn’t know what your were on about there. On closer inpection.. well spotted 😮

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I dare you to advocate cables in front of her face – look at her there, shivering in the corner. How could you be so cruel to such a defenceless creature?

🙂

Plenty of cluttter there already!

@anto wrote:

Plenty of cluttter there already!

those damn panters are everywhere.. i purpose burning the lot of tehm them are hideous and spoil the views of the BOI and other magnificent buildings

@aj wrote:

those damn panters are everywhere.. i purpose burning the lot of tehm them are hideous and spoil the views of the BOI and other magnificent buildings

planters

Indeed, which highlights even more the need for less clutter in this hugely significant area. College Green over the next 10 years is going to be transformed beyond recognition in a fashion similar to O’Connell Street, which 1. makes it all the more disappointing that cables and poles are going to pass through this space, and 2. will make these additions so much more intrusive than they would be in the current haphazard streetscape.

As for ‘admitting’ to public transport having to pass through College Green eventually – what would I know about the transport needs of the city? By all accounts there may be a relative need to pass through College Green – all I’m saying is that the cable element simply hasn’t entered the radar of public disussion on Luas.
It reflects for me Irish people’s typical disregard for the built environment – the fact that a powered rail system doesn’t seem to have been given adequate consideration for use on the exceedingly short, not to mention virtually flat stretch of Dublin’s principal streets and arguably its finest public space in the form of College Green.

In Bordeaux the French went out of their way to develop their system, not just copy it from elsewhere.
Similarly a no-wires policy has operated for the best part of a century in Washington, Manhattan Island, and even London originally, purely for environmental reasons; with some of the systems as with Bordeaux adopting cables once outside principal areas.

And it’s a cop-out to say that Dublin is not an historic gem as other European cities, or that trying to eliminate cables is attempting to ‘preserve’ the city as a ‘museum’. For basic modern-day environmental/aesthetic reasons it ought to be seriously looked at. If nothing else, large floats will now have to be banned full stop from the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade.

We could be leaders in developing alternative energy sources for LRT if the will was there, but it isn’t.
Which is no surprise.

Wow! A and B are now neck and neck. This is more exciting than the Grand National.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I dare you to advocate cables in front of her face – look at her there, shivering in the corner. How could you be so cruel to such a defenceless creature?

🙂

The magic of Photoshop!

Are there images here or is it just me that can’t see them?

And what’s this I’ve been hearing Morlan about comments on a certain other thread?

@Morlan wrote:

As for BOI, what the hell are they feeding those flower boxes?!
We don’t need flower boxes here. Remove them, that motorbike, and any other unnecessary ‘things’ from obstructing the fine view of the building.

ahem…

🙂

I reattached the images.

A solution to your concerns 🙂

Wow, how do you always manage to do that?!! Especially around the dome – extraordinary.
I see you ditched the floodlighting pole for good measure 🙂

A and B are still neck and neck up there. The ‘closely guarded’ shortlisted two routes are due to be announced in a matter of weeks now :rolleyes:

It’s not my work but it’s pretty easy to do with the clone tool in PS.

You might want to get practising 😀

Looks good without. The carparking is quite cluttering as well.

1. I agree that trams on College Green would be awful. Look how grand and elegant it looked in that old circa Victorian photograph. And look at it now. How were those trees and that statue ever permitted? The Parliament building almost looks small due to all the clutter and traffic and foliage. Therefore it’s already awful: if trams mean the removal of the aforesaid we’ll neither be better or worse off aestethically but we’ll have the ‘vital’ link for the two lines- and who’s to say technology won’t solve the wire-problem within a decade?

2. That was said assuming the vitalness of the Luas link: In fact I just don’t see the essentialness of the link. According to T21 there will be a Metro train leaving from St. Green (leaving and therefore not full of passengers) and going directly to O’Connell street under ground. Have people just forgotten this? Or is the cause of the furore the fact that those hard done-by green liners would have to suffer the indignity of changing twice to get on the red line? That could hardly be: to get anywhere considerable in London chances are you’ll have to change at least once and that change will most likely involve lengthy subway walks and escalators- which wouldn’t be the case in Dublin. (Being a green line user myself the walk from the Green to my destination even if it was as far as the red line could only be described as the minimum required daily exercise.)

3. How many people desire to use a combination of the green line and the red line westwards? It could only be people from at most ranelagh to at most heuston- anyone beyond that would surely take the hypotenuse- is that so many people to force a 5min walk on-scratch that- a change on the metro? Therefore my opinion : Run the green line east to Pearse and continue it on to connolly while you’re at it, going under the loop -line bridge.

@jimg wrote:

The reason Pearse St/Wesland row are the way they are is because the buildings are owned and used by Trinity]

@Devin wrote:

Pearse Street/Westland Row area to become a shopping destination – I wouldn’t have thought these streets … were that suitable for this.

In fact no, not correct. Arnootts have opened an new shop on abbey street, and they are trying to buy a whole chunk of the street so they can expand and open on to it. In fact i do believe i heard a director of arnotts on newstalk or todayfm saying that they were changing there entire strategy to open onto abbey street since it now so many people come to arnotts from the luas. This will take time but it will and is happening.

At harcourt street starbucks and another coffee shop have opened. And the old restored shop across from the spar(harcourt road/upper candem street) has some health food store as tenants. There is now a whole series a little business between the luas stop and upper candem street. And it’s not finished: there is a dead site which will be redeveloped.

Westland row is not suitable for shops , i did not say it was. Pearse street is perfect however. Trinity have applied to turn their tranch of the road back into shops and the irish times is moving. So the whole length of pearse street and d’olier street is ripe for redevelopment.

This is what the wide street commisioners wanted. just look at a map the whole city is centred around the westmorland/do’lier street triange. There are two shopping district comming off this triangle ( o’connell street/henry street AND Dame/Georges/Grafton street. ) Pearse street is wide and grand . it deserves nice shops on it ( and dublin doesn’t have enough shops in it : thats why rents are so high on grafton street)

This routing B is fantastic ( as long as it uses oconnell bridge). People can move from dart/red/green lines by changing once. This is good, very good. The land between Pearse street and the liffey could be completely redeveloped ( it’s dead at the minute ) Consider the redevelopment of smithfeild.

To the gentleman who disagrees with dirigism: consider dundrum or smithfield . No one wanted to go there , but they built lot’s of appartments lots of shops and a luas line. Now dundrum is buzzing with life which is good . and smithfield will be soon. the whole quandrant between pearse street , the liffey , d’olier street and the grand canal redevelopment could be a new district of the city.

So A just reinforces the current traffic problem of funnelling everyone down dawson street. It looks horrid at college green (Remember that the City Council want to remove all traffic from college green eventually) .

B regenerates a dead part of the city. It allows much easier changes from green to dart . It won’t actually be much slower than A. That’s because the A route crosses so many very very busy pedestrians junctions. It continues to support and expand the vision of the wide streets commision. What more do you want ?

OH WAIT the new bridge idea IS bad. Anyone who has looked at Yes Minister will know that route B was thought up by someone with vision. Then someone with politics realised it was little too good. So change the route from d’olier street/o’connell bridge to a new bridge, and then everyone will be so hung up on the bridge they won’t give it any real thought.

That what these choices are: everything except A is just a decoy to make you feel like there is a choice.

Do i have any support ?

I was half listening to Morning Ireland this morning and I think I heard on an ad that there is a discussion on route options tomorrow in Dublin City Council. Not sure of the details, but it’s open to the public and on for most of the day afaik.

yeah the RPA are running ads on the radio too … think this is the second public consultation, so does that mean they’ve narrowed down the routes at this stage ?

I am delighted to see that so far Route B is the favourite in the poll. The potenial of this option leaped off the map pages of the RPA brouchure when I first saw it. The intergration with Pearse has fantastic potential and it penetrates into a region of the city which needs Luas and which has a sizable residential population with huge commerical and tourist traffic.

I am a huge fan of Luas and considering that the system (which is unconnected – cheers Mary O’Rouke and petty shopkeepers) is still carrying a staggering 22 million passengers a year is truly remarkable. Even more considering that the Red Line trams are only 30M long thus far and there is a 20% spare capcity on them which just requires adding 10M sections.

I would like to see Option B with the Green Line 40M trams running via Pearse to Hueston. This will create a secondary surface Intconnector for local rail traffic between the Stephens Green and Hueston with the DART underground Interconnector handling the express rail between these two points below ground.

I really do hope this option gets selected – if not then option A, but man it would be shame not to have it serve Pearse. This would make Pearse a more important station and perhaps take some capacity off the loop line by having Goery/Rosslare trains terminate in Pearse (in the unused bay platform) rather than Connolly and free up space on the Loop Line for more DART.

We really are heading for a fantastic rail based transport system for Dublin if we follow though with Transport21.

B is a loo-lah route! I’m leaving Dublin if B gets picked (or anything other than A for that matter).

Luas lines link-up most likely via College Green
The Irish Times

Shorter, more direct routes via College Green are emerging as the preferred options for connecting the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines in Dublin city centre, rather than a longer route via Merrion Square. On the second and final “open day” for public consultation on the options, the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) made it clear yesterday that there would be “no impact” on the railings of Trinity College, even if a route via Nassau Street was chosen.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0216/127390515HM3LUAS.html

well I’m leaving if A gets picked !

And I’m leaving if they don’t match the Luas funding, euro for euro, with funding for cycling. So I’ll be off then.

Quick point on the public consultation- even if you missed the consultation meeting, the closing date for submissions to the RPA is 17th March, either by email to info@rpa.ie or by post to Parkgate Street.

so “City Population set to decrease whichever route is chosen” it is then:p

yep, can just see the headline in the herald now 🙂

Well I am leaving Ireland if they start working on reopening the most rural and unviable part of the Western Rail Corridor before any of the Dublin projects in Transport21…

I’ll send you all a postcard.

How dare they consider contradicting the conclusion of an archeire poll

Anyone get in to the open day? It was quite well attended. However…

What struck me most was what a complete sham it was. Option A has alreday been chosen..the RPA guy more or less admitted it. The others are just ‘options’ for people to look at: ‘You have to have options’. However the options range from daft (E – whats the point), to completely unfeasable (C – all those narrow windy streets, archeaology, protected structures needing knocking, etc) to more feasible options (A & D) and a good if overlong B.

I have a couple of points:
As a planning exercise this consulation fails. The Line BX (in RPA-speak) is meant to continue on to meet the Maynooth line under T21. However none of the maps even indicated a potential route so it is hard to get any overall picture of how the segment will fit into a greater Luas scheme.

As one woman mentioned, none of the options put forward were timed. Length yes but no mention of how long it would take to travel from the Green to O’Connell St via Pearse.

As my prefered option is D I asked about the costs of a bridge over the Liffey at Malborough St/ Hawkins St. From €15 was the answer which seems astounding. The price went up of course if an architectural statement was required. No-one seemed to be aware of the fact that the City Council have already mooted the idea of a pedestrian link here (part of the OConnell IAP if I’m not mistaken)

The RPA also suggested that using Malborough Street for Luas – which I personally feel has huge merit seeing as it is currently a delapidated buspark – is full of problems as it is too narrow (!!) and the ability to connect to the extension to Broadstone would be more difficult (although as mentioned above no idea what route this will follow).

Using O’Connell Street will require the whole median to be redesigned including the loss of all the trees currently being planted, narrowing the amount of pedestrian space on the median, perhaps even reducing traffic to one lane each way (not so bad until you realise that most Dublin Bus services seem to go down OCSt these day – arguement for another day), and introducing a wirescape along the street encompassing all the monuments (and eeh the Spire???)

No-one knew anything about using a similar power system to Bordeaux which would eliminate wirescapes in the city centre…but it sounded like a great idea! However when I pointed out that you were potentially going to ruin one of the most iconic Dublin streetscapes with wires and poles and signage (College Green) the answer was that after a while nobody would notice them and you can always airbrush them out for postcards. You can imagine I left feeling slightly peeved.

I also commented on how dead Abbey St looked since Luas took over. No cars to fill all that Chinese grey granite space. A few trees and some more imagination in how the public space is used would have done wonders but aparently trees get in the way! Says it all.

Anyhow despite all the above Im going with option D. Hopefully many more people at least get involved an say there piece.

Had a feeling A was already chosen.

@StephenC wrote:

introducing a wirescape along the street encompassing all the monuments

Yes these ‘consultations’ are little more than talking shops, which frankly is acceptable in a way. The last people I want making decisions about Dublin’s transport infrastructure are the public wandering in off the street! Though the RPA certainly ought to take suggestions on board.

As for Middle Abbey Street, could it not be pedestrianised? It must be the least-used major thoroughfare in the entire city; why not close the remaining traffic lane off, pave it and plant trees down the centre?

Airbrushing was precisely the same response I got from them Stephen about the wirescape! As if flippin postcards is the issue at stake :rolleyes: 😡
It is just crazy that this antiquated technology, in use since the late 19th century is proposed for the centre of Dublin in 2006. Whilst my concerns were previously dampened down by the Frank McDonald’s soothing tones on the issue, as much as I still hold him in very high regard, his credibility on matters of wiring have been reduced to zilch since a certain pie in the sky proposal.

It is extraordinary in the public consultations that, not only as Stephen has said, there are no critical facts available on matters of journey time or building costs, but also the vastly important arena of environmental impact is completely excluded! How are you supposed to make any sort of credible judgement on the basis of a few lines on a map?! A wirescape and myriad poles are proposed to be erected through the very heart of the capital’s historic core, and yet the public are only asked to assess the routes on prosaic efficency factors?!!
It nothing short of beggars belief.

Is the reality that the RPA know only too well the likely reaction to renderings and photomontages of their wirescape and poles running through College Green, across O’Connell Bridge and wrapping themselves round O’Connell Monument? And what of depictions of the possible extension up O’Connell Street – what of their potentially disastrous impact on PR? Why are we, the public, not allowed to see these images as part of what is billed a ‘public consulatation’? Why are they not being published in national newspapers alongside the route option maps? Why are these critical environmental factors being brushed aside at best, or at worst being deliberately concealed?

There has been no environmental impact documentation whatever released into the public domain regarding the proposed routes. It is simply not acceptable. If only to put minds at rest if nothing else.

I honestly don’t know what this obsession is with running the Luas down O’Connell Street if the end product is to integrate with the Maynooth line. Swing a spur off the Red Line near the Four Courts and up Consititution Hill and on towards Liffey Junction. Problem solved, no need to tear up O’Connell Street.

We have to get away from this An Larism. I am a massive fan of Luas and want to see it cover as much of the city and suburbs as possible, but sending it down O’Connell Street to connect with the Maynooth line when the same thing can be achieved by routing though Broadstone or the old canal aligment is just plain silly.

Heads up – theres a discussion about the digging up of O’Connell st to accomodate the Luas link up shortly on http://www.newstalk.ie/ City Edition – Listen Live.

Not much to it really – basically the RPA guy said that they expect to have passangers on it by 2009. it’ll cost €100,000,000 to do it. As far as I could make out Plan A was the one, the segment of the show was all about cutting up O’Connell St. and distruption, just after the current O’Connell St. regeneration is complete.

@murphaph wrote:

Just in time for the RPA to dig it all up for Luas line BX and then Metro! 😀 Of course in the grand scheme of things it’s not a problem that we have the money to build mass transit systems, just seems an awful pity that all the work will be torn up so soon after completion.

Yes but it remains to be seen whether Bx goes up o’connell, granted it probably will go as far as abbey street. The metro (at 2 billion for a tunnel with no escalators , i am not sure that will ever happen.

I don’t think the full impact of the port tunnel has been realised in this respect.A new bus service will probably start between, busaras the (freed up) north and the airport via the port tunnel.While it’s not as sexy as a metro it would be as quick given that the metro will have lots of stops. Ryanair’s micheal o’leary has pointed out that the interest on the metro would pay for everyone to get a free bus ride to the airport.If any economic sense is involved the metro will not get the go ahead and the interconnector will!

Originally posted by a boyle
Ryanair’s micheal o’leary has pointed out that the interest on the metro would pay for everyone to get a free bus ride to the airport.If any economic sense is involved the metro will not get the go ahead and the interconnector will!

Obviously Michael O’Leary doesn’t live in Swords! I do and I’m salivating for the Metro. Salivating.

please ! running luas up o’connell street is just wrong, all wrong !!!!!!!!! running it as far as abbey is bad enough, but the full length of the street – aaaaaaggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh

1. it will ill have to share the lane with traffic or else the street will have to be reduced to one traffic lane, either way it will be forced to move at a snales pace …
2. We’ll have some bloody clunky raised platform on the median, and just a stones throw from the stop at abbey.
3. Severely damage the aesthetics & coherence of the IAP; poles, lines, wires, median trees removed – the street is starting to look cluttered enough as it is. (i know they can run wires from buildings & existing supports, but while they might be able to minimise the supports, we’ll still have wires running the length of the street.)
4. Disturbance to the red line while they ‘engineer’ this ‘cross’ or whatever the hell they are planning.
5. All the while when they are actually building a tunnell from the green to o’connell steet.
6. Beautifully timed to conincide with the end of the IAP works.

NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

please ! running luas up o’connell street is just wrong, all wrong !!!!!!!!! running it as far as abbey is bad enough, but the full length of the street – aaaaaaggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Well then please PLEASE send an email or write to the rpa about the current route selection for the metro and for the luas link up.

Whatever you think about tara , the one thing to learn is that once a course of action is decided , those with power will shit all over anyone who disagrees.

I would suggest that running the lulu up o’connell street to abbey street and then turning left or right (to jervis /abbey stops ) might be a really good thing for o’connell street if it meant that the rest of the street was pedestrianised on that side of the road.

BUT remember if you don’t write to somebody no one will listen. the old nappy campaign over the grocers orders shows that the powers that be do listen. sometimes

info@rpa.ie tom.manning@rpa.ie

A Boyle can you give one example of the RPA listening?

30m trams on the red line
numerous missed completion dates
integrated ticketing
Red Cow roundabout
Blackthorn Drive

I agree with Peter on this putting Luas onto O’Connell St would be a big mistake with the longer the route on O’Connell St the worse.

Ah yes trams running down O’Connell St. just like the olde days to be sure!
I’m sure they’ll read the card I sent them and say “hmm yes, maybe the Metro shouldn’t stop at the Great Southern Hotel”

@Thomond Park wrote:

A Boyle can you give one example of the RPA listening?

No i can’t , but again if you don’t give your opinion you can’t complain if noone listens. Even though it’s is probably pointless i implore you and everyone reading this to email the rpa and give your opinion , whatever it may be ! info@rpa.ie

http://www.rpa.ie/404/404.asp?404;http://www.rpa.ie/metro/ndp_ppp/content.asp

The link is http://www.rpa.ie/metro/ndp_ppp/content.asp?id=78

Which becomes

http://www.rpa.ie/404/404.asp?404;ht…pp/content.asp

Once again the incompetence is shocking

@Thomond Park wrote:

[url]http://www.rpa.ie/404/404.asp?404]

I am a bit confused, what exactly is your point ?

The RPA present themselves as being in consultation yet all of the links for submission are broken.

The point is that the RPA have redefined incompetance and continue to redefine it year on year; despite repeated mistakes not one RPA member has ever been censured despite the €100’s of millions they have squandered.

Personally I believe the Luas runnng the full length of O’Connell St and on up to Broadstone will be what happens and will be great. I don’t find the wires obtrusive once suspended carefully from the buildings. Many prestigious streets in Europe have trams on them. Cars will be banned from O’Connell St in the long term, and Dublin Bus is supposedly going to completely overhaul it’s route network (to tie into enhanced rail services) which will see far fewer buses penetrate the city centre (and hence O’Connell St). Luas may just take one carriageway and the oher may be made two-way for the buses which remain. I have seen trams operate very well in pedestrianised areas and believe it would be be no different here. O’Connell St offers something no other north-south street on the northside can; it’s wide and can be made to have no crossing vehicular movements. This is a massive benefit for the trams which will get free reign from one end of the street to the other, delivering predictable journey times.

@a boyle wrote:

I propose that Mr. Park has the worst irish blinkered attitude : where can i find a problem where ? As something that is delivering what it set out to do , surely it is a roaring success ? I have no doubt Mr. Park would complain just as much if it wasn’t carrying enough passengers.

Stop whinging!

Sorry to pass your post Philip,

Aboyle I suggest that you have the attitude of an EMU whereby you bury your head in the sand as hard earned tax receipts are squandered.

As you have previously accepted the Red Cow is being put on concrete stilts and if it is functioning so well why is this being done?

Yet again the taxpayer gets fleeced

@Thomond Park wrote:

Sorry to pass your post Philip,

Aboyle I suggest that you have the attitude of an EMU whereby you bury your head in the sand as hard earned tax receipts are squandered.

As you have previously accepted the Red Cow is being put on concrete stilts and if it is functioning so well why is this being done?

Yet again the taxpayer gets fleeced

I am not sure that i said that the lulu is going on stilts ,because it is not . It is the rest of the junction that is changing. Could you pehaps identify which choices made by the rpa have squandered our money ? could you put a rough estimate on the cost of each mistake made by the rpa ( mistakes made by the transport minister don’t count )

Even allowing for ( a “huge” squander ) how is something that is more popular than expected , and making money within 12 months of operation a failure ? to have missed something somewhere

Luas phase 1 €400m overspend
Years late
RPA ticketing not-intergated with CIE system; all machines will need to be rejigged at a future date
The Luas makes a very small operating profit €?? but to say that Luas makes money is not true for Luas to make money it would need to generate an annual return of 4% p.a. or €32m

If Luas came in on budget at €400m it would need to make a lower figure of €16 p.a. to break even

The fact that Luas is popular is not a guide to financial or infrastructure delivery skills

Take your handbags outside gentlemen/ladies

Posts regarding CIE/RPA/Luas/Metro bashing/supporting have become excruciatingly boring/repetitive/mind-numbing of late. [delete options as appropriate]

(edited so as not to appear gender biased)

@adhoc wrote:

Take your handbags outside gentlemen/ladies

Posts regarding CIE/RPA/Luas/Metro bashing/supporting have become excruciatingly boring/repetitive/mind-numbing of late. [delete options as appropriate]

Heh. Agreed. Or at the very least use one of the Luas threads on here. When I open this thread I want to read about O’Connell Street- if the Luas debate is part of that debate, then fine.

woops

@a boyle wrote:

Do you reject that building the green line to metro standard would easily have cost an extra 400 mill , given that the rough estimate for the northern metro is 3/4/5 billion. ? Again what specific things did the rpa do that are so bad.

Yes,

the green line had the new Taney bridge re-specified and little else on the route as they inherited a Victorian track bed built to accomodate two braod gauge lines.

I like your use of 3/4/5bn it aptly describes just how clear it is that figures are just being plucked from the air; far from business like.

I think that any agency charged with procuring anything need to be experts in securing value for money; the RPA do not run railways all they do is procure the infrastructure and tender the operation of same. If one of my clients sent me out to acquire a building and I had a budget for

@Thomond Park wrote:

… If one of my clients sent me out to acquire a building and I had a budget for £40m and I came back having spent £83m I would rightly be replaced by someone who could do the job. …

In relation to the costs above the costs for excavation, relaying utilities and electricity had to be done anyway bearing in mind that phase 1 Luas was not intended to be horse drawn.

Again you have missed my point , so one final time. All the original costings were for tram grade. The final product is a combination of tram and metro grade.Your example should read: if one of my clients gave me a budet for 40 million and i came back and suggested that in the long run it might be better to spend 83 million.

With respect the to the point of having to divert utilities , you have completely shot through your previous suggestions of the “vitorian line” and only the taney bridge requiring a change of spec. By excavating the track , it meant there were no old foundations on which to build. No foundations, no track, no bridges. The only thing that was left was a right of way. You are wrong to complain that because the line previously coped with trains it was an easy job.

another thing to consider is that while other countries might appear to have much cheaper tram systems , the cost of diverting utilities is borne by each company involved , or diversion doesn’t occur. In ireland diversions are payed by the rpa. (economically it makes no difference , but on paper it does). This additional cost is also part of the metro price tag.

While it would be nice to be an expert in costing , it is simply not possible to do it to an accuracy that would satisfy you ! For example , the jubilee undeground ended up costing 425 million euros per kilometre due to tunnelling difficulties. The madrid extension that every paper talks about cost 50. the rpa are hoping that it will come in around 80 million per kilometre.They simply can’t and won’t be able to come up with a more accurate figure.

Best handbag out:

Are you really trying to say that a luas line wouldn’t have required.

1> Acquisitions
2> Excavation
3> Utility diversion
4> Trackbed assessment and strengthening work
5> Electrical cable support system

The only real difference was that the deck of the Taney bridge had to be constructed to a wider specifiaction;

all of the track and rolling stock and power set up is specified to tram standard and unlike metro standard the green route has a number of at grade crossings which could have been eliminated if an extra 100% was available for the budget.

The other costs associated with its future proofing were negligible as all specs were governed to the standards laid down in accordance with rail safety legislation which only considered broad gauge. The money was simply squandered by extremely poor project managment skills or lack thereof.

I would be very worried if the RPA discover large scale utilities at 50-100m below ground.

You just can’t get enough abuse can you ?

1 excavation: the foundations for the tracks , would have to cope with hundreds of tonnes. (Compare foundation for a ten story appartment block to a bungalow and you get the picture).
2.utilities diversion , this requires digging up everything up, leaving you to start from scratch , not with an old rail line, that has just had it’s tracks taken up.
3. In the same way as a winding road in the wicklow hills will occasionally have gravel spread over it’s length as surfacing , while a motorway has purpose designed tarmacadam to a high spec in order to cope with lorries. The same thing applies to the metals tracks and everything below : two grades , one cheaper , one not so cheap.
4.The electric system. : why did they need change the dart electric system using your logic ? (the dart upgrade cost 170 million). I will tell you why. if there are metros comming every 90 seconds at peak time, and each metro weight 10 to 20 times a tram , then you have to be able to deliver a whole lot more electricity safely. So you wouldn’t suggest that the wiring in a home was sufficient for a factory , would you ?.
5. Bridges: deciding you need a bridge that can cope with a lorry instead of pedestrians is NOT simply changing the specs.
6. between sandyford and the canal there are 2 at grade junctions. They will simply be closed. total cost : no euros!
7. a large part of additional expense went into blasting the rock cutting between stillorgan and ballaly stops, so that it could accomodate the much wider metro.

as someone with an ego the size of robert maxwell , i know how hard it is to be wrong, but it is ok thomond.honestly

I just want to point out that the so called metro upgrade on the green line will not be a real metro (ie a heavy rail line) but will be a Light Rail system (ie a tram, based on the Porto system) which has been branded as a metro, probably to fool the people into thinking they’re getting a metro system.

Also this so called metro will run through streets, so you can forget the 90 sec frequency. This also will apply to the current RPA Cherrywood extension proposal. So all the extra effort regarding the green line been able to be upgraded to a (heavy line) metro has gone to waist.

WH,

on the money as always;

now time to take the handbag, why am I thinking a 1989 film about advertising?:

@a boyle wrote:

You just can’t get enough abuse can you ?

1 excavation: the foundations for the tracks , would have to cope with hundreds of tonnes. (Compare foundation for a ten story appartment block to a bungalow and you get the picture).

What does a fully laden Luas weigh, what does a proposed and promised fully laden 50m Luas weigh? We are not talking about a Nissan Micra here.

@a boyle wrote:

2.utilities diversion , this requires digging up everything up, leaving you to start from scratch , not with an old rail line, that has just had it’s tracks taken up.

Are you trying to say that if this were Luas alone that the utilities could have stayed in-situ?

@a boyle wrote:

3. In the same way as a winding road in the wicklow hills will occasionally have gravel spread over it’s length as surfacing , while a motorway has purpose designed tarmacadam to a high spec in order to cope with lorries. The same thing applies to the metals tracks and everything below : two grades , one cheaper , one not so cheap.

What are you talking about the same width of trackbed had to be accomodated]4.The electric system. : why did they need change the dart electric system using your logic ? (the dart upgrade cost 170 million). I will tell you why. if there are metros comming every 90 seconds at peak time, and each metro weight 10 to 20 times a tram , then you have to be able to deliver a whole lot more electricity safely. So you wouldn’t suggest that the wiring in a home was sufficient for a factory , would you ?. [/QUOTE]

The power units run at Luas spec; the poles are the same regardless of voltage what is your point or more to the point where is the Dart spec equipment on the Luas network, is it on planet RPA?

@a boyle wrote:

5. Bridges: deciding you need a bridge that can cope with a lorry instead of pedestrians is NOT simply changing the specs.

There is little civil engineering spec difference between a Luas and a Dart in terms of load bearing capacity as stated ad naseum the rail safety rules are the same and the number of bridges low.

@a boyle wrote:

6. between sandyford and the canal there are 2 at grade junctions. They will simply be closed. total cost : no euros!

Then why have additional at grade crossing been proposed on the extension? Either the RPA are as stupid as they look or Cullen is telling lies about an upgrade to metro on this route.

@a boyle wrote:

7. a large part of additional expense went into blasting the rock cutting between stillorgan and ballaly stops, so that it could accomodate the much wider metro.

as someone with an ego the size of robert maxwell , i know how hard it is to be wrong, but it is ok thomond.honestly

The expenditure at this point was flagged in the original EIS it was a known cost; your nit picking has led you to forget that your theory relies on a hypothesis that the Red line was delivered on budget i.e. €225m and that the Green line came in at €600m or 3.5 times its original budget.

You certainly have Maxwells capacity for figures and I think that Seamus Breananns admission that the sums over the past 5 years have been done on the back of a cigerette box are equally valid.

Why are you an apologist for this type of group?

I realise there are other issues dealt with in this article but, in relation to the LUAS, it looks like we might soon get an answer. If they’re using the Archiseek poll to decide, it’ll be a tough call.:p

@Irish Independent, Today wrote:

D-day looms for Metro rail route

THE route of the Metro North rail link from the city centre to Swords is to be announced next month, writes Paul Melia.

The Railway Procurement Agency said yesterday it will also reveal how the existing Luas Red and Green lines will be linked through the city centre and that an announcement would be made following the September board meeting.

Also yesterday the RPA said consultants had been engaged to carry out feasibility studies on the proposed Metro West route that will eventually link Tallaght to Ballymun.

The first phase from Tallaght to Clondalkin is due for completion by 2009.

A spokesman said it was hoped to put a number of routes out for public consultation in October or November, and that a number of different routes were being considered.

Various options

“The real issue is how it will get from Tallaght to the airport, and we’re looking at various route options there,” he said.

“We have a preferred route for Metro North, and the board is expected to endorse this.

“But there are still a number of issues to be resolved, including whether the airport station will be underground or overground, and how the metro will travel through Ballymun.”

The Metro West project is expected to be fully completed by 2014 when Tallaght will be linked to the airport via Clondalkin, Lucan and Blanchardstown.

The correct answer to which route, may be ‘none of the above’. The original intention was to connect the airport metro to the southside luas line and this is now mysteriously not even an option. We are to have instead two separate lines running at the same gauge that terminate in the same place in the city centre but are not connected. The capacity of the southside luas line will continue to be crippled by its on-street section. The tunnel boring machine for the northside metro will be abandoned under Stephen’s Green rather than finishing the job by tunneling on to surface at Ranelagh and join the existing line

So there is a consultation process but the public was not consulted about the most important decision of all.

City centre roadspace is precious. A north-south underground link would free up the road section along harcourt street and stephens green and the unbuilt section between Stephen’s Green and O’Connell Street to be used by pedestrians, buses or bikes whichever makes most sense.

Does anyone know why the north-south metro was abandoned in favour of building this nonsensical on-street link?

@The RPA wrote:

From St.Stephen’s Green terminus OPTION E runs along St.Stephen’s Green North. At the Dawson St. junction the line splits with one track for trams heading north towards the Red Line running along Dawson St. as far as Nassau St. while the track for trams coming from the Red Line extends further east along St. Stephen’s Green North and runs along Kildare St. and Nassau St. before rejoining the other track in Nassau St. at the Dawson St. junction. From Nassau St. the line would continue into the lower part of Grafton St., College Green and Westmoreland St.. Approaching O’Connell Bridge the two tracks separate to run on each side of the traffic median on the bridge and continue into O’Connell St. running on each side of the median to connect with the Red Line at the junction of O’Connell St. and Abbey St.. Possible stop locations include Dawson St. (for trams heading towards the Red Line), Kildare St. (for trams heading towards the Green Line), Westmoreland St. and O’Connell St.

Perhaps someone could help out here, as I can’t seem to copy the picture illustrating option E.

It’s just that a thought occurred to me over the weekend about this possibility, which is comfortably the least favoured option on this forum.

And it’s this. If the trams were to go South instead of North along Dawson Street, and North instead of South along Kildare Street, it might help to reduce the conflicts between the trams and buses in and around TCD. There could be a tram stop on the East side of Dawson Street (perhaps doubling with a station around the corner on the South side of Nassau Street), the West side of Kildare Street and the East side of Westmoreland Street]also travelling in the same direction[/I] to perhaps a couple of hundred metres (between the bottom of Dawson Street and the stretch around the front of TCD), with the loss only of the stops at the front of TCD, the potential conflicts could be seriously reduced.

The same kind of thing could also be achieved by reversing the bus flows along Dawson Street and Kildare Street. With the current arrangements around St. Stephen’s Green, that might even be more favourable.

Anybody get what I’m on about?

I read an article in the Irish Mail on Sunday yesterday that says that due to objections raised by Dublin Bus, Route A is now dropped in favour of Route B..anyone else see this?

So it looks like we’ll be getting the worst of all worlds: a new bridge and a needlessly complex and confusing route with no extra integration with DART while still not addressing the non-issues (for me) of construction on O’Connell Street and poles on College Green.

@Irish Times wrote:

The proposed route from St Stephen’s Green, to be announced today, would run as a double track to College Green, where it would change to single track and run north via Westmoreland Street, O’Connell Bridge and along the west side of O’Connell Street.

It would turn into Cathal Brugha Street and then run south along Marlborough Street, crossing the Liffey on a new bridge and continuing via Hawkins Street and College Street to rejoin the double track section at College Green.

Frank Allen made his by now biannual PR appearance on Today with Pat Kenny last week – you can hear it below at 1:44:44:

http://www.rte.ie/rams/radio/latest/Thu/rte-todaywithpatkenny-tpk.smil (12 mins)

So only Route A and this new route ‘Route F’ are on the table at this stage. It’s now a matter of consultation with the ‘stakeholders’ to see which gets the green light according to Allen – traders who shout the loudest from the sound of things.
It is the opinion of the RPA that an adequate DART connection will happen via the Interconnector at St. Stephen’s Green – I wonder could some trams travel direct to Connolly (DART) by switching lines at the Marlborough St-Abbey St junction too?

Whatever about the transport implications, I have to say I find this proposed interconnector is getting more and more ludicrous by the second as regards its impact on the urban environment. With this Route F not only is the jewel of College Green affected by cables and poles, as well as O’Connell Bridge, but now we have cables passing by the entire frontage of the GPO – inches in front of the portico! Not to mention cutting across the upper street at Cathal Brugha St, and the new bridge over the Liffey, itself laden with poles and overhead cables, in addition to the same on O’Connell Bridge (also passing O’Connell Monument), and the Loop Line already further down the river. The sole redeeming factor of this new route is that it limits the impact on Westmoreland Street, O’Connell Street, Bridge and Monument by one line – even if it just transposes the other elsewhere.

This just reeks of the very worst kind of impact on the urban environment – intrusive, untidy, cluttered and fundamentally ugly. For the scheme to be suddenly extended on this scale at such a late stage, significantly impacting on newly included heritage areas, when the potential for investigating powering the system in an alternative fashion is redundant, appears almost devious, as it is disrespectful to the built environment of the city.

From day one back in the 1990s there has been a constant underlying current of ‘sure this is only Dublin, a dirty provincial west Brit city – it’s not Venice you know, huh huh huh’. Essentially nobody cares about this issue at all – rather this link is being dealt with purely as a series of lines on a map and the investigation of technicalities of the project. It seems aesthetics don’t even enter the equation. Why aren’t renderings being drawn up, and the impact on the appearance of the city being given equal, or indeed any weight at all, relative to the logistics of getting passengers from A to B? Why were no visual impact boards on display at any of the public ‘consultations’, even just to allay concerns?

This is not just about choosing a convenient route for a tram, it’s also about a hugely important matter of respecting existing environments within the ‘monumental’ city core. What purpose does College Green serve only to provide an architectural heart for the entire city – it is the very essence of this space, as with most western cities in the 21st century with similar public areas. It has little other role – and in the context of removing vehicular traffic and horrendous levels of municipal clutter from the space, including large trees, it’s nothing short of baffling that a relatively minor public transport link is allowed hold such sway in its impact on this area with absolutely NO visual impact statement in public consultations.

Yes lines passed through here before blah blah, yes O’Connell Bridge was rebuilt as is to cater for trams, yes they ran right past the GPO blah blah, but this is irrelevant. As mentioned before, if it was proposed to run telephone cables through the city to the same extent, right past the principal buildings and urban spaces in the capital, there’d be absolute uproar. But because shiny silvery trams are being catered for, suddenly nobody gives a toss. In a modern, technologically advanced capital, it is simply not acceptable for the cityscape to be strung with cables – it’s one thing if a legacy issue, but to start afresh in the 21st century is nothing short of embarrassing. It is this above all that really frustrates me about this interconnector (which otherwise I do see the
full logic of implementing).

It is ironic that this link attempts to cater to a large, if minority extent, for tourists travelling from transport hubs to city centre hotels – the very people the city is being marketed at through its streetscapes and set-piece buildings that will be affected by these lines. Views of the Spire from Westmoreland Street would also be intruded on, as with the entire walk along western O’Connell Street and Bridge, and vastly worsened if Route A is chosen. Likewise regarding all the famous views of the BoI, Trinity and the House of Lords portico – all the points rasied before.

In a way it’s quite startling the difference between here and Bordeaux, where uproar was raised at the prospect of cables passing the h

I heard the Frank Allen interview too …. very dissapointing.

It seems they are set on ramming it through the central artery of the city where it will be forced to travel at a snails pace & negotiate several traffic signals, Both the aesthetics & functionality of this are dreadful.

The RPA seem to be tripping over themselves after this prize, as they’ve presented it, of running straight through the centre of the city … ‘great visibility for luas’ brilliant alright, stationary trams will be on full view to the general public wizzing by on footpaths.

In my opinion, luas could skirt around the back of trinity as quickly – use of secondary street space where luas can be afforded priority is the only way to go. They still contend that both tracks will not ‘fit’ down marlborough street,

Besides all that, the actual necessity for & benefits from this link are questionable in the first instance.

I cannot believe that they will plough up O’Connell Street for this, what a mess. Not a murmur out of Kenny about the aesthetics of it either … not surprising as he actually suggested routing it down Grafton Street 😮

College Green needs an IAP now, even felling the trees would be something for now.

On the up-side, The red line is to be re-routed at the Red Cow, allowing it to pass through without stopping at lights, it also eliminates the tight bends. They’ve recently released the new configuration after much criticism of previous versions. Photomontage below:

Red Line Luas passengers up 25%

December 28, 2006 11:33
Luas passenger numbers increased this year from 22 million to 26 million, a jump of around 17%.

The Red Line, which runs from Tallaght to Connelly train station, saw passenger numbers rise 25% this year.

Public consultation has commenced on the proposed extension of the Green Line from Cherrywood to the Bray area, and the possible connection of the Green and Red lines is under consideration.

I agree with sentiments above and feel that there are other compelling arguments to take this process back to the drawing board. Firstly the effect of unjoined systems the two routes under consideration will probably have a common halt but from what I have seen will do nothing to further the figure of eight model that would allow interchangeability between routings and could if done right assist the creation of a flexible expandible system.

@GrahamH wrote:

Just out of interest jimg, given overhead wires generally don’t concern you (not being smart here), how do you rate them relative to your rather vociferous objection to the proposed advertising hoardings about the city?

Hi Graham, I was exaggerating a bit when I said the overhead wires are a non-issue for me. I can see the attraction in a third rail system for the centre but I know that cost/benefit analysis would not support it at the moment. Everyone will have personal views on the aesthetics of street clutter; for you the wires are a major problem. For me, the fact that the poles are properly vertical (unlike 80% of the traffic signs in the city), polished stainless steel (rather than mottled galvanized) and set in a regular pattern (rather than shoved into a gouged hole with a bucket of cement slopped in for support) means I find Luas clutter much less objectionable than the hundreds of superfluous street signs, badly planted trees, poorly placed telephone boxes, etc along the stretch in question. I find Luas fittings only slightly more intrusive than the new street lighting on O’Connell Street for example.

What worries me is that this new route F doesn’t address any of flaws of route A but it manages to add plenty of new disadvantages. The worst for me will be a new bridge between O’Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge; this will destroy the relatively regular pattern of bridges in the city and will create an ugly cluster of bridges around Butt bridge.

Seing as all the other options have been removed from consideration, would you not agree that A is far preferable to this new mongrel route?

@Morlan wrote:

Double-decker buses can travel under it… I don’t see why the LUAS can’t. Probably a safety issue for minimum clearance. I would’t like to see Westland Row lowered, I think it would spoil the street somewhat.

Luas and its pantograph, and of course the overheads, would not fit safely underneath this bridge methinks.

RPA selects the worst option (IMO!)

Agency recommends Luas lines be linked at O’Connell Street

The Sunday Business Post

The two Luas lines should be linked in a single loop that would run up O’Connell Street and down Marlborough Street, according to the agency that runs the Dublin tram system. The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) is in favour of a route linking the Sandyford and Tallaght lines along O’Connell Street in a loop that would run east along Cathal Brugha Street and south along Marlborough Street before crossing the Liffey over a new bridge. The agency wants a single track along the west side of O’Connell Street past the GPO, in a bid to reduce disruption in the city centre. A decision on the preferred route was taken at a meeting of the RPA board last week. Consultations are expected between the agency and the Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, in light of the board’s decision.

The RPA have opted for an elaborate loop that will run the green line up o’connell street, turn right on to cathal brugha, back down marlborough street & across a new bridge over the liffey.

So now Dawson, Grafton, College Green, Westmoreland, O’Connell & Marlborough streets are to be plouged up while a new one way bridge across the liffey is also to be constructed which given its impact on the river & the vista from o’connell bridge, could only be justified, in my view, if it saved the disruption to o’connell st & college green.

The benefits of this link up are questionable on so many levels, clearly no consideration has been given to the impact on the cities streetscapes or how effectively luas can function passing through the major arteries of this city.

This is the wrong decision.

Yes, I find this amazing, it seemed to me the central route and back of tcd up marlboro street routes both has strong arguements in their favour and this combination of the two has none of the advantages of either. It is completely perplexing.

Couldn’t believe it when I read it on Sunday – a very strange route indeed – its like they decided “lets use the Luas to regenerate some streets – which ones?”

I’ve been a strong supporter of the link up on grounds of utility but if this is the final decision, then I would actually oppose it. This combines all the WORST aspects of EVERY single option offered to the public:

• A new bridge. 😡 😡
• Wires not only on College Green/Westmoreland Street/O’Connell St but also on five other streets. Basically double the amount of poles and wires without any corresponding increase in coverage.
• Disruption during construction not only on College Green/Westmoreland Street/O’Connell St but also on five other streets.
• A circuitous route somewhat away from the central axis without ANY increase in rail integration (for example by linking with Pearse or Tara St.)
• A configuration which will make it extremely difficult to continue the line to Phibsboro and Finglas as originally planned.
• Even more interruption to other forms of public transport, cyclists and pedestrians travelling the length O’Connell St. as it has to cross from the West side of O’Connell St. to Cathal Brugha St. “Cutting off” the top of the street.
• A confusing route for users – particular tourists with it’s separated “one way” coverage of different streets.

How the hell can they justify this route? What is the rationale? Because it has a bit of everything?

Nothing more to add. What a disasterous decision, especially on the environmental front 😡

@GrahamH wrote:

Nothing more to add. What a disasterous decision, especially on the environmental front 😡

Any news on a timetable?

The clearest signal this sends out is that the timetable for metro is in serious trouble.

I really hope that this is an election stunt and that nothing is prepared before this can be seriously considered

My biggest concern is the proposed bridge across An Life. A cheapo Luas bridge will destroy the breezy view down the river from O’C bridge, and believe me, the bridge will be cheapo (see the Grand Canal bridge).

It’d be a damn shame to squander so much money on a bridge that will wreck part of the boardwalk when O’C bridge has plenty space for two tram tracks.

this is the thing, a bridge at that point + the associated wires etc is really unfortunate … as i said the only way i think it could be justified is if it saved o’connell street & college green etc. and even at that a streamlined, well designed construction would be essential.

but no, its only a one way … the worst possible solution 😡

One step closer to line BX being scrapped altogether?

€100m Luas link derailed

Friday September 28 2007

THE long overdue link-up between the two existing Luas lines has been further delayed to avoid digging up Dublin streets and crippling motorists and businesses for longer than absolutely necessary.

The €100m project to connect the Tallaght and Sandyford lines at O’Connell St, Dublin, will not start now until 2009 at the earliest , the same time as the €5bn Metro.

The link-up from St Stephen’s Green to O’Connell Street will involve digging up much of the city centre around TCD and Westmoreland Street, while the Metro will roughly follow the same route underground.

Instead of digging up the streets for the Luas link-up, and later digging them up again for the Metro it is now expected that both projects will get underway at the same time.

The Railway Procurement Agency and Transport Minister Noel Dempsey yesterday unveiled two proposed routes for the new Luas line from Lucan to the the city centre.

The line will serve Ballyfermot, Liffey Valley and Lucan and is scheduled to be completed by 2013. It will carry up to 25m passengers every year, with a journey time of 42 minutes from Lucan to the city centre.

It will connect to the two existing lines, as well as the Irish Rail network and the proposed metro between the airport and the city centre.

The public is being asked to give its opinion on which route should be chosen, one of which is closer to Ballyfermot.

At a press conference to launch the Luas line, Frank Allen, chief executive of the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA), expressed disappointment that there had not been speedier progress on the city centre link-up.

“We had hoped to have achieved consensus on the route more quickly but that has not happened,” he said.

A new Luas bridge across the River Liffey is being designed to carry trams as part of the new agreed route which runs up O’Connell St and back down Marlborough St before crossing the river.

It is now expected that the link-up and the Metro will start together to avoid digging up streets for one project and then repeating the exercise later.

Mr Dempsey said it was more important to get the project right than doing it fast.

“There is no point in having to dig up the city centre for five or seven years if you can do this in a shorter timescale,” he added.

New Luas line set for launch

Thursday September 27 2007

A BRAND new Luas line from Lucan to Dublin city centre, capable of carrying 20 million passengers annually, will be unveiled today.

The F line is expected to be finished in 2013 and will serve Ballyfermot, Liffey Valley and Lucan.

It will open up a new tram corridor on the south inner city for areas that now have poor rail access.

The line will also connect to the existing Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines, Irish rail commuter services and the proposed Metro North.

http://www.rpa.ie/upload/documents/Luas%20Line%20F%20Route%20Options%20Detailed%20Drawing.pdf

Oh sweet Jesus Christ.

@PTB wrote:

Oh sweet Jesus Christ.

My thoughts exactly.

Suggestion. Instead of spending 500m+ on the Lucan Luas which will snake in to town in a nauseating 42 minutes, aka. 55 minutes; why not create 2 QBC feeder routes through Lucan to Adamstown & Fonthill Dart stations, put the staggering savings towards the interconnector & get comuters to Stephen’s Green in half the time.

Never mind the added bonus of not ploughing up every shaggin main artery in this city.

You’re talking little more than a mile from the centre of the housing sprawl above to either adamstown or fonthill.

The first piece of track has been laid on the Luas Docklands extension – good.

But all the other Luas news is BAD. Last Friday there was a piece in the paper saying the city-centre link won’t commence work until 2009, the same time as Metro North, because it would be practical to start them both together. That’s bollocks! The Luas link needs to start NOW. Never mind this metro bollocks. It’s too expensive and there isn’t the density in Dublin to justify it. Get the overground rail sorted out first.

The motor car has free run of almost every street in the city centre and it makes for an appalling environment of extremely low comfort levels which is off-putting to visitors and reduces quality of life for locals. The motor car needs to be ruthlessly suppressed in Dublin and trams are the thing to do it. You only have to go to Bordeaux to see this, a city which is quite comparable to Dublin in size.

I hope the board will forgive me a bit of hubris in quoting one of my own posts.:o

It’s simply that, in the light of recent discussions (here and elsewhere) about the possibility of the city centre LUAS link-up being scrapped, I see this as a way of solving potential conflicts between buses and trams in the area south of College Green.

@Seamus O’G wrote:

Perhaps someone could help out here, as I can’t seem to copy the picture illustrating option E.

It’s just that a thought occurred to me over the weekend about this possibility, which is comfortably the least favoured option on this forum.

And it’s this. If the trams were to go South instead of North along Dawson Street, and North instead of South along Kildare Street, it might help to reduce the conflicts between the trams and buses in and around TCD. There could be a tram stop on the East side of Dawson Street (perhaps doubling with a station around the corner on the South side of Nassau Street), the West side of Kildare Street and the East side of Westmoreland Street; and bus stops on the West side of Dawson Street, the East side of Kildare Street, the North side of Nassau Street, Suffolk Street, the West side of Westmoreland Street, and College Street. In other words, all the bus stops which we currently have would remain, with the exception of the ones outside TCD on the bottom of Grafton Street.

What I’m trying to get at, this would reduce the amount of road space where buses and trams are actually sharing road space and also travelling in the same direction to perhaps a couple of hundred metres (between the bottom of Dawson Street and the stretch around the front of TCD), with the loss only of the stops at the front of TCD, the potential conflicts could be seriously reduced.

The same kind of thing could also be achieved by reversing the bus flows along Dawson Street and Kildare Street. With the current arrangements around St. Stephen’s Green, that might even be more favourable.

Anybody get what I’m on about?

It does not, I fully agree, deal with the issue of College Green itself, or Westmoreland Street or O`Connell Street.

I see no alternative to banning private vehicles from College Green if buses and trams are to live together efficiently in this area. With the current arrangement where so many buses pass through College Green, this would simply have to happen.

However, with four lanes of traffic currently passing between TCD and the BOI at College Green, it should be possible to convert this little stretch into two lanes for trams and two lanes for buses. (Even if TCD had to cede a couple of feet).

I don’t think the above arrangement would impinge on the plan to have the trams travel along Marlborough Street in one direction. I think that is a weird plan, but I don’t think the above proposal would impinge on it to any great extent.

(And apologies to GrahamH as, if implemented, it would in all likelihood involve overhead wires being present in College Green).

College Green does seem to be the real snag point. And there’s really only one solution for that, albeit one which users of private vehicles may see as a Domesday scenario. But if such a decision were to be taken, I’d suggest that the above solution about a variation on option E might be one which could make the link-up run quite efficiently as a whole.

Or is there some very obvious problem that I’ve missed?

Please help, as I quite like this one.:)

Has anyone ever consider putting the Luas into a tunnel under TCD as a solution. Perhaps it would have to go too deep and the risk of cracking would prevent this?

OR doing the unthinkable and put it actually through TCD, across the back of cricket grounds and rugby pitch and possibly through some of the crap old offices that TCD are planning to redevelop, or through the relatively recently social welfare offices.

An Taisce would no doubt love that idea!!

Gaudi

The solution is, of course, to reverse the direction that traffic goes around tcd.

i have all the answers!!!!! not

i will post some ideas’s later.. they just came to me…

After seeing the irresponsible plans favoured for the luas connection route im now of the opinion that a complete rethink is needed. I was in favour of a westland row route but am now of the opinion that none of the listed routes best serve what is trying to be achieved.
The main reason for my change in view has come after seeing plans for the lucan luas line. Two termini are possible: either a bizarre loop around stephens green or an ugly pole heavy terminus in college green. Looking at the rpa map of the scheme you have the strong possibility of two luas lines (Green and Lucan) terminating within 600 yards of each other. My suggestion is to link these two lines.
Reasons being:

1)Both metro and interconnector will link the green and red lines
2) A Bridge at hawkins street would be an irresponsible and arrogant decision
3) The practical alternative to hawkins is o’connell bridge/street causing major disruption
4) Due to the dimensions of both college green and wmorel st, i feel neither should be used
5) The one way marlborough system would be confusing and difficult for future integration and expansion

So heres my idea:
Continue Green Luas up Dawson Street, left onto Nassau St and continue up Suffolk St.
Then turning down church lane (if its wide enough, or trinity st) to dame street connecting with lucan line.
Stops at Dawson St, Suffolk St (again if wide enough) and College green/Bank.
This would of course mean Dublin Bus would have to stop using suffolk st/church lane but a useful link from dame st to stephens green is created without disruption to college green/lower grafton street

so what is missing from your suggestion is the luas line to grangegorman and liffey junction, at the moment intended as a continuation of bx: of course, once you have your crayons out it is easy to suggest ways around this too.

Looks like the whole thing is off or at least it’s going to be taken out of T21. To be honest, haven argued storngly for the link up, the proposed preferred route is so awful, I’d rather nothing be done than inflict such a dogs dinner of a route on Dublin for the next 100 years.

So the Grangegorman/Liffey junction line will terminate on OCS and the Lucan line at College Green? Won’t that mean an awful lot of separate depots etc

there won’t be a liffey jnct. line via grangegorman. The rpa weren’t too jazzed about having a luas line that goes that far into the northside anyway

If the DIT move is to work it needs a Luas line; it also adds huge value to the broadstone bus depot land bank, it is hard to see it not happening.

It’s back to the drawing board for everything that’s not already underway as part of the Transport 21 umbrella if you read between the lines of recent ministerial releases. I expect the Green Luas to eventually be extended north and Liffey Junction is as likely as anywhere else to terminate it but nothing will be started before the next phase which could mean 2015. Lucan Luas is not going to happen in the current phase either. We’ll get the Interconnector, Dunboyne spur, metro north and possibly metro west, the Luas extensions which are already underway and more buses. I’d be happy enough with that shopping list, to be honest. Outside of rail, the likes of the eastern bypass linking the port tunnel to Leapardstown and the “outer M50” have been explicitly killed for the current transport infrastructure phase.

what stage is this project at? is it defenitely going ahead as planned? is there a timeframe for delivery?

@cgcsb wrote:

what stage is this project at? is it defenitely going ahead as planned? is there a timeframe for delivery?

Do you ever read back through a few posts before posting yourself ?

With the current economic situation blah blah blah, its best that this project is cancled.

But the money spent on planning it should not go to waste. A route should be fully planed out and selected and provisions taken that this route will be easy to build in future. Ie protecting the infrastructure and free sites along the route in order to build it when we can affod too.

I also think that using the bx line as an excuse to not have a terminus at college green would be a very good option. Terminating at college green could be a mess unless it was held inside the traffic island, which is full of statues as it is. Pedestrainisation of college green is an important thing if it were to continue to westomoreland street. Using the bx line as an excuse to implement pedestrainisation all the way up to o’connell street would be a perfect project but the bx is useless with the metro and even more useless without the D line. So if money is available in future build the Bx as part of the Lucan Luas so as to give a larger reason for fixing up that area that would be more likely to be given a go ahead.

Basically, the Bx can only be built if the lucan luas is built.
The lucan luas is a good excuse to pedestrianise the city centre’s main pedestrian artery.
The lucan luas is likely to be cancled, but if pedestrainisation is implemented, even without the bx line, it should be done providing for the 2 lines and bus traffic.

Annother point would be to re-order the one was system in the city centre to avoid college green etc Hard to do with such narrow streets and few places left to go.:confused:

The geometry of the streets is not being used to it’s most logical potential, best exemplified by the awkward traffic arrangements around St. Stephen’s Green North.

With the possibility of trams arriving into Dame Street, the logical result is for Dame Street to become one way. South Great Georges Street would need to become one way outbound, to prevent the influx of traffic into an area that would not be able to cope. The city central area would need more outbound capacity than inbound, to deter the influx of traffic, and assist the exodus. Traffic bound for the city car parks would still have access, but not at the loss of priority of public transport.

Dublin Bus for their part would need to terminate less buses in the central area, and have less cross city buses, with those cross city buses that remain better coordinated to integrate with other services terminating away from the immediate central area.

Here is a map detailing the most logical traffic flow lines, allowing for one way traffic on Dame Street, to facilitate trams, and keeping the O’Connell Street, Westmoreland Street and College Green axis free from traffic, save perhaps for tour buses, and perhaps for one dedicated single deck central cross city bus service. I would see bus only access between Dawson Street, Suffolk Street and Church Lane.

There is no need at all for a bridge between Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street. I would be against it. Buses should not be encouraged to use that as a cross city artery, it is unsuitable for trams, and would make a mess of the scape of the Liffey and the environment in that prime area.

Wow that is a really good network for the buses.

And who ever said cross city had to go through the city? Theres at least 2 routes too the west not using the motorway.

Although that could mean a lot more traffic through Christ Church Terenure etc, which is also looking for a luas:rolleyes:

There is a cheaper solution for line BX, If the line went underground at Stephen’s green and share the tunnel with the Metro upto a point under O’Connell ST., where it would veer east and emerge at the start of Dominick st. Continue up Dominick st and cross over Constitution Hill via a bridge and onto the Broadstone railway alinement and out to Finglas. Everyone’s happy, Dublin Bus, DIT and suburban residents associations

christchurch should be made a platz…

thanks for that busman! its a start…

I have a funny story I was going to the airport this afternoon trying to get the cheapo 16a I missed it by 200 mts infront of central bank… I jogged in temple bar had no change managed to stop buy something get some change..
missed the bus in westmorland st driver would not let me on keep jogging and manged to beat the bus to the stop in the north of ocon st… all in a days work 😀

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/luas_city_centre/line_and_stop_design/Pages/default.aspx

the project is moving ahead. Slowly but surely in spite of recession

Project Overview Luas Line BX
Luas Line BX is the proposed cross city Luas Line that will provide a link between the Red and Green Lines and importantly, will allow an onward extension to Broombridge via Grangegorman and Broadstone. It is intended that a Railway Order application will be made for the combined Luas Line BX and Line D in 2009.

Does anyone know was the application made? Has a unified system come a little closer 4 years late?

No railway order yet – although there was a public ‘open day’ this summer and there is talk of an application next year. DCC said last year that they had decided with the RPA to delay line BX until after the Metro North works are finished in the area. Also they want to build their new malborough st bridge. They estimated last year that the metro works would be ready by 2013 – allowing luas BX to start then. I am guessing this is based on the original transport 21 estimate of 2013 for Metro North completion. At this stage, project bidders are expecting that construction will begin in 2012 and take 6-7 years. So I guess that line BXD might complete by 2020/2022.This is an optimistic estimate given our current circumstances.

As we’re 10 years away from high speed/capacity cross-city, public transport, we should really sort out the buses in the meantime.

Frank

Thanks for your clarification; absolutely ridiculous situation. What could be easier than implementing the orginal Luas route to make sure it is a joined up system. How this got put off and the Citywest extension built one will never know.

With the public purse the way it is and the utter collapse in residential development depriving the proponents of merto north any angle on that scheme then the link up will clearly not be on the cards for at least another decade unless the head comes out of the sand. Why is the simple solution such as joining two seperate Luas lines never acheivable in Dublin?

Don’t mean to depress you further but the following is taken from the Independent of the 09/12/09:

No new rail projects until finances get back on track
By Paul Melia
Wednesday December 09 2009
No new rail projects will go ahead until we have more money, the Government admitted yesterday.
Transport Minister Noel Dempsey said that money had been allocated to just two projects — the Metro North and DART underground in Dublin — and that all other schemes would be delayed for the foreseeable future.
This means that plans to extend the Luas light-rail system to Lucan, Bray, and Broombridge near Cabra have been put on hold, while the Metro West project linking Tallaght to Dublin Airport will also be now delayed.
The Metro North and DART underground alone are expected to cost in excess of €6.5bn, and all of the projects in the Transport 21 public transport programme were expected to be completed by 2017.
Also expected to be delayed are the Navan train line, while the Tuam to Galway line is likely to stay at the design stage.
Speaking at the opening of the extension of the Red (Tallaght) Luas line to the docklands yesterday, Mr Dempsey said all projects would be brought through the planning process but that building work would not begin until money was available.
Committed
“Both of them, the Metro and DART underground, are in the capital programme going forward,” he said. “The Government is absolutely committed to both of those programmes.
“There’s a couple of other Luas extensions that will open over the next couple of years, and further ones that are in planning,” he said.
“We intend to ensure we can bring all of those through planning and design and then we will build when we have the money to build.
“It’s not going to be possible to build within the same timeframe. They will be built as soon as we have the finances.”
The 1.5km journey from the Luas stop at Busarus to The Point took just over seven minutes on the first night of operation for the Luas extension into the city’s docklands.
Eager young fans going to the Lily Allen concert at The O2 arena crowded onto the tram for the speedy journey.
Trams were also ready to pick the thousands of fans up after the concert and take them back into the city.
The Luas extension to Cherrywood is expected to open in the second half of next year, while an extension to Citywest will open in 2011. Both are part-funded by the private sector.
The Luas Docklands (C1) extension will carry 1.8 million passengers a year. There are four stops — George’s Dock, Mayor Square, Spencer Dock and The Point.
Public consultation on the line began in January 2001, and the final route was selected in November 2003.
Work began in February 2007 after planning permission was secured, and it cost €90m to build and was completed on time and within budget.
Direction
Journey times from Tallaght to The Point will take 52 minutes, while trams will run in the opposite direction every six and a half minutes at peak times and every eight minutes at all other times on weekdays.
Railway Procurement Agen chief executive Frank Allen said he was delighted the first new extension to Luas was ready to go into service.
– Paul Melia

Which makes the retention of Metro North on the agenda even more pointless; my guess is that Metro North is being kept on the agenda purely because Dempsey knows that nothing will be signed in advance of the 2012 election and with the electorate hoodwinked it can fall off the agenda completely.

If Dart underground were completed and the existing Luas lines intergrated that would constitute a very good base network from which to expand.

@d_d_dallas wrote:

Citywest is (for most part) being funded privately, even before the current state of finances that was the appetising route for Govt.

You, sir, have put it in a nutshell.

At a time when the Government was wallowing in money, with opportunities to do lots of things in public transport which would never have been achievable in previous decades, this was the most appetising route.

Yes indeed. It sums it all up, in a nutshell.

Citywest never did it for me even with promised contributions from local developers; I wonder were these payable before the scheme or contingent on completion in which case they are unlikely to materialise.

The risk with the extension is that people would look at the total journey time to the City Centre and other than local shopping trips to the Square not use it. The fastest route from Saggart was always to drive to Hazelhatch take the train and then Luas from Heuston to the City Centre.

I share both your cynacism on public transport in the boom years; joining the two seperate Luas lines must be a total priority in the current climate as it should have been when there was plenty of cash. It is affordable and deliverable with limited project risk.
The presumption that sopmeone travelling from St James to Dundrum will want to take a Luas a street level to Abbey, walk to O’Connell St, descend to an underground concourse, board a train, alight to street level and take another tram. Contrast that with board tram St James, alight, walk 50m to Marlborough St, take another tram, arrive at destination.

There are, however, difficulties with that.

If the LUAS lines are connected, they will inevitably show that the busiest stops will be those in more central areas of the city (such as Westmoreland Street, College Green and/or O’Connell Street – wherever the stops happen to be) than at the current Green Line terminus at St. Stephen’s Green.

In other words, more people on this North-South line will be expressing a preference for travel to the city’s more central areas than to St. Stephen’s Green. (They are already doing this, through their use of the city’s bus routes, but a LUAS link-up would probably highlight this more clearly).

One question which would then arise is why the proposed East-West interconnector is to take a longer, more expensive, circuitous route via St. Stephen’s Green, when it is clear that direct travel to the centre of the city is preferred?

Then, a second question arises, namely why the city is proposing to build the metro/interconnector interchange at St. Stephen’s Green – without, it should be noted, any public consultation about this move – and subjecting itself to the frankly absurd situation of building two metro stations at one location (O’Connell Bridge), when it will by then be clear that the best route for the interconnector – in terms of passenger numbers, at the very least – will be via more central areas of the city?

These are questions which are not going to be easy to answer.

From the point of view of those who allegedly “plan” and those who make decisions, it would be better if the LUAS link-up were not built.

Having no link-up would make it much easier for these questions not to be asked.

And, therefore, not to be answered.

Seamus

There is no doubt that College Green/Westmoreland St is busier in terms of leisure and educational uses. In contrast Stephens Green/Grafton Street are much busier in terms of office / retail uses.

We can both argue into infinity as to which use provides higher ridership figures as it is far from clear how many users at Tara St are heading to College Green would prefer to change at Pearse for College Green or how many people getting off at Pearse for Stephens Green would prefer to stay on the train or change at Pearse. Personally I think public transport should be geared towards commuters and not tourists but that is purely a personal opinion.

As you say in the absense of the dots being joined as per Ciaran Cuffe’s campaign we’ll have to wait a decade or more to find out which would be the busiest 2 adjacent stops; unless sense prevails as per Ciaran Cuffe.

Sorry, PVC, I don’t buy it.

The retail/office uses you’re talking about in or around Grafton Street should, overall, be equally well served by a station at a more central location.

Many of the prime office locations are quite remote from the proposed St. Stephen’s Green station, mostly about 1 kilometre away in places like Adelaide Road, and thus other public transport developments will need to take place to serve them properly.

The location of the interchange is not, therefore, of particular relevance for the future transport requirements of the most important office areas.

We’ve been through all this. You just don’t seem to get it.

If the LUAS link-up were to be built, regardless of the time of day – including before 10 am, when the tourists are still in their beds – I confidently predict that St. Stephen’s Green would not be the busiest stop.

There is a lot of face to be lost, if this prediction is true. On the other hand, there is a lot of face to be gained by reassessing whether the currrently-proposed arrangement of the proposed underground lines is the optimum one.

The largest group of commuters, shoppers, partygoers, whoever, want to go to the centre. To do whatever they have to do there, or to be able to change to go to other places and do what they have to do there.

And, I do have to say, I loved your comment about the need for the focus to be on commuters: do remember that the people who came up with the present interconnector route are the same people who came up with the proposed route for the metrowest.

Tallaght to the Airport was the main focus, but apparently it would also enable people from the commuting suburbs in West Dublin to interchange with the Kildare Line or the Maynooth Line in order to get into the city.

So, those commuters, shoppers, partygoers, etc, in the relevant suburbs, would need to change even to get into the city.

And then the planners (and you) go on about how it’s so important that everybody travelling along the Northern Line and the Kildare Line should be delivered directly to St. Stephen’s Green, without a change

The same planners came up with these ideas.

I have to say, not terribly impressive.

Up to about 1990 all of the financial management industry was located within walking distance of the Stock Exchange on Anglesea St; the numerous law practices that supported them were also within the area between Fleet St and Wicklow Street.

When the markets went to electronic trading based in the IFSC most of the buildings became vacant, then the tax code changed to make apartment and hotel building / conversion the most atttractive option and the area’s character changed. Other than the central bank there are no large office employers in that area.

Contrast that to Stephens Green where numerous developments have taken place in the interim and a picture starts to build.

However one does not need to get bogged down in my office district is bigger than yours. What needs to decide this is a designing a system that is predicated on 5-8 minute walking times from the station entrance to serve as many areas as is possible i.e. not building too many stations on top of each other but linking the last kilometer in the busiest section by tram.

Taking the alternative stations for College Green

Christchurch – 5 minutes
Tara Sreet – 5 minutes

Taking the alternative stations for Stephens Green

Christchurch – 8/10 minutes
Pearse Stn – 6/8 minutes

@PVC King wrote:

Up to about 1990 all of the financial management industry was located within walking distance of the Stock Exchange on Anglesea St; the numerous law practices that supported them were also within the area between Fleet St and Wicklow Street.

When the markets went to electronic trading based in the IFSC most of the buildings became vacant, then the tax code changed to make apartment and hotel building / conversion the most atttractive option and the area’s character changed. Other than the central bank there are no large office employers in that area.

Contrast that to Stephens Green where numerous developments have taken place in the interim and a picture starts to build.

However one does not need to get bogged down in my office district is bigger than yours. What needs to decide this is a designing a system that is predicated on 5-8 minute walking times from the station entrance to serve as many areas as is possible i.e. not building too many stations on top of each other but linking the last kilometer in the busiest section by tram.

PVCK, I need you to clarify a couple of things here.

Firstly, could you tell us about these big changes in St. Stephen’s Green. I’m very interested, as I haven’t seen that many changes in St. Stephen’s Green over the last 30 years or so.

(I think you may be using the term to describe much of Georgian Dublin and places like Adelaide Road and Harcourt Road, even though much of this area would – by the standards of several European cities whose public transport networks we might hope to emulate – be considered quite remote from the proposed St. Stephen’s Green station. Please disabuse me.)

Secondly, I think we should look at overall numbers of commuters, regardless of the shape, size or daily tasks of the individual commuter. To me, commuters includes people working in financial management, the law, architecture, graphic design, advertising, newspapers, the retail trade, the hospitality industry – really almost anything which involves travelling to and from work.

You seem to focus on those working in financial management and the law. Do you feel that this group represents the lion’s share of overall commuter numbers?

Thirdly, while there may not be many large offices in the area, let’s say, 300 metres either side of (say) Dame Street, there are very, very many small offices – not to mention a serious amount of locations which are workplaces for commuters working in the retail trade or the hospitality industry. Have you, perhaps, forgotten about these commuters?

Seamus

You assert some form of conspiracy or subconscious conspiracy on the part of the DTO to skew the route southwards; I do not wish to get into a handbags at dawn type argument as to clear trends in development patterns. The core office district in Dublin has been for many years located in the areas to the south and east of the intersection of Grafton St and Stephens Green in recent years it has moved west as well. The area north of this cannot be developed due to two key reasons

1. Plot sizes; that area is in the main a mix between Georgian and earlier site boundaries; site assembly is difficult to acheive viable plot sizes i.e. 3,000 sq m plus and rights of light etc make densification difficult within existing boundaries.

2. Heritage; the area is in the main made up of protected structures; for good reason the existing building lines by virtue of heritage protection and in most cases interiors are difficult to alter to open floor plates capable of accomodating office workers efficiently. Take a rectangular floor plate of 40m * 25m puntuated only by columns and you can accomodate roughly 100 staff. Take the upper floors of 4 Georgian buildings comprising a similar net internal area with numerous supporting walls and would be hard pressed to accomodate 60 staff.

Seeing as you asked about changes in the last 30 years taking a few wild guesses

1. Beaux Lane House – c6,000 sq m
2. Golden Lane – Various c10,000 sq m
3. Kevin St/ Bishop St c10,000 sq m
4. Harcourt Street Hospital c6,000 sq m
5. Stephens Green SC c45,000 sq m
6. Bank of Scotland c10,000 sq m
7. Former Dept of Justice c10,000
8. New Dept Finance c4,000 sq m
9. Former Eircom South King St c9,000 sq m
10. KBC Dawson St c3,000 sq m

Compare that to the area either side of College Green/Dame St which comprises the Central Bank, Financial Regulator and a few banks before you descend into workplaces that require c15 sq m plus per employee to accomodate staff comfortably.

The fundamental issue you haven’t addressed is the impact on office workers in Adelaide Road, Harcourt St, Leeson Street etc of having to walk from College Green. Whereas the impact on College Green of having to walk from Tara St or Christchurch is about 5 minutes. Would a 5 minute walk from both Dart lines be too much for you?

@PVC King wrote:

You assert some form of conspiracy or subconscious conspiracy on the part of the DTO to skew the route southwards

Maybe you’re right, Maybe…

I’ve just often wondered whether the location of their office might not have been a factor in their thinking when they got out the crayons.

And they were fairly unceremoniously moved over to DNS, shortly thereafter. Perhaps this was to avoid any suggestion that they hadn’t been able to take an entirely objective viewpoint.

Well… if it hadn’t been suggested before, it’s been suggested now.:D

I do not wish to get into a handbags at dawn type argument as to clear trends in development patterns. The core office district in Dublin has been for many years located in the areas to the south and east of the intersection of Grafton St and Stephens Green in recent years it has moved west as well. The area north of this cannot be developed due to two key reasons

PVC, you seem to be fixated on development.

But the city centre is not Adamstown, or some other development in the west of the city. You don’t need to apply suburban rules to this part of the city.

It’s already there – it doesn’t need to be developed. It’s already been done.

Imperfect it may be, but I bellieve there is no better location – in terms of numbers, in terms of not destroying St. Stephen’s Green, and in terms of creating a wonderful, pedestrianised, open space in the centre of the city – for a metro/interconnector interchange, than the area around College Green.

@PVC King wrote:

1. Beaux Lane House – c6,000 sq m
2. Golden Lane – Various c10,000 sq m
3. Kevin St/ Bishop St c10,000 sq m
4. Harcourt Street Hospital c6,000 sq m
5. Stephens Green SC c45,000 sq m
6. Bank of Scotland c10,000 sq m
7. Former Dept of Justice c10,000
8. New Dept Finance c4,000 sq m
9. Former Eircom South King St c9,000 sq m
10. KBC Dawson St c3,000 sq m[

So, Golden Lane is part of St. Stephen’s Green in your book?

That’s stretching it a bit, is it not?

The fundamental issue you haven’t addressed is the impact on office workers in Adelaide Road, Harcourt St, Leeson Street etc of having to walk from College Green. Whereas the impact on College Green of having to walk from Tara St or Christchurch is about 5 minutes. Would a 5 minute walk from both Dart lines be too much for you?

I have addressed this fundamental issue on another thread. This thread is about the central LUAS line.

Assuming that integrated ticketing is in place, workers wishing to travel between Harcourt Street and the interconnector will probably take the LUAS, whether the interconnector is the longer, more expensive, circuitous route through St. Stephen’s Green, or the originally proposed shorter route (or some other route)

For workers on Adelaide Road and much of Leeson Street, who will be too far away from the proposed interconnector station for it to be considered a station which, by international norms – “serves” them – they will unfortunately need to wait for other transport development, either way.

@Seamus O’G wrote:

Maybe you’re right, Maybe…

I’ve just often wondered whether the location of their office might not have been a factor in their thinking when they got out the crayons.

And they were fairly unceremoniously moved over to DNS, shortly thereafter. Perhaps this was to avoid any suggestion that they hadn’t been able to take an entirely objective viewpoint.

Well… if it hadn’t been suggested before, it’s been suggested now.:D

Well apart from Luas dating from the 1994 DTI report which predated the existence of the DTO did it not? As for the move to Abbey st, that happened in 2008, about 6 or 7 years after the dig began for Line B.

Perhaps you’re thinking of the Red Line 😉

Alonso, I’ve been looking for any proposal for a high capacity east-west/west-east rail line through St. Stephen’s Green which predates Mammy’s decision to cut the LUAS green line short.

But, as the song says, I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.

The circuitous option appears to date from around about that time.

What you need to remember about the 1975 DRTS plan was that it comprised two lines and not one; the first East West Line did go through Dame Street (Temple Bar Square) which I will come back to but also the second Line had a station at Fitzwilliam Square which would have extended a five minute walk to three sides of Stephens Green and as far as Harcourt Street etc.

The context of the Dame Street station was that most of Temple Bar was to be flattened and a modern central station built in its place behind the Central Bank; thankfully the Group of 91 with Haughey’s help ended the Bus station permanently and the area regenerated into the Heritage rich, low density Temple of Bars that we see today.

If the Five minute walk principal were applied the main office and retail districts are pretty much covered from the Dart Network once it goes to Stephens Green; however what is not covered in one change is the Green Luas Line to integrate with the North Inner City or Red Luas Line.

Join the dots…….

Dig up this old RUI thread :rolleyes:
The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry

Hamster

Can you cut n paste the text; subsciber area only!!

Oops, very sorry about that. Didn’t cop on to that:o
Its a thread dedicated to Dublin rail plans that didn’t materialise. Its all pictures of the many different plans but these also require a subscription.
Sorry.

After reading the Civic Trust’s recent (and splendid) report and re-reading through this particular thread, I would now have to agree with the views of some posters here regarding the detrimental effect of Luas wirescapes in College Green and O’Connell St.

Line BXD and Line F (Dame St.) will most definitely go ahead. Be it in 10 years or 20, someday. It’s a no brainer. Trams WILL run through College Green and O Connell someday.

In this Archiseek poll, 41% of you voted for Option B. And 37% voted for Option A

However, neither of these options were chosen by the RPA. A new option was chosen:

We still await An Bord Pleanála’s decision on Metro North, but if it goes ahead, the RPA will lay the foundations for line BXD in College Green and O’Connell St..

The question remains, how can the Luas operate without wires?

Answer:

With massive expense and unreliable technology.

1. Third rail (APS)
2. Battery powered trams

Posters and media keep saying “Bordeux”.

Yes, Bordeux has a very small section through the city powered by a third rail. It has failed on numerous occasions due to rain, snow, ice, dirt, etc. From reading translated French documents, the APS system was so unreliable that the local government ordered that wires be erected.

The technology is still under development and it will be another decade before RPA even consider using it.

Battery operated trams/ APS trams:

How much to you think it would cost to retrofit Luas trams with batteries or third rail conductors? The cost would be astronmical.

Lads, it´s not going to happen in this decade. The RPA will not invest in a flawed technology.

The best we can hope for is Metro North and Interconnector, and in 2020, Luas BXD with (hopefully) improved APS.

The RPA cannot cry poor while proposing another bridge
Building another bridge is flawed technology…
The money could be better spent…
Luas central is premature pending dart u and metro north …
Further to this there is no under master plan for this whole procession.

route a is the best but only if they chop into the trinity railings…

metro north should be able to be high speed or third rail… and should have a spare third line it would cost peanuts

natural gas powered luas?

Underground college green

@Morlan wrote:

Battery operated trams/ APS trams:

How much to you think it would cost to retrofit Luas trams with batteries or third rail conductors? The cost would be astronomical.

The new trams lines BXD & F are unlikely before 2020. Vehicle battery costs have fallen by 50% in the last 4 years. The batteries in the new Nissan Leaf are costing around $9,000 for 24 kwh. If you assume that a tram has 20 time the power req of a car, then that’s $180k for tram batteries. As I remember, the luas trams cost €1m a piece so it’s not completely out of all possibility.

The batteries would just be used to get across the central area from Stephen’s Green to O’Connell Street. Many cities will have this kind of requirement for their trams in future so it would be an off-the-shelf product option at that stage rather than a custom development as the French undertook in Bordeaux.

Or use mag-induction…look to Ausburg for proof of concept. Seems robust enough…

GERMANY: The Primove induction-based catenary-free electrification system developed by Bombardier Transportation is to be piloted on the tram network in Augsburg, the manufacturer announced on May 26.

Formally unveiled at Bombardier’s Bautzen factory in January 2009, Primove uses cable buried beneath the track to produce a magnetic fields which induces electric current for traction power in pick-up coils mounted underneath the vehicle.