Luas overcrowding
 

www.unison.ie

did they ask the question of why they got it wrong with carriage length in the first place?

Whatever about the extensions to the trams next year, what I can't understand is why at peak hours are trams 5 minutes apart? Why can't they be every 3 or 4 minutes during peak hours?

A) Not enough trams on Green line to go below 4 minute level
B) Green line is actually 4 minutes currently
C) New timetable is coming in September with official 4 minute service

Luas operational efficency is a joke compared to some tram operations elsewhere I've seen, DCC are part to blame as trams don't get priority when they should

what really ires me is that while an extension to carrickmines is in the pipeline , the tram line already built needs an improved electricity system to provide enough power for higher tram frequencies.

Is this being done in parallel with the extension ? (i think i know the answer already ...)

plus isn't it time that the rpa started preparing to extend all the platforms to cater for the future metro ?

They certainly should build the Cherrywood extenstion with 90m platforms to allow for future "Metrofication".

Trams may be extended to 50m, but current platforms are only 40m long. When 50m trams get approval for the green line (there are no plans for this at the moment, but as Cherrywood pushes demand up, it will be needed), stations should be extended to 90m here too, rather than requiring second upgrade for Metro.

Despite having pointed this out on record at the public inquiry no comment was made in the report

All platforms are 40m

I would even go as so far to say that any new Luas paltforms be built to 90m spec or capable of 90m.

Lucan line, Liffey Valley line etc. Unfortunately most of the stops cant be extended beyond 50/60m through oversight back in the CIE LRT days.

To allow metro running right into Tallaght the Belgard to Tallaght section of luas track should be 'metroficated' (Nice word LCP!) as part of the metro west works.

CIE oversight? That must be a first. :rolleyes:

Plan A was DART to Tallaght that was sunk

I know its slightly off topic and may need to be in the members area but waht are the chances of this happening with the metro

Say a year after it opens it is already under serious pressure to deal with peak services. Obviously upgrades to an underground are vastly more expensive and difficult than over ground so are the projected numbers for metro use conservative like the luas or what??

What about the Red Line Mark? Surely there are enough trams on this line to sustain a service beyond 5 minutes.

I certainly agree there's a strong argument for this in any off-street Luas sections. Any on-street sections where two or more lines share track would also benefit from this, as it would allow two trams to stop at the same time in a shared section. In some areas where there are space sonstraints, however, requiring 90m platforms would offer no real benefit, but make it seriously difficult to to fit stations in.

Have we seen any details on the designs of the Luas extensions? I would hope that platforms could be 50m for C1 and BX (let's face it, on-street Metro in the city centre is not something we're looking for), and 90m for the B1 extrnsion to Cherrywood. Somehow I doubt the last point is in the current plans.

This was a serious concern with the early Metro proposals, but after P11 kicked up a fuss about 2 or 3-car Metro trains, the spec has changed to allow vehicles up to 90m long, which I think should be sufficient capacity for the long term needs of the city. You won't be guaranteed a seat at rush hour, but that's the case all over the world.

what kind of freaquencies will the metro be capable of running at

are the metro units going to be the full 90m in length from the start of service

Why not ? it would be a lot cheaper. Essentially what is proposed is not a metro but trams doubled up. As repeatedly remarked by frank mcdonald , if several tram lines were built through the city (4/5), then the city centre could be closed off to cars.

This was very successfully done in strasbourg , a city of comparable size and population.

After all the cost of this metro would build several lines. It might not be as sexy but frankly would be rooted in sense. The green line runs through the most populated part of the city and doesn't have the patronage required to justify a metro, so i don't see how a northside underground is needed. where are the numbers ?

In theory the Metro will be capable of running at 90sec intervals in the central section shared by Metro North and Metro West, and 3 min intervals where the lines seperate.

I'm not sure if the trains will be full length from the start. It would make a lot of sense to start out with shorter trains and add capacity as it is needed.

I still think Metro is needed. Luas would be painfully slow if you tried to replace the orbital Metro with it, although I guess you could subsititute it for several arterial lines. The orbital Metro was recommended by Platform for Change and has the advantage of connecting a lof of communities outside the city centre, eliminating the need for many journies through the centre.

yes spot on. An orbital metro does seem like a good idea.

I was more thinking that this metro north is a frightfull waste of money.

There are already many long mostly straight routes through the city. Where they do curve , the road is paricularly wide in some cases. I think there is every reason to think that there is space to accomodate doubled up trams (or the doubled up extended trams in porto).

Consider the cost benefit. i think that three or four doubled tramlines could be far better than one underground doubled up tramline. With that level of service you could severely restrict car access. I think we are paying a few billion extra because the governement doesnt have the balls. For all their other faults ,the french ...

I just keep coming back to the interconnector. Because it is proper heavy rail it just has oodles of capacity it should be the priority , not this back of the hand job.

Is it just me ?