NTA - GDA transport strategy approved

lil5

Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016 – 2035 approved by Minister
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/greater-dublin-area-transport-strategy-2016-2035-approved-minister/

The National Transport Authority today (April 6th) announced that its work in preparing a Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA), 2016-2035 has concluded (in accordance with Section 12 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act, 2008), that it has been approved by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, and has been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
...

The following documents were published today and can be downloaded on the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016-2035 page of our website:
- Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035
- Public Consultation Submissions Report – summarising and setting out the Authority’s response to each of the submissions received during the second round of public consultation, which comprised the publication of the Draft Transport Strategy, and the subsequent changes made to the strategy report
- Environmental Report – setting out, as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the draft Strategy, in compliance with Article 9(1) of SI 435 of 2004.
- SEA Statement – prepared on approval of the Strategy
- AA Natura Impact Report – in compliance with EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, commonly known as the Habitats Directive, an Appropriate Assessment has also been carried out and a Natura Impact Statement has been prepared to determine if the draft Strategy will impact on the integrity and conservation objectives of relevant Natura 2000 sites.
- Appropriate Assessment Conclusion Statement – prepared on approval of the Strategy.

MrMorooka

More plans, more words, more consulting, still no money or real action.

MrMorooka

By the way, I assume you all made submissions last year, so you can look for your name and see their response to it here https://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/greater-dublin-areatransport-strategy-2016-2035/ (Public Consultation Submissions Report )

Having said that, I made a submission but I don't see it here.

MrMorooka

The most interesting thing I see is that they frequently state that :

The extensive transport modelling work done to date indicates that, based on predicted passenger usage, a rail link from Navan to Pace, with services travelling onwards to Dublin City Centre, is not economically justifiable.

But they propose protecting the alignment at least.

Chris_5339762

This is pretty much unchanged since the last time. All I see that is new is the idea of Metro South (tunnel to Rathmines) as well as a Luas extension to Poolbeg. Other than that, we pretty much know about the rest of it. And we also know that none of it is actually funded at the moment.

They are protecting the alignment of the Eastern Bypass and a few other bits and pieces, which is good.

Also, they mention the N7 Naas - M50, but also mention the same deal from Leixlip on the N4 inwards, as well as N3 widening, additional M1 capacity to Drogheda, M50 widening between J14 and the M11 and what reads like a collector/distributor setup for the N11 and upgrades all the way to Ashford.

Alkers

What are the differences against the draft plan?

Carawaystick

It's a wee bit daft that Lough Sheelin and Carnew are included, but Drogheda is not...

the groutch

MrMorooka wrote: »

More plans, more words, more consulting, still no money or real action.

Yep, good chance none of this will ever happen.

LXFlyer

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's a wee bit daft that Lough Sheelin and Carnew are included, but Drogheda is not...

The Drogheda- Dublin corridor is included though.

thomasj

I have just realised I'll be 10 or so years off retirement when it finally comes to the time that nothing has happened

cdebru

19 years why not have a 2 or 3 year or even 5 year plan of stuff they could actually achieve in that time. Lumping everything into a plan for 19 years seems a bit pointless.

strandroad

cdebru wrote: »

19 years why not have a 2 or 3 year or even 5 year plan of stuff they could actually achieve in that time. Lumping everything into a plan for 19 years seems a bit pointless.

That's the point though, it's easier to explain why nothing whatsoever happens after 3 years if you still have 15+ left.

Banjoxed

I'm looking forward to finally travelling from Harcourt Street to Bray by rail so I can give a big "f*%# you" to the ghost of Tod Andrews and all his miserable acolytes since.

cdebru

Banjoxed wrote: »

I'm looking forward to finally travelling from Harcourt Street to Bray by rail so I can give a big "f*%# you" to the ghost of Tod Andrews and all his miserable acolytes since.

I hope you aren't too old or it may be the ghost of banjoxed that's delivers that to the ghost of Tod Andrews.

Pete_Cavan

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Also, they mention the N7 Naas - M50, but also mention the same deal from Leixlip on the N4 inwards, as well as N3 widening, additional M1 capacity to Drogheda, M50 widening between J14 and the M11 and what reads like a collector/distributor setup for the N11 and upgrades all the way to Ashford.

So roads which will quickly fill up again are likely to get the majority of funding while high capacity public transport will get the crumbs. The NTA are not planning it this way but history has shown that this is what our politicians choose when it comes to actually putting up the money for projects. I haven't had a chance to read the strategy yet so maybe it makes things clearer but shouldn't these plans be more focused on managing capacity on the existing roads and providing alternatives to using your car? Aren't TII in charge of the national road network and how does this fit in with their plans? Funding needs to be tipped in favour of public transport but when there is another road project on the table, our politicians are likely to opt for the road.

cdebru

mhge wrote: »

That's the point though, it's easier to explain why nothing whatsoever happens after 3 years if you still have 15+ left.

And most of those currently responsible will have retired before the clock runs out on this plan.

monument

MrMorooka wrote: »

More plans, more words, more consulting, still no money or real action.

This isn't just about the multi-billion euro projects -- the plan in this case is very wide ranging and will have an impact on transport and other planing in the GDA.

cdebru wrote: »

19 years why not have a 2 or 3 year or even 5 year plan of stuff they could actually achieve in that time. Lumping everything into a plan for 19 years seems a bit pointless.

Because long term plans are needed as well as short term ones.

LeinsterDub

monument wrote: »

Because long term plans are needed as well as short term ones.

Yup it's important we dream up short and long term plans we've no intention of doing. Sure while we are at it what about a long long term plan of a hyperloop between metro South (snigger) and dart underground

Idbatterim

in terms of the new "metro north" when can we start making observations on this, 60m instead of 90m to save peanuts! This is the most moronic proposal I have heard in this country and that is some statement!

this is a 2.5,000,000,000 euro project and capacity should be reduced by one third to "save" E100,000,000! So for 4% of the total budget spend, we want to limit capacity by 33% on UNDERGROUND stations?! also how much of that 100 mill goes back to the government?


ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

if they want to lie about demand not as high as forecast during boom, despite the fact there are probably more cars on the road now, massive new development taking place, dublin airport busier than ever, as we are just emerging from the boom! Right its a joke and they are lieing, but for god sake purchase less rolling stock then, at least that can be easily rectified!!!!

monument

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yup it's important we dream up short and long term plans we've no intention of doing. Sure while we are at it what about a long long term plan of a hyperloop between metro South (snigger) and dart underground

Have you read the document?

How many of the ~100 pages relates to the larger projects?

Carawaystick

Read through the Doc,

My main points
Its has a very "All roads lead to Rome" focus, with little mention of orbital traffic.
Little mention on routes like Naas/Maynooth
Drogheda/Navan
Dunshaughlin/Rathoath/Ashbourne/Swords

The section on Busses has no mention of a later or earlier times of services.
The map of Orbital bus services has no links to Dublin airport, so Letterkenny will have a no change servcie but Raheney, or Finglas won't

The section on cycling has a primary cycle route out to Clarehall, but fails to connect to Malahide. It does propose a dedicated cycling route up howth head from the harbour though :rolleyes:
There is also no proposal to build dedicated cycling infrastructure alongside the motorwaying of the N7 from Naas to Newlands cross.
There is no cycle route planned to go North/South from Parkgate street west to Lucan

I'm not sure why there are only 2 points for education explicitly mentioned

Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area wrote:

Accompanying the emphasis on enforcement will be educational campaigns, undertaken, where
appropriate, in conjunction with other agencies, with the objective of developing a stronger ethos of good
road use behaviour. Particular areas of focus will include the behaviour of cyclists on urban streets and
pedestrian safety at road crossing points

I'd have thought increasing capacity on the Motorway network,
Behaviour of motorists towards cyclists & cycling infrastructure might give better bang for the buck.

I'm unsure of what figure 9.1 is supposed to represent. is it suggesting Arklow will have 10-15k extra population from 2011? And there will be less than 20 extra people in Laytown/Bettystown?

Figure 9.11 gives very optomistic public transport coverage for the Wicklow mountains, compared to now...
But dissappointing journey times from Swords and the Airport along with the times for the Northern line.

LeinsterDub

monument wrote: »

Have you read the document?

How many of the ~100 pages relates to the larger projects?

Nope I prefer Science fiction to out and out fiction. Being serious I have just read it. Don't believe most of it. Sure the DB expansion has hit the rocks too and that's the simplest of project

LXFlyer

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Nope I prefer Science fiction to out and out fiction. Being serious I have just read it. Don't believe most of it. Sure the DB expansion has hit the rocks too and that's the simplest of project

What do you mean about the "DB expansion has hit the rocks"?

LeinsterDub

lxflyer wrote: »

What do you mean about the "DB expansion has hit the rocks"?

http://www.kevinhumphreys.ie/national-news/dublin-bikes-expansion-framework/

1 phase out of 14. An impressive display of either incompetence or just lack of caring.

LXFlyer

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.kevinhumphreys.ie/national-news/dublin-bikes-expansion-framework/

1 phase out of 14. An impressive display of either incompetence or just lack of caring.

Sorry you confused me.

Most people in C & T use "DB" to mean Dublin Bus!!

LeinsterDub

lxflyer wrote: »

Sorry you confused me.

Most people in C & T use "DB" to mean Dublin Bus!!

Sorry. Should of clarified. Too use to the infrastructure forum.

cdebru

monument wrote: »

Because long term plans are needed as well as short term ones.

Yep nothing wrong with that but this includes what should be short term measures like extending leap card and simplifying fare structures and just generic bull like increasing capacity with no specifics as to where, how or when.
At a minimum stuff should be given a timeframe this by 2019, that by 2025 instead they can literally do nothing for the next 10 years and say ah but we have a plan we are following and it has another 9 years to run.
It's all well and good to have a plan, and have it approved but what we need is a timeframe and a commitment by Government, or preferably cross party commitment to fund and implement it and a timeframe for each element.

monument

Carawaystick wrote: »

Read through the Doc,

My main points
Its has a very "All roads lead to Rome" focus, with little mention of orbital traffic

I'm don't think they have it right but 'orbital' is mentioned 30 times, so it's a bit unfair to claim there's little mention of orbital.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Little mention on routes like Naas/Maynooth
Drogheda/Navan
Dunshaughlin/Rathoath/Ashbourne/Swords

The rail routes or road routes or bus or what do you mean?

Carawaystick wrote: »

The section on Busses has no mention of a later or earlier times of services.

I thought I remembered that in an earlier draft or maybe the previous-never-approved plan.

Carawaystick wrote: »

The map of Orbital bus services has no links to Dublin airport, so Letterkenny will have a no change servcie but Raheney, or Finglas won't

Agreed on that -- and the orbitals seem a bit strange in way -- the orbital are such a big ask / shift, I think they need their own constipation.

Some of the routes look very questionable -- ie running via back roads in the Phoenix Park and, by the look of the inner routes, likely minor residential streets where cross-city buses do not belong.

Carawaystick wrote: »

The section on cycling has a primary cycle route out to Clarehall, but fails to connect to Malahide. It does propose a dedicated cycling route up howth head from the harbour though :rolleyes:
There is also no proposal to build dedicated cycling infrastructure alongside the motorwaying of the N7 from Naas to Newlands cross.
There is no cycle route planned to go North/South from Parkgate street west to Lucan

To Malahide seems strange alright -- I'm gussing they want the funding and focus to be on the East Coast Trail.

To Naas: It does not directly follow the N7 and isn't as direct as it could be but from Saggart there's a link to Kill and onwards to Naas (D5, K14, and K4). See page 7 of this:

https://fe49d9ec8511d2dc0553-f8f415f79bf5d37d632aa2f721fb6d7c.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Proposed_Network_Rural11.pdf

Parkgate Street west to Lucan is East/West and primary route 6 follows Parkgate Street to Lucan. See PDF page 9 here:

https://fe49d9ec8511d2dc0553-f8f415f79bf5d37d632aa2f721fb6d7c.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Proposed_Network_Dublin11.pdf

There's a few bits I'm unsure about with the GDA cycle network, but it's a massive bit of work. See here: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/publications/transport-planning/gda-cycle-network-plan/

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm not sure why there are only 2 points for education explicitly mentioned

I'd have thought increasing capacity on the Motorway network,
Behaviour of motorists towards cyclists & cycling infrastructure might give better bang for the buck.

It also includes:

"Cooperate with other agencies in the enforcement of laws in relation to parking on cycle lanes and cycle tracks" AND "Cooperate with other agencies in the enforcement of laws in relation to parking on footpaths;" ...and maybe more?

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm unsure of what figure 9.1 is supposed to represent. is it suggesting Arklow will have 10-15k extra population from 2011? And there will be less than 20 extra people in Laytown/Bettystown?

Figure 9.11 gives very optomistic public transport coverage for the Wicklow mountains, compared to now...
But dissappointing journey times from Swords and the Airport along with the times for the Northern line.

On population: There's a lot of supporting reports related to the plan but I'm not searching them all... a guess: census or what's zone or allowed in the development plans?

Re coverage: I'm gussing because it looks at a mix of buses and trains and the buses along the northern line on that section suffer from a confined road network / congestion? ...I think random bits of the report are a bit optimistic (often when it comes to buses).

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Nope I prefer Science fiction to out and out fiction. Being serious I have just read it. Don't believe most of it. Sure the DB expansion has hit the rocks too and that's the simplest of project

You don't have to believe any of it -- but the NTA has the power and funding to do a lot of it, they will be able to make transport authorities and councils to do or follow a lot, and other bodies such as An Bord Pleanala will take it serious.

cdebru wrote: »

Yep nothing wrong with that but this includes what should be short term measures like extending leap card and simplifying fare structures and just generic bull like increasing capacity with no specifics as to where, how or when.
At a minimum stuff should be given a timeframe this by 2019, that by 2025 instead they can literally do nothing for the next 10 years and say ah but we have a plan we are following and it has another 9 years to run.
It's all well and good to have a plan, and have it approved but what we need is a timeframe and a commitment by Government, or preferably cross party commitment to fund and implement it and a timeframe for each element.

Short-term and long-term plans often overlap and in this case this plan is what give the NTA a lot of legal authority to do what it wants to do (important when you're looking to force state companies to change fares etc).

As for "generic bull" -- you're bound to get some aspirations etc but most of what I've read in it is supported directly or in supporting documents.

Re timeframe: From the main on PDF page 88 onwards, there's this:

5.12 Delivery and Phasing

Section 13 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 requires the preparation of an Integrated Implementation Plan within nine months of the adoption of a transport strategy. That Integrated Implementation Plan is required to set out the investment priorities and proposals for the subsequent six years. Successive Integrated Implementation Plans will deal with the remaining years of the Strategy.

While the Integrated Implementation Plan will establish short-term priorities, aligned with available funding, it is appropriate to set out a sequencing of the major elements of the Strategy to guide the development of those Integrated Implementation Plans.

...there's more -- read the report, I'm just not copying it here because it's long.

LeinsterDub

monument wrote: »

You don't have to believe any of it -- but the NTA has the power and funding to do a lot of it, they will be able to make transport authorities and councils to do or follow a lot, and other bodies such as An Bord Pleanala will take it serious.

DBikes one of the (arguably) most accepted, publicly praised and low cost infrastructure projects in the history of the state has been left to languish under the NTA

schemingbohemia

LeinsterDub wrote: »

DBikes one of the (arguably) most accepted, publicly praised and low cost infrastructure projects in the history of the state has been left to languish under the NTA

Yeah the expansion from 500 to 1,500 bikes had nothing to do with the NTA :rolleyes:

How much more expansion do you want and where should it go next?

NTA rely on funding from Government to implement their Dublin Bikes scheme, they don't just magic it up. They have a plan for expansion but haven't been given the money.

Dublin Bikes wasn't initially universally accepted, even those who were for it were against the JC Decaux link and subsequently the Coke Zero sponsorship, the NTA can't win!

LeinsterDub

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Yeah the expansion from 500 to 1,500 bikes had nothing to do with the NTA :rolleyes:

How much more expansion do you want and where should it go next?

NTA rely on funding from Government to implement their Dublin Bikes scheme, they don't just magic it up. They have a plan for expansion but haven't been given the money.

Dublin Bikes wasn't initially universally accepted, even those who were for it were against the JC Decaux link and subsequently the Coke Zero sponsorship, the NTA can't win!

I never said the NTA didn't go anything . I said 1 phase achieved out of 17 is a very poor track record and to get this back on thread . Given how relatively cheap , quick , non disruptive and almost universally accepted DB is I don't see them being able to deliver on this long term plan except for maybe some piece meal things

schemingbohemia

It's more than 1 phase completed. From that document it's phases 2A/2B and parts of 3. There's also some stations planned from section 4 (Phibsborough/Grangegorman) for later this year.

LeinsterDub

schemingbohemia wrote: »

IThere's also some stations planned from section 4 (Phibsborough/Grangegorman) for later this year.

I'd not heard that? Any media?

Last I heard was this http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0209/766606-dublinbikes-council-change/

Carawaystick

monument wrote: »

I'm don't think they have it right but 'orbital' is mentioned 30 times, so it's a bit unfair to claim there's little mention of orbital.

The rail routes or road routes or bus or what do you mean?

Mainly road/bus. The major premise of the report is the Corridors to Dublin. But the section on heavy rail omits the line form Drogheda to Tara Mines, which is probably the heaviest trains running on the network.

I was thinking of the likes of Drogheda/Slane/Navan or Airport/Swords/Ashbourne or Ashbourne/Rathoath/Dunsaughlin

Or a N3/N4 link is not mentioned

monument wrote: »

Agreed on that -- and the orbitals seem a bit strange in way -- the orbital are such a big ask / shift, I think they need their own constipation.

Some of the routes look very questionable -- ie running via back roads in the Phoenix Park and, by the look of the inner routes, likely minor residential streets where cross-city buses do not belong.

One of the orbital bus routers looks like the existing 75....

monument wrote: »

To Malahide seems strange alright -- I'm gussing they want the funding and focus to be on the East Coast Trail.

Fingal are building a cycleway from Malahide to Donabate, it seems daft not to have this connected to Dublin.

monument wrote: »

To Naas: It does not directly follow the N7 and isn't as direct as it could be but from Saggart there's a link to Kill and onwards to Naas (D5, K14, and K4). See page 7 of this:

My point was more that as a new road for non-motorway traffic will be built along the N7 to enable that to be motorway, a dedicated cycle route should be built as part of this. I'd think any new project roads project should have dedicated cycling infrastructure included. the proposed routing doesn't help anyone in ill working in Citywest for example.

monument wrote: »

Parkgate Street west to Lucan is East/West and primary route 6 follows Parkgate Street to Lucan. See PDF page 9 here:

I might have phrased this badly. There is no cycle route to get from the northside to the southside between Lucan and Parkgate street.

monument wrote: »

On population: There's a lot of supporting reports related to the plan but I'm not searching them all... a guess: census or what's zone or allowed in the development plans?

I think the issue is the legend is unclear what is being counted.
I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be any village with >20 extra over the plan from natural growth though..

schemingbohemia

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'd not heard that? Any media?

Last I heard was this http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0209/766606-dublinbikes-council-change/

I knew I'd seen it somewhere


http://irishcycle.com/2016/03/18/cycling-secures-large-chunk-of-e23-2m-funding-for-125-projects/

LeinsterDub

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I knew I'd seen it somewhere


http://irishcycle.com/2016/03/18/cycling-secures-large-chunk-of-e23-2m-funding-for-125-projects/

Thanks . Progress at last!


http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/25/mini-expansion-of-dublinbikes-residents-disappointed-and-dismayed-at-station-locations/

Roadhawk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Thanks . Progress at last!


http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/25/mini-expansion-of-dublinbikes-residents-disappointed-and-dismayed-at-station-locations/

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I knew I'd seen it somewhere


http://irishcycle.com/2016/03/18/cycling-secures-large-chunk-of-e23-2m-funding-for-125-projects/

Thats pretty crazy to see that so much is being invested to cycling. I suppose it goes with the year.

I also wondered why the key elements of the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016 – 2035 includes the following:
To construct the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network, expanding the urban cycle network to over 1,485 kilometres in length, and with over 1,300 kilometres of new connections between towns in the rural areas of the GDA. The network is intended to provide a quality of service sufficient to attract new cyclists, as well as catering for the increasing numbers of existing cyclists.

Sure the majority of cyclists do not use the existing cycle network due to poor maintenance etc? Would it not make sense to start with what me have and improve from there?

Carawaystick

By definition we are starting with what we have and improving from there.

I'd say the majority of cyclists don't use the existing network because it is badly designed and constructed.
The bike lanes from the N2 Cherryhound to Blanch for example are pointless.
The Bike lane on the r125 you can't get onto the lane without stopping.
the Bike lane behind the yellow pole is a two way bike lane

The Bike lane at the red cow just stops


The Bike path along the Grand canal forces you to stop

As does

MrMorooka

Carawaystick wrote: »

The bike lanes from the N2 Cherryhound to Blanch for example are pointless.

What's wrong with them? Are we talking about the lane behind the fence on the left?

Carawaystick

You can't cycle SW on the cycle lane to get to the roadway sw of the roundabout. You can only take the first exit off the roundabout, on a road with a concrete median barrier...

Roadhawk

Carawaystick wrote: »

By definition we are starting with what we have and improving from there.

I'd say the majority of cyclists don't use the existing network because it is badly designed and constructed.
The bike lanes from the N2 Cherryhound to Blanch for example are pointless.
The Bike lane on the r125 you can't get onto the lane without stopping.
the Bike lane behind the yellow pole is a two way bike lane

The Bike lane at the red cow just stops


The Bike path along the Grand canal forces you to stop

As does

I can see what you mean. if traveling by bike you can only take the first exit. Looking at the rest of the road, it looks like construction is still going on. I wonder if there are any plans for bridges/tunnels to allow a crossing? Also the road looks like it is designed to take high capacity...a 3 lane roundabout only says trouble for a cyclist.

On the link to the R125 there is a dip in the path that allows you to cycle from the road to the path without dismounting.

Roadhawk

If you also go a little further than the "Yellow Pole" there is a cyclist in the bus lane so this would tell me that the two lane cycle track it just not used.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.432612,-6.2298258,3a,37.5y,210.09h,83.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGE5Bqg0z7a5lMtngY1g-hw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Carawaystick

Roadhawk wrote: »

On the link to the R125 there is a dip in the path that allows you to cycle from the road to the path without dismounting.

Except that that's only a footpath, and its illegal to cycle from there to the signed part of the cycle lane....


The link between N2 and Blanch is open a while, Streetview hasn't caught up though.

Roadhawk

Carawaystick wrote: »

Except that that's only a footpath, and its illegal to cycle from there to the signed part of the cycle lane....


The link between N2 and Blanch is open a while, Streetview hasn't caught up though.

dont quote me on this but to me it looks like that the tarmacked area on the path is the cycle track and the concrete area is for pedestrians?

as for the N2 i guess that just poor planning. kinda standard in Ireland unfortunately.

monument

Roadhawk wrote: »

Thats pretty crazy to see that so much is being invested to cycling. I suppose it goes with the year.

Could you please support your views rather than making wild unsupported statements?

How do you think the DublinBikes investment and the €23 million across 125 projects across 7 council areas? It's tiny compared to what some other cities spend per year on cycling.

Given the spread of area and projects involved and compared to the overall transport budget -- it's small amounts of funding.

Roadhawk wrote: »

I also wondered why the key elements of the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016 – 2035 includes the following:
To construct the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network, expanding the urban cycle network to over 1,485 kilometres in length, and with over 1,300 kilometres of new connections between towns in the rural areas of the GDA. The network is intended to provide a quality of service sufficient to attract new cyclists, as well as catering for the increasing numbers of existing cyclists.

Why not? Investment in a new and improved network hardly going to be not done because of issues with the current network... Does not apply to road or rail and so should not apply for cycling.

Roadhawk wrote: »

Sure the majority of cyclists do not use the existing cycle network due to poor maintenance etc?

Wide sweeping statement much?

From my observation:

Cycle lanes on Rathmines Road -- used when cars etc not blocking them. Cycle lanes and cycle path along the Grand Canal used by 99% of people cycling along and not turning off. New cycle lanes/tracks on the Blackrock bypass used by a clear majority of users. The still disconnected S2S used by the bulk of people on that route. The Phoenix Park cycle paths used by the vast bulk of people cycling in the park. Even the still fairly flawed N11 / former N11 cycle paths are used by 95%+ of commuters, bar a small section near the city which has low compliance. Cycle lanes along from Parkgate St to the Four Courts -- used in the most part by the vast bulk of those not turning off or advising stuff, same for Church Street etc.

I think with tha list on its own we're getting close to places where the majority of cyclists in Dublin use and your statement holds little or no water.

Roadhawk wrote: »

Would it not make sense to start with what me have and improve from there?

That's what's being done -- linking and improving what's there now!

Roadhawk wrote: »

If you also go a little further than the "Yellow Pole" there is a cyclist in the bus lane so this would tell me that the two lane cycle track it just not used.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.432612,-6.2298258,3a,37.5y,210.09h,83.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGE5Bqg0z7a5lMtngY1g-hw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

1. That's not a two lane cycle track shown in your link, that's a very narrow and poorly connected shared use footpath. The yellow poll is a bus stop poll and attached is the street view of your link where you turn the view to the left -- it shows the narrow path half taken up by overgrown grass. There may be some improvements since the street view images were taken, but you linked to street view as is.

2. People cycling bicycle are allowed to use the bus lane and bus lanes are counted as part of the current cycle network.

3. Even if the above was not true, still and videos are not a reflection of use -- For example, I can find street view images of the M50 where there's only a few cars near the Google street view car, or I can take a video of the Grand Canal Cycle route with no to few cyclists in it, but rush hours for both are jammed.

MGWR

MrMorooka wrote: »

The most interesting thing I see is that they frequently state that:

The extensive transport modelling work done to date indicates that, based on predicted passenger usage, a rail link from Navan to Pace, with services travelling onwards to Dublin City Centre, is not economically justifiable

But they propose protecting the alignment at least.

If they have to repeat it so often, it's obviously a lie. Any railway alignment that parallels a motorway is viable; after all, they built the motorway to serve the pertinent areas.

Grandeeod

MGWR wrote: »

If they have to repeat it so often, it's obviously a lie. Any railway alignment that parallels a motorway is viable; after all, they built the motorway to serve the pertinent areas.

The motorway "technically" serves more than Navan and in Irish terms the corridor doesn't support both. But that's a different argument. However the Navan railway issue isn't a "lie". The fact that since it's closure, the alignment has been compromised so many times and in so many places, makes it expensive to reopen along its original route. Ironically the final nail in its coffin was the M3 as the motorway compromised the alignment without any thought to the railway. The "box" at Cannistown will go down in history as an example of local people power and then the same local people being hoodwinked.

Grandeeod

MrMorooka wrote: »

The most interesting thing I see is that they frequently state that :



But they propose protecting the alignment at least.

Protecting an alignment that has been compromised so much in more recent years that I doubt the costs/figures will ever stack up.

Grandeeod

MrMorooka wrote: »

By the way, I assume you all made submissions last year, so you can look for your name and see their response to it here https://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/greater-dublin-areatransport-strategy-2016-2035/ (Public Consultation Submissions Report )

Having said that, I made a submission but I don't see it here.

Thanks for that link. A read through of the submissions was a pretty grim experience. We did this kind of thing 16 years ago and we are still no closer to a integrated and expansive plan that will actually deliver/be delivered.

The amount of vested interests and ignorance in the submission list justified my own reasons for not bothering. The standout area for me was the level crossing issues on the Maynooth commuter line. There will be trouble there from the "I want my road access maintained" brigade.

Roadhawk

monument wrote: »

Could you please support your views rather than making wild unsupported statements?

How do you think the DublinBikes investment and the €23 million across 125 projects across 7 council areas? It's tiny compared to what some other cities spend per year on cycling.

Given the spread of area and projects involved and compared to the overall transport budget -- it's small amounts of funding.




Why not? Investment in a new and improved network hardly going to be not done because of issues with the current network... Does not apply to road or rail and so should not apply for cycling.



Wide sweeping statement much?

From my observation:

Cycle lanes on Rathmines Road -- used when cars etc not blocking them. Cycle lanes and cycle path along the Grand Canal used by 99% of people cycling along and not turning off. New cycle lanes/tracks on the Blackrock bypass used by a clear majority of users. The still disconnected S2S used by the bulk of people on that route. The Phoenix Park cycle paths used by the vast bulk of people cycling in the park. Even the still fairly flawed N11 / former N11 cycle paths are used by 95%+ of commuters, bar a small section near the city which has low compliance. Cycle lanes along from Parkgate St to the Four Courts -- used in the most part by the vast bulk of those not turning off or advising stuff, same for Church Street etc.

I think with tha list on its own we're getting close to places where the majority of cyclists in Dublin use and your statement holds little or no water.




That's what's being done -- linking and improving what's there now!




1. That's not a two lane cycle track shown in your link, that's a very narrow and poorly connected shared use footpath. The yellow poll is a bus stop poll and attached is the street view of your link where you turn the view to the left -- it shows the narrow path half taken up by overgrown grass. There may be some improvements since the street view images were taken, but you linked to street view as is.

2. People cycling bicycle are allowed to use the bus lane and bus lanes are counted as part of the current cycle network.

3. Even if the above was not true, still and videos are not a reflection of use -- For example, I can find street view images of the M50 where there's only a few cars near the Google street view car, or I can take a video of the Grand Canal Cycle route with no to few cyclists in it, but rush hours for both are jammed.

It’s not exactly a wild statement. I mean there are clearly more important things the government could be spending our money on. Ireland is not exactly debt free. I know it seems like a tiny amount in comparison to other cities and I’m sure you are referring to the almighty cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam but my point is that the legislation in Ireland was reversed to allow cyclists use road even when a track is provided. I find more often than not, cyclists use the road as it is a smoother ride. I don’t really see the need for such an investment when the infrastructure has a very high chance of not being used. Again it’s not exactly a “wide sweeping statement”…

I can’t really comment on cycling locations you mentioned but I know for sure that the Phoenix park has cycle lanes that are not used solely because of the amount of pedestrians that walk on the cycle track instead of the (inner) path. I do see a large number of cyclists using the tracks provided. I gather from the type of bike and clothing that commuters use the cycle lanes and enthusiasts/racers use the roads. My perception of commuter being a person in casual clothes and a hybrid style bike and an enthusiast as a racer style bike kitted out in the racing gear etc.

1) Is a marked two way cycle track. Albeit shared with a foot path
2) Can they use all bus lanes including contra-flow?
3) It was more of a coincidence that the bus lane in that link was provided by another poster. Sure it’s only one cyclist. Im not basing my opinions on one cyclist.

monument

Roadhawk wrote: »

It’s not exactly a wild statement.

I don’t really see the need for such an investment when the infrastructure has a very high chance of not being used. Again it’s not exactly a “wide sweeping statement”…

It is a wide sweeping statement -- most cycling infrastructure is used by the majority of cyclists in Dublin. I've given many examples already.

Roadhawk wrote: »

I mean there are clearly more important things the government could be spending our money on. Ireland is not exactly debt free.

Are there other modes of transport which give the transport, health, and environmental benefits?

Is this a bias you have against cycling or should we stop all spending on transport, health preventive measures and environmental measures?

Roadhawk wrote: »

I know it seems like a tiny amount in comparison to other cities and I’m sure you are referring to the almighty cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam

Amsterdam is far from a cycling Nirvana, but I'm not thinking about Amsterdam, which is about the same size as Dublin -- smaller cities than Dublin are spend more on cycling than the is spent across the GDA.

Roadhawk wrote: »

I can’t really comment on cycling locations you mentioned but I know for sure that the Phoenix park has cycle lanes that are not used solely because of the amount of pedestrians that walk on the cycle track instead of the (inner) path. I do see a large number of cyclists using the tracks provided. I gather from the type of bike and clothing that commuters use the cycle lanes and enthusiasts/racers use the roads. My perception of commuter being a person in casual clothes and a hybrid style bike and an enthusiast as a racer style bike kitted out in the racing gear etc.

It's a park. If anything should change it's the volume of cars and vans.