Luas Central – Which Route?
- This topic has 319 replies, 62 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
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 😀
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 TimesShorter, 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.
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.
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.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
