Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cork Metropolitan Area Transport Strategy

Options
13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Is there any new information? has an explanation been offered as to why the plan is a)car centric and b)so far into the future given we currently have a pandemic, climate crisis and housing crisis?

    As far as the NTA are concerned, CMATS is perfect.
    It's a complete pigs ear but the very questionable background data and resulting flawed conclusions are to be ignored.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,301 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I thought that the building of 3 new Cork bypasses was a bit of a wind up at first and it'd be quickly dropped, but they seem serious. No doubt that covers the majority of the budget.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,364 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I thought that the building of 3 new Cork bypasses was a bit of a wind up at first and it'd be quickly dropped, but they seem serious. No doubt that covers the majority of the budget.
    Two of them are not bypasses.

    The NDR + SDR are both single general traffic lane with active transport faciltiies. It includes part of the existing North Ring Road. It's purpose is connectivity and opening up lands.

    The SDR is the same, while also providing an alternative to the N40 for local + PT traffic. There is currently no facility for this type of traffic on the southside because the N40 is a massive divider through the area.

    The North Ring Road is a Cork bypass but it's outside the realm of this project. It's a TII project.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    You guys are discussing the CMATS "conclusions" there and no wonder you disagree, because the background documents are all over the place.

    They used out-of-date and incomplete datasets.
    As far as I'm concerned the "conclusions" aren't actually worthy of discussion, until that's been addressed.

    For instance they take 2011 or April 2012 as the base for their data. The figures are very out of date, with E-vehicles, emissions fines and a 43% increase in cycling since then not included. Not to mention a a very different in economic climate. The Cork Cycle Network Plan 2017 is not referenced whatsoever. No recorded data of any kind is used for cycling or walking. Poop in, poop out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,779 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    You guys are discussing the CMATS "conclusions" there and no wonder you disagree, because the background documents are all over the place.

    They used out-of-date and incomplete datasets.
    As far as I'm concerned the "conclusions" aren't actually worthy of discussion, until that's been addressed.

    For instance they take 2011 or April 2012 as the base for their data. The figures are very out of date, with E-vehicles, emissions fines and a 43% increase in cycling since then not included. Not to mention a a very different in economic climate. The Cork Cycle Network Plan 2017 is not referenced whatsoever. No recorded data of any kind is used for cycling or walking. Poop in, poop out.

    What are you saying, don't bother with public transport upgrades or cycling infrastructure expansion at a time when government policy is that funding will be weighted in favour of such projects and money will be available through Covid-19 stimulus, instead lets update a report? The time for reports is over, lets move forward from here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭Treehelpplease


    The N40 isn't even a bypass of Cork anymore (assuming it ever really was). A decent size of the southside city population live outside of it. According to the CSO, the Douglas ED had 21,041 people and the Lehenagh ED 10,323, i.e. 31,364 people. The entire population of the southside is 128,498, meaning a quarter of the southside lives outside of the N40. Of course, there are 2016 statistics and ignore southside areas outside the city like Carrigaline, Passage West and Monkstown. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a large amount of the journeys on it were local ones, either people in the west of the city getting to the east (and vice versa) or the southside accessing the city centre. The name South Ring Road is misleading in my eyes that way. Sure everyone just calls it the link anyway as most people see it as a road to get throughout the southside and to the city centre. The SDR will take these people off the road which is supposed to be used for going through the city without having to touch local roads. A lot of ways onto the road need to be closed off, such as Douglas West, the Mahon Point junction (after a LUAS so the Skehard Road doesn't become M50 levels of traffic). Id say the Maryborough Hill junction too but when the M28 comes, that junction will be to the Carrs Hill Interchange so meh


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,364 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    The N40 is a distributor road for the southside but it is also the only bypass of the city that's functional. A truck from Killarney to the Port uses the N40 bypassing the city and it mixes with me going to town.

    I live less than 1km from the N40. Today I used it for three return journeys, all from home to another exit on the N40 (one to J6, one to J7 and one to J9). Even with an SDR or NDR I would still use the N40 for those 3 journeys.

    The N40 can't reastically be rebypassed on the southside so junction closures are one of the only ways to reduce traffic. No one from Wilton will go to Douglas via the SDR while J7/J8 remain open.

    Large swathes of the southside have been built around easy access to the N40. It's shutting the door after the horse has bolted territory unfortuantely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    What are you saying, don't bother with public transport upgrades or cycling infrastructure expansion at a time when government policy is that funding will be weighted in favour of such projects and money will be available through Covid-19 stimulus, instead lets update a report? The time for reports is over, lets move forward from here.

    No I'm not saying any of that, I'm saying that the background data is wholly useless, so arguing about the conclusions they reached is a bit of a waste of energy.

    I'm fine with "the time for reports is over, let's move forward from here" but it also wouldn't be difficult to revise the (quite frankly ridiculous) mode share targets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,779 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    No I'm not saying any of that, I'm saying that the background data is wholly useless, so arguing about the conclusions they reached is a bit of a waste of energy.

    I'm fine with "the time for reports is over, let's move forward from here" but it also wouldn't be difficult to revise the (quite frankly ridiculous) mode share targets.

    I just don't see what updated background data is going to make. The low hanging fruit here is the cycle network, BusConnects and upgrades to the existing heavy rail infrastructure, these are all things specifically promoted under the current PfG and for which funding should be made available. These investments will be justified under CMATS so the ducks are in a row for it to move forward now. What difference do you think revised mode share targets will actually make to delivery on the ground?


  • Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    They're not mode share targets they're what the modelled mode share was with the proposed infrastructure. The model not predicting mode shift to cycling is only a problem as above if it's used as a reason not to provide the infrastructure. That seems to be happening under the Maccurtain Street proposal which is worrying but is not pre-ordained in CMATS


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    The models they used gave them the subsequent priorities for expenditure.
    They felt that the largest gains - by far - could be got by encouraging as many people as possible onto public transport. They put public transport at the top of the heirarchy of needs and concluded that that they should invest heavily in Public Transport to get improved numbers of users at the expense of all other modes.

    Their "do min" mode share numbers vary between documents, and it makes their justification for "do-scenario" expenditure (€2.5bn) worthless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭roadmaster




Advertisement