Luas Central – Which Route?
- This topic has 319 replies, 62 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
@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.
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.
@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 ….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
