2015-2035 Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area

monument

New public consultation on the preparation of a new Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area:

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/public-consultation-on-the-preparation-of-a-new-transport-strategy-for-the-greater-dublin-area/

cgcsb

I suppose they've to wait for a decision on the Swords corridor study, and run with whatever fudge comes out of that. There's also potential ECB funding on the cards around that time.

For all the cash spent on strategies, plans and studies we'd probably have built metro north.

Grandeeod

It really is hard to take any of this seriously.

monument

cgcsb wrote: »

I suppose they've to wait for a decision on the Swords corridor study, and run with whatever fudge comes out of that

Sure, but the GDA Transport Strategy covers a very large area and all land transport modes within that area.

cgcsb wrote: »

For all the cash spent on strategies, plans and studies we'd probably have built metro north.

Hardly, but even if it was the case, the city and region needs transport planning.

Grandeeod wrote: »

It really is hard to take any of this seriously.

That's up to yourself.

The NTA has fairly strong powers over transport planning and operations -- from day-to-day stuff to transport planning and their role in objecting to any planning matter which do not link with their plans, for all of that they need a plan.

Grandeeod

monument wrote: »

That's up to yourself.

The NTA has fairly strong powers over transport planning and operations -- from day-to-day stuff to transport planning and their role in objecting to any planning matter which do not link with their plans, for all of that they need a plan.

How many plans have we had over the last 40 years? What was wrong with the DRRTS? What was wrong with PFC? Whats wrong with Vision 2030? What's changed since 2011? Why do we only have luas and DART after 40 years of plans, studies and consultations? Why are we doing it all over again?

The answer is obvious and is solidly backed up by history.

Banjoxed

Grandeeod wrote: »

How many plans have we had over the last 40 years? What was wrong with the DRRTS? What was wrong with PFC? Whats wrong with Vision 2030? What's changed since 2011? Why do we only have luas and DART after 40 years of plans, studies and consultations? Why are we doing it all over again?

The answer is obvious and is solidly backed up by history.

Got to agree.. Paralysis by analysis. Another great excuse to do bugger all.

Grandeeod

Banjoxed wrote: »

Got to agree.. Paralysis by analysis. Another great excuse to do bugger all.

Unfortunately it's very hard to convince people that this is actually happening again and again and again. Perhaps at 43 years of age and taking too big an interest in it since primary school, I've become very cynical. However I believe that my cynicism is justified. I'd love to be wrong, but if I was to outline the plans/studies/public consultations over the last 40 years against the backdrop of FG Vs FF lead Governments, it would be clear as crystal.

monument

Grandeeod wrote: »

How many plans have we had over the last 40 years? What was wrong with the DRRTS? What was wrong with PFC? Whats wrong with Vision 2030? What's changed since 2011? Why do we only have luas and DART after 40 years of plans, studies and consultations? Why are we doing it all over again?

Only really valid question in the context of this thread is what was wrong with 2030 -- and I think somebody should ask the NTA that.

But quite a lot has changed since 2011:

• 2011 Census details were released
• Metro North is likely to be binned officially
• Dublin is back to boom level traffic already
• The M50 upgrade has now been proven to be folly
• The Newlands Cross upgrade has been shown to be folly, at least as far as city-bound traffic is concerned
• Cycling is now 30% of carriageway traffic at the Dame St / George's St junction
• So-far nobody has notably blinked over a car lane being removed from Pearse St
• The wide impact BXD will have is starting to come home to more people
• Dublin City Council has indicated that they will put a segregated cycle route on the north quays
• National design standards for urban streets and roads have undergoing a radical change

Worth re doing the strategy for?

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

monument wrote: »

Only really valid question in the context of this thread is what was wrong with 2030 -- and I think somebody should ask the NTA that.

But quite a lot has changed since 2011:

• 2011 Census details were released
• Metro North is likely to be binned officially
• Dublin is back to boom level traffic already
• The M50 upgrade has now been proven to be folly
• The Newlands Cross upgrade has been shown to be folly, at least as far as city-bound traffic is concerned
• Cycling is now 30% of carriageway traffic at the Dame St / George's St junction
• So-far nobody has notably blinked over a car lane being removed from Pearse St
• The wide impact BXD will have is starting to come home to more people
• Dublin City Council has indicated that they will put a segregated cycle route on the north quays
• National design standards for urban streets and roads have undergoing a radical change

Worth re doing the strategy for?

have to say, i think luas cross city is a bit of a waste doing. or expanding luas for that matter if they are just going to introduce BRT.

BRT would be essentially the same thing minus the tracks and would save the hassle of digging up half of the city and closing off a major street or two.
And i can already see vehicles using or blocking luas lanes on street along with cyclists having accidents on tracks etc.

i dont see the point in having a luas system and BRT running side by side tbh.

The other gripe i have with Luas also is when something goes wrong along the line, e.g. a tram breaking down or an accident on route that half of the route has to close down because of such incident leaving commuters to transfer to other services. An example would be an accident on Abbey street, Trams would only be able to go between tallaght/saggart to Black horse at the end of the Naas road. Thats missing quite a chunk of route there tbh. Im not sure how it is on the green line.

what i think should be done.

> Dart underground
> BRT in place of Luas cross city.
> Better enforcement of bus corridors and bus lanes.
> more buses with the capacity to sope with rising levels of passengers
> Better thought out traffic lights / junctions being timed correctly and sensors in correct place on road.
> Good bike lanes that still leave room for traffic to overtake safely without taking up another lane to do so.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

Only really valid question in the context of this thread is what was wrong with 2030 -- and I think somebody should ask the NTA that.

But quite a lot has changed since 2011 <snip>

The comments on Metro North are conjecture, no matter the political and media commentary surrounding it. An optimised Metro North proposal, identical in alignment, is one of the favoured plans. The N7 and M50 upgrades being folly? It's an opinion, not a "change". Those road projects did exist then even if they weren't complete. . Census data is released every 5 years and this in itself would not justify a new transport study after census completion. It's also worth remembering that the impact of BXD is something the NTA themselves along with An Bord Pleanála should be already able to anticipate and consider strategically when BXD was being planned. This new "strategy" at least offers people another chance to voice their issues on a number of things that BXD affects. But they could have carried out a study instead of a strategy to the same effect?

For what it's worth, a Transport Strategy covering the next 20 years for an area containing over a third of the country's population is going to raise numerous issues and naturally re-explore historical plans and issues too. DRRTS and PFC had plenty to offer in terms of strategy but little on implementation or sustainability. Questions ought to be asked on what strategy is simultaneously realistic and dovetails into what Dublin needs for years to come. The spacial development and planning within Dublin, particularly in Fingal would suggest that local authorities can't or won't provide the density of population and the space needed for proper public transport. Provision for greater cycling and pedestrians is cost-effective and needs investment. But that's taking a very narrow view of the transport puzzle. The greater Dublin area is staring down the barrel of even further urban sprawl and dormitory towns. The big decisions and the big investments are what need lasting commitment and a very comprehensive framework for implementation, not more "last mile" strategies that can be built and budgeted over a few years or even a single year.

If we can't implement many aspects of any previous strategy, it's time to discuss how that can be avoided surely? We don't need a transport strategy covering 20 years to implement a cycling corridor on the north quays of Dublin.

monument

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

i dont see the point in having a luas system and BRT running side by side tbh.

A combo of trams and buses/BRT is the norm in many cities.

The kind of BRT which fits in Dublin (ie not the mega South American / Chinese BRT) is lower capacity than modern Luas-style trams.

lucernarian wrote: »

The comments on Metro North are conjecture, no matter the political and media commentary surrounding it. An optimised Metro North proposal, identical in alignment, is one of the favoured plans.

Conjecture based on the comments on ministers and Realpolitik.

lucernarian wrote: »

The N7 and M50 upgrades being folly? It's an opinion, not a "change". Those road projects did exist then even if they weren't complete.

Ok look at it this way:

MY OPINION: It was folly.

FACT: The M50 and N7 upgrades have now shown to follow long-established patterns of congestion due to Induced Demand and congestion due to funneling larger amounts traffic on a large N/M road network into a R/L road network that can't handle such volumes.

TRANSLATION: It was folly.

lucernarian wrote: »

Census data is released every 5 years and this in itself would not justify a new transport study after census completion.

Expect that the last census was after the dust had settled on the largest building boom for a century?

lucernarian wrote: »

But they could have carried out a study instead of a strategy to the same effect?

They have a draft study city centre study and are somehow still working on it.

lucernarian wrote: »

If we can't implement many aspects of any previous strategy, it's time to discuss how that can be avoided surely?

2030 Vision was never fully approved. Mainly I'm told because of Metro North.

lucernarian wrote: »

We don't need a transport strategy covering 20 years to implement a cycling corridor on the north quays of Dublin.

Nobody is suggesting one factor alone amounts to a reason for a revised or "new" strategy. But the fact that the city manager said it will happen is one of a number of departures from the norm I listed,.

cgcsb

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

BRT would be essentially the same thing minus the tracks and would save the hassle of digging up half of the city and closing off a major street or two.

Nope, BRT is lower capacity and lower frequency than luas. BRT vehicles have the same capacity as existing buses, so no improvement on bus services.

Jem72

The impact of BXD is far from certain and a huge amount depends on minor details. If Irish Rail decide to have the Sligo InterCity trains stop at Broombridge, it would make a massive difference to the viability of commutes on that line. For example, a Mullingar to Sandyford commute should be possible in a little over 90 minutes and you could be in for 9 leaving Mullingar around 7:30.

The other huge unknown is price. At the moment if you're on a point-to-point rail pass, you have to buy a separate Luas pass at no discount (with the exception of a discounted add-on to get you between Heuston and Connolly). If they allowed a Luas pass as a 400 euro add-on (the difference between short hop rail and short hop rail + luas) BXD could be a real game-changer. If they carry as at present, you would need to spend an extra 1700 to get access to Luas and that will completely destroy any opportunity to open out large market around Kilcock, Engfield and Mullingar.

There is another huge market in that it makes a day trip to the south city centre a lot easier if you can hop of an InterCity train and nip to Stephen's Green or Dawson street on a tram.

end of the road

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

BRT in place of Luas cross city.

no, no, no . luas cross city will link up both lines even if the current operations once built may not take advantage of it. it is doing something that should have been done from the start. BRT is the one that should be scrapped as i believe it would never be able to cope with the traffic demands expected of it.

D.L.R.

Grandeeod wrote: »

It really is hard to take any of this seriously.

...said the minister as he drafted it.

Jamie2k9

But quite a lot has changed since 2011:
2011 Census details were released
Metro North is likely to be binned officially
Dublin is back to boom level traffic already
The M50 upgrade has now been proven to be folly
The Newlands Cross upgrade has been shown to be folly, at least as far as city-bound traffic is concerned
Cycling is now 30% of carriageway traffic at the Dame St / George's St junction
So-far nobody has notably blinked over a car lane being removed from Pearse St
The wide impact BXD will have is starting to come home to more people
Dublin City Council has indicated that they will put a segregated cycle route on the north quays
National design standards for urban streets and roads have undergoing a radical change

Worth re doing the strategy fo

Given the next Census is likely just over a year away surly using 2011 data is pointless to an extent.

I bet cycling for example is way higher now than in 2011...

This should be republished end of 2016 once updated data comes in!

StreetLight

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

This should be republished end of 2016 once updated data comes in!

Or just before the next election.....

Carawaystick

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Given the next Census is likely just over a year away surly using 2011 data is pointless to an extent.

I bet cycling for example is way higher now than in 2011...

This should be republished end of 2016 once updated data comes in!

The Next Census data will only be available in 2017.

bk

monument wrote: »

• Metro North is likely to be binned officially
  
• Dublin is back to boom level traffic already
• The M50 upgrade has now been proven to be folly
• The Newlands Cross upgrade has been shown to be folly, at least as far as city-bound traffic is concerned

The first point and the latter three are clearly in opposition to one another.

IMO it is clear that building more roads in Dublin just isn't going to work any more and what we need is more, high quality rail based rapid public transport and that means both Dart Underground and Metro North.

Having said that I am also in favour of BRT (in addition to Metro North, not instead of it) and lots more cycling infrastructure which has clearly exploded over the last few years.

D.L.R.

I don't know about the M50 upgrade being folly. You could argue the M50 itself was a flawed idea, but once built as under-capacity as it was, the upgrade was completely necessary. I remember the M50 Mk I - it was a disaster.

Same goes for newlands - whatever about building new roads and induced demand etc, its important that existing roads are as free flowing as possible.

Banjoxed

D.L.R. wrote: »

I don't know about the M50 upgrade being folly. You could argue the M50 itself was a flawed idea, but once built as under-capacity as it was, the upgrade was completely necessary. I remember the M50 Mk I - it was a disaster.

Same goes for newlands - whatever about building new roads and induced demand etc, its important that existing roads are as free flowing as possible.

The necessity for the M50 upgrade, and indeed the ever shifting, constant wheel reinvention around transport projects are a monument to the mindset of senior civil servants who grudged spending money when it was necessary, and those who blew the wad when the boom went boomier - but without ever committing to a coherent and coordinated public transport system.

jd

Went to meeting about North Dublin Transport Study
Posted stuff here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94066612

cdebru

D.L.R. wrote: »

I don't know about the M50 upgrade being folly. You could argue the M50 itself was a flawed idea, but once built as under-capacity as it was, the upgrade was completely necessary. I remember the M50 Mk I - it was a disaster.

Same goes for newlands - whatever about building new roads and induced demand etc, its important that existing roads are as free flowing as possible.

I agree I don't know how the M50 upgrade which keeps thousands of cars and trucks out of city can be described as a folly. Yes it suffers congestion but nowhere near as bad as pre upgrade and that alone encourages those who want to get across the city to use it and keeps them out of clogging up the city center.

As for Newlands cross an a major road joining the largest cities was bottlenecked by a traffic light junction how removing that could be viewed as a folly I have no idea.

cdebru

Banjoxed wrote: »

The necessity for the M50 upgrade, and indeed the ever shifting, constant wheel reinvention around transport projects are a monument to the mindset of senior civil servants who grudged spending money when it was necessary, and those who blew the wad when the boom went boomier - but without ever committing to a coherent and coordinated public transport system.

100% which I fear is exactly what will happen with BRT instead of doing it properly the first time it will be a compromised slap dash, which in the end will be upgraded/replaced because it just won't work.

paulosam

cdebru wrote: »

I agree I don't know how the M50 upgrade which keeps thousands of cars and trucks out of city can be described as a folly. Yes it suffers congestion but nowhere near as bad as pre upgrade and that alone encourages those who want to get across the city to use it and keeps them out of clogging up the city center.

As for Newlands cross an a major road joining the largest cities was bottlenecked by a traffic light junction how removing that could be viewed as a folly I have no idea.

Cos it hasn't solved the problem, it's just moved it a few KM down the road to the Kylemore Road junction. From there on in, traffic crawls down the Naas Road past Bluebell until Inchicore Village where it can split off towards the N4 or down Emmet Road. Bus lane helpfully disappears just at Bluebell, so the 13/68/69 are stuck snaking along for up to 20/25 mins at rush hour.

Only thing that's going to get people out of their cars is a congestion charge inside the canal at this stage.

jd

paulosam wrote: »

Cos it hasn't solved the problem, it's just moved it a few KM down the road to the Kylemore Road junction.

If you are coming from M50, it does make a difference. It certainly has to me @:)

monument

cdebru wrote: »

I agree I don't know how the M50 upgrade which keeps thousands of cars and trucks out of city can be described as a folly.

It mostly services trips which were never going to go near the city centre.

A huge bulk of the trips it now serves are directly due to induced demand.

cdebru wrote: »

Yes it suffers congestion but nowhere near as bad as pre upgrade

It's suffering notable congestion quickly after the upgrade and only just getting out of one of the largest downturns in 100 years.

cdebru wrote: »

and that alone encourages those who want to get across the city to use it and keeps them out of clogging up the city center.

The city centre is still clogged up and that traffic is getting worse too.

cdebru wrote: »

As for Newlands cross an a major road joining the largest cities was bottlenecked by a traffic light junction how removing that could be viewed as a folly I have no idea.

This is what I said above: "The Newlands Cross upgrade has been shown to be folly, at least as far as city-bound traffic is concerned"

MGWR

end of the road wrote: »

no, no, no . luas cross city will link up both lines even if the current operations once built may not take advantage of it. it is doing something that should have been done from the start. BRT is the one that should be scrapped as i believe it would never be able to cope with the traffic demands expected of it.

Luas should have been underground in the city centre; and frankly, it ought to have been in a different format from light rail. If traffic as at "boom" levels now, it'll be worse afterward. Dublin did have a Wide Streets Commission once for a good reason after all.

MGWR

bk wrote: »

The first point and the latter three are clearly in opposition to one another.

IMO it is clear that building more roads in Dublin just isn't going to work any more and what we need is more, high quality rail based rapid public transport and that means both Dart Underground and Metro North.

Having said that I am also in favour of BRT (in addition to Metro North, not instead of it) and lots more cycling infrastructure which has clearly exploded over the last few years.

So-called "DART Underground" adds no new destinations and redirects passenger rail away from the city centre. Forced transfers either at Pearse or St. Stephen's Green will overload existing/future systems anyway.

Of course building new railway lines underground will, but new destinations need to be added and the capacity needs to be greater than the currently-planned "Metro"; perhaps new lines should be built in DART format. The Harcourt Street Line was originally meant to serve Rathfarnham, for example. Neighbourhoods with no railway service do need it; imagine Terenure with an underground railway for another example?

As for driving, when the people vote with their feet, it's better to offer a choice rather than force an alternative upon them. Degradation of service is one of the things that made people eschew buses after all.

Irish Steve

Hopefully, the study of the GREATER Dublin area will be about more than the N7 and the M50.

For me, the biggest shambles is the way that the rings have developed, we've the centre, then a whole cluster of residential housing, then a ring around the city of industrial estates, then yet more residential developments outside the ring, and so it goes on, and the biggest mess of the lot is that there's next to no public transport into great chunks of those industrial rings, like North West, Ballycoolin, and the Naas road area, unless you want to go to the city centre first to get on the route, or travel round the M50 to get to the outer part of the route. So, someone living in Swords, or Ashbourne, or Clonee, or Lucan, and working in Sandyford has no choice about how they get to and from work, unless they want to spend as long travelling as they do working, the only viable option right now is to use the car to commute.

The same is true for areas like Citywest, or Tallaght, or Ballyfermot, and there's so many other areas that are the same. To get to work (or college) in Ballyfermot from Swords means leaving before 7 am, because there's no alternative other than to crawl into the centre of Dublin to then get another service from the centre out to Ballyfermot.

Metro North is only duplicating the same folly, which is that everyone works in the centre of Dublin, which is just not the case any more, there are way more complex interactions that are now the norm, but they are not catered for by the public transport system that's in place at present.

The whole public transport ticketing and interaction systems are still a mess, the Leap card is a poor start, and still not fully integrated. There are way too many gaps in the coverage of cross city services that don't go near the centre.

Traffic flow management. The N road system is still strangled by poor design and bad flow control. There are places where certain buildings should have been flattened and the road widened to allow the flow to work, Drumcondra being one glaring example, Phibsboro and Doyles Corner another, Inchicore and the Coombe area being another.

There's no joined up thinking on things like Park and Ride around the M50 ring, or even close to it, and it's made worse by having long distance bus services that stop every few hundred metres once they get inside the M50, rather than having an acceptable interchange close to the M50 that would allow changes onto other routes or directions.

The Airport, Total Fitness at Blanchardstown, Red Cow Park and ride, they are 3 places that immediately spring to mind as being places where an interchange between services should be possible, and M3 Parkway, though further out, is another place where hubbing between services could work, but that requires some joined up thinking and planning, and (the unthinkable) knocking some heads together at CIE to get them actually working together in the national interest, rather than the present shambles.

If transport planning is anything like as shambolic as the "planning" that's (not) in place for other aspects of infrastructure, then it's no wonder that we need another study, I've had to look closely at what's been "planned" in the last 25 years in relation to things like storm water management in Ashbourne, and the findings are that there's been NO planning worth the name, and much of that is down to the problems of political interference, the NIMBY factor, and the non accountability of state and semi state staff for their decisions.

Another study will serve to confirm what we already know, Greater Dublin's transport is a mess, like the water, and the drains, and like any other area of infrastructure that has a timescale that goes beyond the next election, anything beyond the election is never on the radar of the political system, the only thing that matters is getting re elected, and anything else is irrelevant.

cdebru

paulosam wrote: »

Cos it hasn't solved the problem, it's just moved it a few KM down the road to the Kylemore Road junction. From there on in, traffic crawls down the Naas Road past Bluebell until Inchicore Village where it can split off towards the N4 or down Emmet Road. Bus lane helpfully disappears just at Bluebell, so the 13/68/69 are stuck snaking along for up to 20/25 mins at rush hour.

Only thing that's going to get people out of their cars is a congestion charge inside the canal at this stage.

Well I don't know if you remember it pre upgrade and removal of the toll barrier the log jams lasted well beyond rush hour and the traffic didn't move at all. You can't even compare it now to then.

cdebru

monument wrote: »

It mostly services trips which were never going to go near the city centre.

A huge bulk of the trips it now serves are directly due to induced demand.




It's suffering notable congestion quickly after the upgrade and only just getting out of one of the largest downturns in 100 years.




The city centre is still clogged up and that traffic is getting worse too.




This is what I said above: "The Newlands Cross upgrade has been shown to be folly, at least as far as city-bound traffic is concerned"

Any data to back that up ? That it mostly serves trips that would never go near the city ?

Any major city ring road that doesn't suffer congestion ?

Is the congestion as bad, worse or not as bad as it was ?

The induced demand as you call it are they trips that would not have been made at all or would have used other routes ?

How much worse would the city center be if the M50 had not been upgraded ?


Lastly just repeating your contention doesn't answer how it is a folly, if you had ever endured the newlands cross bottleneck you would know it has vastly improved the journey to the south west and back. It can't and never could address the issue of too many cars entering the city at peak time.

monument

cdebru wrote: »

Any data to back that up ? That it mostly serves trips that would never go near the city ?

Any major city ring road that doesn't suffer congestion ?

Is the congestion as bad, worse or not as bad as it was ?

The induced demand as you call it are they trips that would not have been made at all or would have used other routes ?

How much worse would the city center be if the M50 had not been upgraded ?


Lastly just repeating your contention doesn't answer how it is a folly, if you had ever endured the newlands cross bottleneck you would know it has vastly improved the journey to the south west and back. It can't and never could address the issue of too many cars entering the city at peak time.

What do you mean "induced demand as you call it"?!

Induced demand is a well-established effect:

http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/rpl_docs/apbinduc.pdf
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
http://www.uctc.net/papers/648.pdf

As the saying goes -- it's madness to keep trying the same thing and expect a different result. In the case of the M50 -- we're out of space.

The M50 and most of the planning around it was a planning disaster and its use for local traffic is well known. It having too many junctions is well known. The bloody planning tribunal spent long enough discussing it.

As for the city centre.... How much worse would the city center be if the M50 had not been upgraded? What are you talking about? The city centre has been on one side or another of the verge of max traffic capacity for years. Priority and space has been and is continuing to be transferred to more sustainable modes. Where do you think even a small fraction of the M50 upgrade traffic could go near the city centre?

There are other options than building motorways to fulfil growth and movement around a city and it's suburbs, while keeping motorways for longer-distance traffic. Ireland and Dublin are less keen on investing in these, even when compared to some US cities (which are poor examples compared to others). On the face of it, even LA has seemed better in recent years at notable public transport roll out than Ireland.

cdebru

monument wrote: »

What do you mean "induced demand as you call it"?!

Induced demand is a well-established effect:

http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/rpl_docs/apbinduc.pdf
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
http://www.uctc.net/papers/648.pdf

As the saying goes -- it's madness to keep trying the same thing and expect a different result. In the case of the M50 -- we're out of space.

The M50 and most of the planning around it was a planning disaster and its use for local traffic is well known. It having too many junctions is well known. The bloody planning tribunal spent long enough discussing it.

As for the city centre.... How much worse would the city center be if the M50 had not been upgraded? What are you talking about? The city centre has been on one side or another of the verge of max traffic capacity for years. Priority and space has been and is continuing to be transferred to more sustainable modes. Where do you think even a small fraction of the M50 upgrade traffic could go near the city centre?

There are other options than building motorways to fulfil growth and movement around a city and it's suburbs, while keeping motorways for longer-distance traffic. Ireland and Dublin are less keen on investing in these, even when compared to some US cities (which are poor examples compared to others). On the face of it, even LA has seemed better in recent years at notable public transport roll out than Ireland.

Well done you managed to answer not a single thing I asked you.

So any data to prove that most of the trips on the M50 would not go near the city center if the M50 did not exist ?

Second any proof that the traffic on the M50 is induced demand, not looking for a definition of induced demand.

Thirdly saying the city center is at capacity or over capacity doesn't answer the question would it be worse or better if the M50 had not been upgraded.


Lastly you seem to be of the position that all problems can be addressed by public transport they can't, public transport doesn't work for all trips and in order to facilitate public transport you actually need a functioning road network the two go hand in hand the M50 and newlands cross upgrades were as much about fixing badly designed junctions as anything else public transport has benefited from those upgrades as well as, yes you can't keep just building roads to fill up with private cars but you have to provide a road network that can function as well the M50 didn't do that, the M50 upgrade was just about doing what should have been done originally.

It is not a folly to invest in road infrastructure, it is a folly to only invest in road infrastructure as if just building roads could solve traffic congestion, it is not a folly to build a motorway around the city, it is a folly to not use it for better public transport.

monument

Will answer in more detail later, but for now:

Where do you think even a small fraction of the M50 upgrade traffic could go near the city centre?

We have not seen full growth yet in the economy and -- even before BXD works really got underway -- city centre traffic was grinding towards gridlock.

It's one thing to say that the M50 was to keep traffic away from the city centre, it's a whole other matter to claim that the upgrade will do the same to any notable extent which is worth mentioning. A lot has changed.

cdebru

monument wrote: »

Will answer in more detail later, but for now:

Where do you think even a small fraction of the M50 upgrade traffic could go near the city centre?

We have not seen full growth yet in the economy and -- even before BXD works really got underway -- city centre traffic was grinding towards gridlock.

It's one thing to say that the M50 was to keep traffic away from the city centre, it's a whole other matter to claim that the upgrade will do the same to any notable extent which is worth mentioning. A lot has changed.

So basically you are claiming that the M50 diverted traffic from the city center but the upgrade didn't, sorry but that is BS if the M50 had not been upgraded then it would be gridlocked and any benefit to avoiding the city center would not exist and traffic would not use it.

What you are ignoring is that the M50 upgrade wasn't just adding capacity it was upgrading junctions to make them usuable, it was fixing it to the way it should have been designed originally but wasn't to save a few bob. The folly was not building it to its current specs originally.

D.L.R.

It should be noted also that rural motorway construction still seems to be a higher priority than urban transport, given the M17/M18 is now approved, and the Enniscorthy and New Ross bypasses are imminent.

Why is bypassing very minor towns a higher priority than urban transport in major cities? Its totally backwards!

Grandeeod

monument wrote: »

Worth re doing the strategy for?

Dublin already has a public transport strategy that apart from gathering dust since 2001, has been butchered over the years via repackaging, political interference and absolute indifference. That same stategy was meant to be completed next year. Its called platform for change. This is what it proposed in rail terms;

An extensive metro system serving Tallaght, Citywest, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown, Swords, the airport, Kimmage, Shankhill. This was butchered into a MN alignment and a very poor Metro West proposal.

A luas system that extended to Tallaght, Lucan, Terenure, Rathfarnham and Kilbarrack with a branch to the airport serving a different alignment than metro. There was also a line running around the south city connecting with the docklands line at the point.

Dart Underground and Pace extension.

So what did we get?

No Metro whatsoever.

A luas from Tallaght to Connolly. A luas from SSG to Sandyford. Then the add ons to Citywest and Cherrywood, both of which were meant to be part of a metro system in the first place. Then the currently under construction cross city luas which once again was meant to be part of a wider metro network.

No DU.

The Pace extension.

That is a disgraceful return on a strategy over the course of 14 years and during the wealthiest period in the nations history.

I'm attaching a graphic of the plan. Not great quality, but if you know your stuff, you'll identify the routes and locations. If you study it, you can see how it evolved from the DRRTS of 1975 (can't find a graphic for that) and also how its referred to by the RPA everytime they are sent to the drawing board.

As I said before, 40 years of fudging, reinventing the wheel and committing to the cheapest options bit by bit. Unforgiveable.

PFC.jpg

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

It should be noted also that rural motorway construction still seems to be a higher priority than urban transport, given the M17/M18 is now approved, and the Enniscorthy and New Ross bypasses are imminent.

Why is bypassing very minor towns a higher priority than urban transport in major cities? Its totally backwards!

People and politicians from rural areas want what they class as their fair share. On top of that, you have a vast number of politicians in Leinster house that represent people outside of any Irish city, therefore havent a clue about things like public transport requirements to assist cities in the movement of people.

D.L.R.

Grandeeod wrote: »

People and politicians from rural areas want what they class as their fair share. On top of that, you have a vast number of politicians in Leinster house that represent people outside of any Irish city, therefore havent a clue about things like public transport requirements to assist cities in the movement of people.

New Ross, for example, getting a €200 million bypass, including Ireland's longest bridge.. significantly more than "its fair share". Its not even on a major interurban route! At the same time we're mulling the removal of a central station from Metro North to save the same amount of cash.

Only in this country is a bypass of a small rural town a higher priority than a station that would serve millions every year.

Its insane, and nobody's accountable.

Grandeeod

D.L.R. wrote: »

New Ross, for example, getting a €200 million bypass, including Ireland's longest bridge.. significantly more than "its fair share". Its not even on a major interurban route! At the same time we're mulling the removal of a central station from Metro North to save the same amount of cash.

Only in this country is a bypass of a small rural town a higher priority than a station that would serve millions every year.

Its insane, and nobody's accountable.

I agree whole heartedly.

strandroad

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm attaching a graphic of the plan. Not great quality, but if you know your stuff, you'll identify the routes and locations. If you study it, you can see how it evolved from the DRRTS of 1975 (can't find a graphic for that) and also how its referred to by the RPA everytime they are sent to the drawing board.

As I said before, 40 years of fudging, reinventing the wheel and committing to the cheapest options bit by bit. Unforgiveable.

PFC.jpg

That graphic is so depressing looking today

end of the road

D.L.R. wrote: »

New Ross, for example, getting a €200 million bypass, including Ireland's longest bridge.. significantly more than "its fair share". Its not even on a major interurban route! At the same time we're mulling the removal of a central station from Metro North to save the same amount of cash.

Only in this country is a bypass of a small rural town a higher priority than a station that would serve millions every year.

Its insane, and nobody's accountable.

and even with that waste of money, the new- ross by-pass will never be more direct then the closed south wexford railway or the extremely handy service that is the car ferry. as a person from wexford myself, i will happily put it on record that i don't want these by-passes, they aren't needed and are a waste of money

veryangryman

D.L.R. wrote: »

It should be noted also that rural motorway construction still seems to be a higher priority than urban transport, given the M17/M18 is now approved, and the Enniscorthy and New Ross bypasses are imminent.

Why is bypassing very minor towns a higher priority than urban transport in major cities? Its totally backwards!

Trade (i.e Trucks/Hauliers etc) use the ports at Rosslare. Access to the first and second largest cities on the island to this port needs improvement. Ergo bypasses on the Dublin route (N11) and Cork Route (N25).

Those who live in cities, yes they should get something vis a vis public transport. However, the trucks can get around these cities (possible exception Galway) with relative ease.

Banjoxed

end of the road wrote: »

and even with that waste of money, the new- ross by-pass will never be more direct then the closed south wexford railway or the extremely handy service that is the car ferry. as a person from wexford myself, i will happily put it on record that i don't want these by-passes, they aren't needed and are a waste of money

On the contrary, they make a shed load of money for those whose land has been CPO'd. Railways on the other hand can't be monetised in exactly the same way.

end of the road

veryangryman wrote: »

Trade (i.e Trucks/Hauliers etc) use the ports at Rosslare. Access to the first and second largest cities on the island to this port needs improvement. Ergo bypasses on the Dublin route (N11) and Cork Route (N25).

the trucks have perfect access to the port. they have got enough from us all ready everything else that could do some good has been stopped because of their whining. they always get everything they want. well this time they shouldn't. given a choice between DU and stopping a few road hauliers from whining then DU will win and should win as far as i'm concerned.

veryangryman

end of the road wrote: »

the trucks have perfect access to the port. they have got enough from us all ready everything else that could do some good has been stopped because of their whining. they always get everything they want. well this time they shouldn't. given a choice between DU and stopping a few road hauliers from whining then DU will win and should win as far as i'm concerned.

Not to Rosslare they dont. They get the access because the bang for buck is good. Commuters (rightly or wrongly) have been told to go screw themselves. I don't think this would happen if they were generating as much cash (or the price of them being late/inefficient commutes was high to the state) as the trucks.

end of the road

veryangryman wrote: »

Not to Rosslare they dont.

its good enough for them. if they want the by-passes so bad they should contribute something to them. things that will benefit us all such as DU should come first for a change

veryangryman wrote: »

They get the access because the bang for buck is good.

i don't know is that really true. relying on trucks only probably means very huge maintenence costs. how much do the trucks contribute toards them? they do the most damage from what i can see. they get the access because they have the lobbying power.

veryangryman wrote: »

Commuters (rightly or wrongly) have been told to go screw themselves.

always the way. time for that to change.

veryangryman wrote: »

I don't think this would happen if they were generating as much cash (or the price of them being late/inefficient commutes was high to the state) as the trucks.

well trucks being late wouldn't be as much of a problem to the state if we didn't rely on them for everything but thats for another thread

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

its good enough for them. if they want the by-passes so bad they should contribute something to them. things that will benefit us all such as DU should come first for a change



i don't know is that really true. relying on trucks only probably means very huge maintenence costs. how much do the trucks contribute toards them? they do the most damage from what i can see. they get the access because they have the lobbying power.



always the way. time for that to change.





well trucks being late wouldn't be as much of a problem to the state if we didn't rely on them for everything but thats for another thread

In all fairness, the point being made is that some priority should go towards where its needed most. That said I don't personally begrudge the likes of New Ross its bypass. The N25 is a very important route for the south.

end of the road

Grandeeod wrote: »

In all fairness, the point being made is that some priority should go towards where its needed most.

which is what i've been saying. the likes of DU would benefit more people including possibly me from time to time then a bypass for new-ross would.

strassenwo!f

Grandeeod wrote: »

Dublin already has a public transport strategy that apart from gathering dust since 2001, has been butchered over the years via repackaging, political interference and absolute indifference. That same stategy was meant to be completed next year. Its called platform for change. This is what it proposed in rail terms;

An extensive metro system serving Tallaght, Citywest, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown, Swords, the airport, Kimmage, Shankhill. This was butchered into a MN alignment and a very poor Metro West proposal.

A luas system that extended to Tallaght, Lucan, Terenure, Rathfarnham and Kilbarrack with a branch to the airport serving a different alignment than metro. There was also a line running around the south city connecting with the docklands line at the point.

Dart Underground and Pace extension.

So what did we get?

No Metro whatsoever.

A luas from Tallaght to Connolly. A luas from SSG to Sandyford. Then the add ons to Citywest and Cherrywood, both of which were meant to be part of a metro system in the first place. Then the currently under construction cross city luas which once again was meant to be part of a wider metro network.

No DU.

The Pace extension.

That is a disgraceful return on a strategy over the course of 14 years and during the wealthiest period in the nations history.

I'm attaching a graphic of the plan. Not great quality, but if you know your stuff, you'll identify the routes and locations. If you study it, you can see how it evolved from the DRRTS of 1975 (can't find a graphic for that) and also how its referred to by the RPA everytime they are sent to the drawing board.

As I said before, 40 years of fudging, reinventing the wheel and committing to the cheapest options bit by bit. Unforgiveable.

PFC.jpg

In fairness, Grandeeod, the PFC plan amounted, even then, when the country was starting to wallow in money, to government-sponsored crayonism on a grand scale.

The DTO produced it without any call for submissions from the public as to what might be needed, what might be good, how best to do this or that. They knew best.

It was basically a group of people assembled by the Department of Transport from various sources, including its own people, and it was given free rein to come up with a plan. This they did, ignoring the many people who had returned from overseas with good experience in many aspects of public transport development.

It is notable that pretty much none of PFC has been implemented, and that the only project of note being implemented in Dublin today was not on the DTO's crayon plan.

I take it most of the crayonists for the DTO plan are now working for the NTA.