2015-2035 Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area

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.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

and that the only project of note being implemented in Dublin today was not on the DTO's crayon plan.

Which one is that?

strassenwo!f

The LUAS BXD line, the link-up.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The LUAS BXD line, the link-up.

I think I explained everything very clearly in my OP. I suggest you read it again. BXD is merely a route that was originally part of a broader Metro network and I did clearly state that PFC is regularly pillaged by the RPA to suit whatever mood the Government are in.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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.

What's missing from it? If it was nearing completion, would the city be functioning better?

strassenwo!f

Grandeeod wrote: »

I think I explained everything very clearly in my OP. I suggest you read it again. BXD is merely a route that was originally part of a broader Metro network and I did clearly state that PFC is regularly pillaged by the RPA to suit whatever mood the Government are in.

Grandeeod. I have of course read everything you wrote thoroughly. But the map which the dto produced is here:

http://people.reed.edu/~reyn/DublinPlanMetro&LUAStram.G.jpg

Now that shows an underground metro line going St. Stephen's Green to a station at Nassau Street, then to a station at Tara Street and on to a further station at the Rotunda.

Is that basically the same as the LUAS line which is currently being built?

strassenwo!f

Grandeeod wrote: »

What's missing from it? If it was nearing completion, would the city be functioning better?

I'm pretty sure the city would be functioning better.

I don't think it could have ever been built in the timeframe proposed, or anything near it, while most of the skilled construction workers were involved in more lucrative private sector construction jobs. And even if they hadn't been, the scale of construction required, in the face of local residents' objections, unforeseen issues like TCD (on the metro route between Tara Street and Nassau Street, for example) would have made it almost impossible to complete that amount of work in the timeframe proposed.

If it had been built, yes the city would be working better. But I don't think that a sufficient amount of expertise and money could realistically have been invested in those projects, in that relatively short time, even if they had had everybody's political will behind it.

strassenwo!f

If Dublin is to go the underground route, or put significant revenue into overground lines, it has to recognise that it's not going to catch up with competitor cities overnight. This was one of the things which stood out for me when the PFC plan was produced.

When the DTO came out with PFC, it seemed like Dublin was producing a 'transport map' which would bring the city up to the level of competitor cities like Munich or Prague. Unfortunately, those cities have been developing their public transport systems for many years. They now have a 'transport reality'.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Grandeeod. I have of course read everything you wrote thoroughly. But the map which the dto produced is here:

http://people.reed.edu/~reyn/DublinPlanMetro&LUAStram.G.jpg

Now that shows an underground metro line going St. Stephen's Green to a station at Nassau Street, then to a station at Tara Street and on to a further station at the Rotunda.

Is that basically the same as the LUAS line which is currently being built?

You are being pedantic. The route between SSG and Rotunda taken by the proposed metro under PFC was only slightly different. After Rotunda it was heading for the Broadstone alignment and on to the Liffey Junction area, just like BXD. One look at the BXD project and the PFC map clearly demonstrates the point I am making; The RPA pillage the original proposals to implement cheaper and less efficient alternatives.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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.

They were paid to know best and as a critic of Dublin transport, I believe it was a very well thought out plan. We havent produced anything better since. In fact we have been watering it down again and again. This latest study is also designed to water it down and stall real implementation.

In relation to submissions, asking the public to contribute to the PFC plan before its publication would be like asking the illiterate to contribute to the planning of libraries. The correct time for submissions happens when it comes to the implementation of each project/route within the plan. As it happens currently. But personally, I think there is too much public consulation on rail/light rail/metro in Ireland. As it is, it gives every wannabe transport planner a podium to stand on. The only relevence should be the impact of contruction etc. Its bad enough that the GOV interfer, without Joe Bloggs from wherever wanting a say on which way a luas goes.

But of course that suits a society that likes to fudge real development in rail transport.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the city would be functioning better.

I don't think it could have ever been built in the timeframe proposed, or anything near it, while most of the skilled construction workers were involved in more lucrative private sector construction jobs. And even if they hadn't been, the scale of construction required, in the face of local residents' objections, unforeseen issues like TCD (on the metro route between Tara Street and Nassau Street, for example) would have made it almost impossible to complete that amount of work in the timeframe proposed.

If it had been built, yes the city would be working better. But I don't think that a sufficient amount of expertise and money could realistically have been invested in those projects, in that relatively short time, even if they had had everybody's political will behind it.

No doubt the city would be functioning better. We agree on that much.

As for the timeframe proposed, without GOV interference in the planning of routes and types of transport (see the bonkers Green line debacle as an example), it could have been done. The skyline of Dublin changed within a short period of time. Villages around Ireland went from sleepy backwaters to having large housing estates. Funny how a state can transform a landscape via property development. Add to that the Motorway network, completed only 4 years behind schedule and delayed in the main by farmers. I accept objections would have been raised, but thats what the critical infrastructure bill was for.

The money was there. PPPs were being signed off for road projects in a flash. The state was awash with money that it wasted on tax cuts to maintain the vote. We pushed the road bill down the road so to speak. People took the benefits of these cuts to increase their personal standard of living, while complaining about traffic congestion, as they sat in brand new cars. This happened. Then we have the historical proof that successive Irish Governments go to war over rail based transport projects. Believe it or not the civil war continues to this day and its being fought within any rail based form of current or planned development.

If we actually had political will, we'd succeed.