NTA Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy Review

LXFlyer

The NTA has started the process of the statutory review of the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy, which will then extend out to 2042.

See the link below for more info.

As I alluded to in a post on the Metrolink thread, one would hope that people will take far greater notice of it this time, now that the issues are coming to the fore through the various projects, as I do genuinely believe that it went over most people's heads the first time around.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/nta-publishes-issues-paper-ahead-of-revising-greater-dublin-area-transport-strategy/

The National Transport Authority (NTA) has today published an Issues Paper as an initial part of the statutory review of the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy (2016-2035).

The Authority is asking members of the public to provide their views and objectives as part of a preliminary consultation process. They can do so by completing an online feedback form on this page.

In particular, NTA wants to understand what people’s overall priorities are for the Transport Strategy. That might be sustainability, accessibility, economic development or tackling disadvantage.

A second major consultation process will take place around the middle of next year following the development of draft strategy proposals.

This review process will involve assessing the implementation of the existing plan, and producing an updated Strategy which will set out the framework for investment in transport infrastructure and services, taking us to 2042.

The revision of the Strategy will be consistent with the spatial planning policies and objectives set out in the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) as adopted by the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, and finalised in January 2020. These objectives in turn are consistent with the National Planning Framework and the National Development Plan, as set out in Project Ireland 2040.

The revised Strategy will also reflect national policies on sustainability as set out in climate action and low carbon legislation, and in climate action plans. The potential impacts of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic, beyond the short-term, will also be taken into account.

Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan TD said: “This consultation plays an important role in planning a transport system that is fit for purpose, and responsive to the needs of the public. I would encourage everyone to engage, read through the discussion document and make your feedback known. This is about improving our overall transport system and deciding how we travel through our local area, how we bring our children to school, travel to work and visit friends and family.”

Anne Graham, CEO, NTA said: “We now need people’s help. We want to hear people’s views on what should be considered in the preparation of the new Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area.

“We’re asking people to read our discussion document and then go to the website and respond to questions in the feedback form. This will help us shape our approach so that the revised Strategy we publish next year, reflects the views of the public.

“Next year, we will publish a draft of our revised Strategy. That will include specifics on all our proposals for the region, investment plans, projections, transport modelling etc.

“At that stage we will be inviting members of the public to consider the draft plan in detail; assess it in terms of future transport needs at regional, local and even household level; and provide us with feedback on what we are putting forward.

“In that way we can get a sense as to whether we are on the right track when it comes to making Dublin a better place to live in, to work in, and to visit.

“But for now, we want to get an overall sense as to what people’s priorities are in relation to transport in the Greater Dublin Area.”

NTA hopes to publish a draft Strategy Review in summer 2021. In advance of that, a number of studies will be undertaken, the results of which will be fed into the review process. These will include:

Assessment of Metro to Terenure-Rathfarnham-Knocklyon
Assessment of Metro to UCD-Sandyford
Assessment of a rail line to Navan
The Issues Paper released today can be accessed at: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NTA-GDA-Transport-Strategy-2020-proof-5-FINAL-WEB.pdf

See more details on the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy on our page.

specialbyte

So my wish list for changes of the strategy look a little like this.

#1 Change the objective, which was used in the last strategy from providing enough new public transport capacity to meet growing demand (i.e. population growth), to an objective around modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. There's two obvious reasons for this: that will actually make a dent in our transport problems instead of just running to stand still; climate action.

#2 Remove a number of road expansion projects from the NTA Strategy. These projects are against the goals of modal shift and climate action. This includes projects like widening the M4 from Maynooth to the M50. or widening the N11 to the M50. Remove the Eastern Bypass Road from the strategy too. It's an out-dated road idea that we don't need. Refocus the money and human resources onto other projects for sustainable transport.

#3 Commit to actual road pricing to reduce motor traffic demand. The current strategy is a little non-committal on this.

#4 Press on with the current mega projects that are in progress: BusConnects, MetroLink, DART+, Luas to Finglas and the GDA Cycle Network Plan.

#5 Consider (re-)adding: DART to Navan, MetroWest, Metro South to Sandyford (not to Rathfarnham or UCD etc) to the strategy

#6 Commit to building large-scale (200-500 spaces) secure and covered cycle parking: Swords near MetroLink stations; Blanchardstown, Liffey Valley and Tallaght at the BusConnects stations.

#7 Commit to a traffic circulation plan for key urban centres (city centre, Dun Laoghaire, Tallaght, and Swords) to prevent through motor traffic in these urban centres to free up more space for walking, cycling, public transport and urban realm projects.

Kellyconor1982

specialbyte wrote: »

So my wish list for changes of the strategy look a little like this.

#1 Change the objective, which was used in the last strategy from providing enough new public transport capacity to meet growing demand (i.e. population growth), to an objective around modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. There's two obvious reasons for this: that will actually make a dent in our transport problems instead of just running to stand still; climate action.

#2 Remove a number of road expansion projects from the NTA Strategy. These projects are against the goals of modal shift and climate action. This includes projects like widening the M4 from Maynooth to the M50. or widening the N11 to the M50. Remove the Eastern Bypass Road from the strategy too. It's an out-dated road idea that we don't need. Refocus the money and human resources onto other projects for sustainable transport.

#3 Commit to actual road pricing to reduce motor traffic demand. The current strategy is a little non-committal on this.

#4 Press on with the current mega projects that are in progress: BusConnects, MetroLink, DART+, Luas to Finglas and the GDA Cycle Network Plan.

#5 Consider (re-)adding: DART to Navan, MetroWest, Metro South to Sandyford (not to Rathfarnham or UCD etc) to the strategy

#6 Commit to building large-scale (200-500 spaces) secure and covered cycle parking: Swords near MetroLink stations; Blanchardstown, Liffey Valley and Tallaght at the BusConnects stations.

#7 Commit to a traffic circulation plan for key urban centres (city centre, Dun Laoghaire, Tallaght, and Swords) to prevent through motor traffic in these urban centres to free up more space for walking, cycling, public transport and urban realm projects.

I like all that, but Dublin South West criminally lacks proper rail transport and with big developments out there, it will only get worse.
For what it's worth, I live on the northside and have nothing to gain from Metrolink going out there.
I would like Metro South to be completed as it should have been to Sandyford, but a SW spur needs to be on the agenda also. Over the next 30 years, we need to have multiple lines including the original Metro North/South, metro south west going northside, metro west as originally planned and possibly a spur to UCD also.
With big investment in Dart also, it will be a gigantic outlay but it pays for itself.

LXFlyer

specialbyte wrote: »

So my wish list for changes of the strategy look a little like this.

#1 Change the objective, which was used in the last strategy from providing enough new public transport capacity to meet growing demand (i.e. population growth), to an objective around modal shift to walking, cycling and public transport. There's two obvious reasons for this: that will actually make a dent in our transport problems instead of just running to stand still; climate action.

#2 Remove a number of road expansion projects from the NTA Strategy. These projects are against the goals of modal shift and climate action. This includes projects like widening the M4 from Maynooth to the M50. or widening the N11 to the M50. Remove the Eastern Bypass Road from the strategy too. It's an out-dated road idea that we don't need. Refocus the money and human resources onto other projects for sustainable transport.

#3 Commit to actual road pricing to reduce motor traffic demand. The current strategy is a little non-committal on this.

#4 Press on with the current mega projects that are in progress: BusConnects, MetroLink, DART+, Luas to Finglas and the GDA Cycle Network Plan.

#5 Consider (re-)adding: DART to Navan, MetroWest, Metro South to Sandyford (not to Rathfarnham or UCD etc) to the strategy

#6 Commit to building large-scale (200-500 spaces) secure and covered cycle parking: Swords near MetroLink stations; Blanchardstown, Liffey Valley and Tallaght at the BusConnects stations.

#7 Commit to a traffic circulation plan for key urban centres (city centre, Dun Laoghaire, Tallaght, and Swords) to prevent through motor traffic in these urban centres to free up more space for walking, cycling, public transport and urban realm projects.

Like the previous poster, I think that the strategy will need to look at rail options for the south central and southwest areas. Ignoring it as you seem suggest in point 5 isn't going to be an option.

We need to start looking at planning a proper rail network across the city, and the south west quadrant has a real need for it - pre-Covid traffic congestion in the area was the worst in the city, looking at QBC speeds.

BusConnects will certainly help, but there are a significant number of people who will never leave their cars unless a rail solution is offered.

Kellyconor1982

LXFlyer wrote: »

Like the previous poster, I think that the strategy will need to look at rail options for the south central and southwest areas. Ignoring it as you seem suggest in point 5 isn't going to be an option.

We need to start looking at planning a proper rail network across the city, and the south west quadrant has a real need for it - pre-Covid traffic congestion in the area was the worst in the city, looking at QBC speeds.

BusConnects will certainly help, but there are a significant number of people who will never leave their cars unless a rail solution is offered.

Could be wrong but I think that the primary school in Knocklyon was the biggest in Europe a few years ago and that was before Ballycullen was developed. Not sure if that's still the case. I actually think that any sw route should terminate in Tallaght. It's a city in it's own right and a Luas isn't enough for it especially by the 2040s. The ideal long term plan could be that a Metro West would go through Tallaght and onwards link up with the Sandyford Metro to form a loop around the M50.

I remember reading that there is a huge amount of developments in the Ballycullen/Rathfarnham area so an area that is criminally underdeveloped in terms of transport will be gigantically so in 20 years with a very young population.

specialbyte

I'd love to see a proper rail option provided to the south west corridor of the city. It really needs to end in Tallaght too as you mention Kellyconor1982 because the red line Luas can't do the job fully. It's also the corridor in the city with the worst modal share for cars (68%) and the lowest public transport share. Though somewhat surprisingly the highest cycling mode share (6%).

In the original strategy there was a BRT from south Tallaght to the city centre via Rathfarnham and Terenure. This seems to have been dropped in favour of the BusConnects corridors 10 and 12. The current 95th percentile journey time on Rathfarnham to city centre by bus is 75 minutes. It is expected to be 25-30 minutes with the BusConnects CBC . (Source: CBC12 public brochure) The CBC10 corridor, that's M50/N81 junction to Terenure, is to see the 95th journey time changes from 32 minutes to 10-12 minutes. This changes are pretty significant and will have a huge affect on the modal share and the quality of the public transport offered. I do think that standard Dublin Bus on a high quality bus corridor doesn't have the same quality brand as BRT so I think the people of the south west corridor are getting / will feel cheated by not getting the BRT.

The current GDA Transport Strategy has lots of good information in it for mode share and predicted demand growth. This is corridor E in the strategy. I've extracted some of the key graphics here: https://imgur.com/a/gigyImm

This corridor has the lowest travel demand growth of only 9%. Whereas many other corridors are seeing growth in the 25% range. If you look at existing population density for Dublin: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/ireland/dublin/ it shows that this corridor is about as on-par as many of the other corridors, but without much room for infill development and limited expansion into the Dublin mountains foothills.

This map (http://census.cso.ie/p6map41/) from the CSO is also pretty useful for thinking about travel demand. It shows work trips by electoral district and highlights areas that attract more people for work than travel out of the area. Unsurprisingly given that corridor E is almost entirely residential many more people leave the area for work than travel there for work. It's useful to compare Corridor E against the corridor that MetroLink is following. The MetroLink corridor hits many residential areas but also many trip attractors (i.e. destinations) including Mater Hospital, two future DART+ lines, DCU, Ballymun, the Airport, Swords (second fastest growing town in Ireland) and the business parks around Swords like Airside.

If you want to look at a rail option for Corridor E it will have to be underground for almost the entire route. Luas Line E's evaluation showed that surface running would either require unsustainable road reallocation (particularly in the current context of bus gates in Kimmage and Rathmines as part of BusConnects) or would require massive CPOs.

So we talking about building an underground metro on what is mostly suburban residential corridor with little re-development opportunity, low expansions options and without major trip attractors. Using MetroLink as a comparison this metro line would cost €3-4 billion. It doesn't stack up when there are so many other corridors in Dublin lacking high-quality public transport like Lucan, Blanchardstown or Clondalkin. We also have to ask are there projects like Luas lines in Cork, Limerick, Galway or Waterford that are higher priority than this? For €3-4 billion you could build a lot of Luas lines in regional cities. Or would that money be better spent on the intercity rail network particularly between Galway, Limerick and Cork to counter-balance Dublin?

I wish the case for rail to the south west city did stand-up. In my eyes it doesn't.

I really think we should be looking at building the proper BRT or expanding the BusConnects Core Bus Corridors 10 and 12 deeper into Corridor E to provide the high-quality public transport options the people deserve. It's what is realistic given the situation.

LXFlyer

specialbyte wrote: »

I'd love to see a proper rail option provided to the south west corridor of the city. It really needs to end in Tallaght too as you mention Kellyconor1982 because the red line Luas can't do the job fully. It's also the corridor in the city with the worst modal share for cars (68%) and the lowest public transport share. Though somewhat surprisingly the highest cycling mode share (6%).

In the original strategy there was a BRT from south Tallaght to the city centre via Rathfarnham and Terenure. This seems to have been dropped in favour of the BusConnects corridors 10 and 12. The current 95th percentile journey time on Rathfarnham to city centre by bus is 75 minutes. It is expected to be 25-30 minutes with the BusConnects CBC . (Source: CBC12 public brochure) The CBC10 corridor, that's M50/N81 junction to Terenure, is to see the 95th journey time changes from 32 minutes to 10-12 minutes. This changes are pretty significant and will have a huge affect on the modal share and the quality of the public transport offered. I do think that standard Dublin Bus on a high quality bus corridor doesn't have the same quality brand as BRT so I think the people of the south west corridor are getting / will feel cheated by not getting the BRT.

The current GDA Transport Strategy has lots of good information in it for mode share and predicted demand growth. This is corridor E in the strategy. I've extracted some of the key graphics here: https://imgur.com/a/gigyImm

This corridor has the lowest travel demand growth of only 9%. Whereas many other corridors are seeing growth in the 25% range. If you look at existing population density for Dublin: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/ireland/dublin/ it shows that this corridor is about as on-par as many of the other corridors, but without much room for infill development and limited expansion into the Dublin mountains foothills.

This map (http://census.cso.ie/p6map41/) from the CSO is also pretty useful for thinking about travel demand. It shows work trips by electoral district and highlights areas that attract more people for work than travel out of the area. Unsurprisingly given that corridor E is almost entirely residential many more people leave the area for work than travel there for work. It's useful to compare Corridor E against the corridor that MetroLink is following. The MetroLink corridor hits many residential areas but also many trip attractors (i.e. destinations) including Mater Hospital, two future DART+ lines, DCU, Ballymun, the Airport, Swords (second fastest growing town in Ireland) and the business parks around Swords like Airside.

If you want to look at a rail option for Corridor E it will have to be underground for almost the entire route. Luas Line E's evaluation showed that surface running would either require unsustainable road reallocation (particularly in the current context of bus gates in Kimmage and Rathmines as part of BusConnects) or would require massive CPOs.

So we talking about building an underground metro on what is mostly suburban residential corridor with little re-development opportunity, low expansions options and without major trip attractors. Using MetroLink as a comparison this metro line would cost €3-4 billion. It doesn't stack up when there are so many other corridors in Dublin lacking high-quality public transport like Lucan, Blanchardstown or Clondalkin. We also have to ask are there projects like Luas lines in Cork, Limerick, Galway or Waterford that are higher priority than this? For €3-4 billion you could build a lot of Luas lines in regional cities. Or would that money be better spent on the intercity rail network particularly between Galway, Limerick and Cork to counter-balance Dublin?

I wish the case for rail to the south west city did stand-up. In my eyes it doesn't.

I really think we should be looking at building the proper BRT or expanding the BusConnects Core Bus Corridors 10 and 12 deeper into Corridor E to provide the high-quality public transport options the people deserve. It's what is realistic given the situation.

LUAS Line E was never going to happen. It was pie in the sky.

BusConnects will certainly deliver increased reliability, and improved journey times, but I’d take those NTA projected journey times with a pinch of salt. Journey times pre-Covid were up to 90 minutes at peak times on the 15, 15b and 16 from terminus to the city centre. The notion that those trips are going to 25-30 mins is fanciful to say the least. It cannot be done with zero traffic as it is. Buses will still be serving bus stops. The journey times will improve but not to the degree suggested.

Last time I checked, Lucan, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown are all getting DART in the short term strategically, so don’t start spouting nonsense about them being poorly served. They won’t be at the end of DART +. Lucan and Blanchardstown also have high frequency bus routes with significant priority as it is. You’re comparing them to an area that is in perpetual gridlock.

As for other cities, that’s a different question. We are talking here about the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy here, not Cork, Galway or somewhere else, so let’s leave them to develop their own strategies.

You clearly don’t have any experience of travelling in the area, because if you had, you’d understand my and other people’s frustration, which frankly is increased to boiling point when I read posts like yours above. Try commuting each way every day for 90 mins and you’ll realise why I get upset. This area of the city is a constant traffic jam and the only long term solution is a metro with feeder buses. BusConnects will help, but it’s not the long term solution.

We are of course talking about a Metro to Tallaght, which has a third level college and the main hospital for south and southwest Dublin. P & R could be a major source of patronage for it.

This is about looking out to 2042. The fact that you’re writing off a southwest metro from even being assessed as part of the strategy review just tells me all I need to know.

Pete_Cavan

LXFlyer wrote: »

We are of course talking about a Metro to Tallaght, which has a third level college and the main hospital for south and southwest Dublin. P & R could be a major source of patronage for it.

This is about looking out to 2042. The fact that you’re writing off a southwest metro from even being assessed as part of the strategy review just tells me all I need to know.

In fairness, how long have we been trying to build a Metro on the northside serving a much bigger hospital (Mater), full university (DCU), a P&R on a much busier motorway plus by far the busiest airport in the country and connecting with heavy rail? I would certainly share the view that the business case for such a project would not be favourable. Assess it by all means but I think we need to look at other solutions to the lack of transport in this part of the city than hoping we can somehow deliver another Metro line out there by 2042.

LXFlyer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

In fairness, how long have we been trying to build a Metro on the northside serving a much bigger hospital (Mater), full university (DCU), a P&R on a much busier motorway plus by far the busiest airport in the country and connecting with heavy rail? I would certainly share the view that the business case for such a project would not be favourable. Assess it by all means but I think we need to look at other solutions to the lack of transport in this part of the city than hoping we can somehow deliver another Metro line out there by 2042.

The problem is that there really aren’t other solutions that deliver.

The lack of sufficient roadspace is the problem for all of the surface ideas - narrow roads with villages built up close to the roads.

BusConnects, which inevitably had to compromise, is funnelling all general traffic onto Terenure Road North with no other inward routes east until Ranelagh or west until Clogher Road. At the same time diverted traffic is going to be on the roads that three main orbital bus routes will use which again have limited scope for bus priority.

Surface options aren’t ever going to solve it. Ultimately it will have to be underground.

strassenwo!f

This review is particularly welcome in relation to a possible southwest route, given that the bus journey times in that area are very high for city suburbs - when compared against city-suburb journey times in developed European cities.

The population and population densities in the suburbs along any putative southwest route are generally higher than those on the proposed Swords-City metro. Only areas along the DART line - and certainly not all of those - have comparable suburban populations or population densities in Dublin.

The first thing to do, in my opinion, would be to lop off the seemingly pointless St. Stephen's Green-Charlemont section of the proposed Metrolink. That shouldn't be enormously difficult, given that there must be some institutional memory about how to terminate a metro line in St. Stephen's Green.

They've established that they won't need to do any replacement of the Charlemont - Sandyford section of the Green Line until some time in the 2040's, based on the current demand, or rather the pre-virus demand, so why not just plan to terminate it at St. Stephen's Green.

Then, if the review says that the machines should go soon to the southwest, they easily can; and if the review says the machines should wait around for the 25 years or so for it to be necessary to have a replacement of the Charlemont - Sandyford section of the Green Line, where the populations and population densities are quite poor relative to the southwest, maybe they can do that too.

A broad estimate would be that building an early phase, or perhaps a first phase, of the metrolink to a bit beyond the canal in the Rathmines area would be about the same as building it to Charlemont (the current plan) - there would be another 150-200m to get it to around the Church/St. Mary's College rugby pitch. From there to, say, Ballyboden, in a second phase - broadly under roads - would be 6 km; and from there to, say, Scholarstown and Tallaght, in a third phase, would add around another 5 km. Some of that might be possible to do overground.

I am thus curious to know how the poster specialbyte above might have come up with a cost for something like this at 3-4 billion euro, given that the current 19 km Swords-Charlemont plan, which is to be built under the city, is slated to cost 3 billion. Is inflation expected to be so high?

Pete_Cavan

strassenwo!f wrote: »

This review is particularly welcome in relation to a possible southwest route, given that the bus journey times in that area are very high for city suburbs - when compared against city-suburb journey times in developed European cities.

The population and population densities in the suburbs along any putative southwest route are generally higher than those on the proposed Swords-City metro. Only areas along the DART line - and certainly not all of those - have comparable suburban populations or population densities in Dublin.

The first thing to do, in my opinion, would be to lop off the seemingly pointless St. Stephen's Green-Charlemont section of the proposed Metrolink. That shouldn't be enormously difficult, given that there must be some institutional memory about how to terminate a metro line in St. Stephen's Green.

They've established that they won't need to do any replacement of the Charlemont - Sandyford section of the Green Line until some time in the 2040's, based on the current demand, or rather the pre-virus demand, so why not just plan to terminate it at St. Stephen's Green.

Then, if the review says that the machines should go soon to the southwest, they easily can; and if the review says the machines should wait around for the 25 years or so for it to be necessary to have a replacement of the Charlemont - Sandyford section of the Green Line, where the populations and population densities are quite poor relative to the southwest, maybe they can do that too.

Where are you getting your figures on population densities? Based on this densities in the south west suburbs are almost exclusively in the 4 - 7k persons per sqkm range. You have plenty of that on the Metrolink route in inner suburbs south of Ballymun but pockets much higher density (>10k) new development north of Ballymun and Northwood, plus quite a bit of land for further higher density development.

The Green Line is (or was) already exceeding capacity and there is substantial new residential development taking place at Ballyogan, Sandyford, Brennanstown Road and Cherrywood. The south west suburbs are already developed and dont have significant areas for further development.

Kellyconor1982

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Where are you getting your figures on population densities? Based on this densities in the south west suburbs are almost exclusively in the 4 - 7k persons per sqkm range. You have plenty of that on the Metrolink route in inner suburbs south of Ballymun but pockets much higher density (>10k) new development north of Ballymun and Northwood, plus quite a bit of land for further higher density development.

The Green Line is (or was) already exceeding capacity and there is substantial new residential development taking place at Ballyogan, Sandyford, Brennanstown Road and Cherrywood. The south west suburbs are already developed and dont have significant areas for further development.

The south city around Rathmines is obviously a very vibrant busy area. There is a huge amount of development planned in parts of Rathfarnham and Ballycullen. Knocklyon has a large young population while Tallaght is the biggest suburb in the country. The situation will be worse by the 2040s which is the earliest point when this route may expect a Metro line.

As I said I live on the Northside. I have nothing to gain from a Metro line in the SW, but there is a real need for a line out this direction.

I really struggle to see your opposition firstly and secondly your lack of foresight to what the needs of parts of the city will be in the 2040s and 2050s.

Pete_Cavan

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

I really struggle to see your opposition firstly and secondly your lack of foresight to what the needs of parts of the city will be in the 2040s and 2050s.

I'm not opposed to a south west metro line but it we need to be realistic. The Green Line is already in need of metro and it can be accommodated on the alignment (albeit with short term disruption). I can't see a south west metro being built in the next two decades given it has taken longer than that to deliver our first metro plan which would have a much stronger business case. The issues need to be addressed now rather than deciding metro is the solution and waiting decades in the hope it actually happens.

CatInABox

Yes, I'm all in favour of a Metro out to the southwest, but it can't come at the expense of upgrading the Green Line to Metro. If that happens, then the cost of solving the Green Line capacity will spiral upward. Upgrading the Green Line to Metro is something that could be done relatively cheap, give a long term solution along that corridor, and will also set the standard for every other Metro line in the city.

I've said before, any Cost Benefit Analysis is going to strongly favour doing the Green Line upgrade. Depending on the length of tunnelling required, I still can't see the ultimate cost being more than a billion. On the other hand, any other Metro South route is going to cost multiple billions. Not only would a different route cost billions, but it'll also add billions to any solution for the Green Line.

Get Metrolink built, finish the extension to Sandyford, and the inevitable success of the line will create an unstoppable demand for more. As soon as they start on the upgrade to Sandyford, I'll be writing to TDs and Ministers asking that the NTA/TII start planning a second metro route for the South West corridor, but not before.

specialbyte

The deadline for feedback on the review of the GDA Transport Strategy is Friday 22nd January (i.e. today!).

You don't have long to provide feedback. There is a simple multi-choice questionaire and there are options to provide more detailed feedback. Just go here to provide feedback: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/consultations/greater-dublin-area-transport-strategy/

Here's a copy of the main points I submitted to the NTA: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xy52h16l9udmcn/Personal%20Transport%20Strategy%20Objectives%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0

Heartbreak Hank

specialbyte wrote: »

The deadline for feedback on the review of the GDA Transport Strategy is Friday 22nd January (i.e. today!).

You don't have long to provide feedback. There is a simple multi-choice questionaire and there are options to provide more detailed feedback. Just go here to provide feedback: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/consultations/greater-dublin-area-transport-strategy/

Here's a copy of the main points I submitted to the NTA: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xy52h16l9udmcn/Personal%20Transport%20Strategy%20Objectives%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0

Excellent stuff. I agree with everything you have said; wish I had seen it before I sent mine in;)

Tomrota

specialbyte wrote: »

The deadline for feedback on the review of the GDA Transport Strategy is Friday 22nd January (i.e. today!).

You don't have long to provide feedback. There is a simple multi-choice questionaire and there are options to provide more detailed feedback. Just go here to provide feedback: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/consultations/greater-dublin-area-transport-strategy/

Here's a copy of the main points I submitted to the NTA: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xy52h16l9udmcn/Personal%20Transport%20Strategy%20Objectives%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0

Great points indeed. Glad to see DART to Naas on your list, absolutely criminal that it’s not already on the agenda. Does it have to be GDA focused? In mine I just focused on public transport and cycling issues in my local area (Naas). I thought that the issues and suggestions that I raised could help inform GDA-wide policy.

Bsharp

I've highlighted the need for greater discussion on scheme viability in my submission.

We need a discussion on what our cities and towns will look like to support viable public transport under different levels of subvention. Are we willing to transform them through the Development Plan and LAP processes to achieve this? As a society are we willing to pay the subvention? We continuously re-hash old schemes without tackling these issues.

Rail to Navan being an example. Current and planned land uses on the Navan Corridor do not support a rail service that is a attractive enough to get people out of cars, and off buses, without significant levels of subvention per passenger. Presumably the expectation is that services will be every 15mins or half hour; so what do we need to deliver on the planning side to support this? 3 bed semis in Navan's southern suburbs probably aren't the answer. Are people willing to build and live in apartments in Navan Town Centre for a decent rail service? If not, there won't be a rail service because the figures won't stack up (assuming the subvention will be unpalatable under a CBA) This is the crux of it.

The NPF/RSES have their strengths and weaknesses. The main weakness is population/employment growth is assigned arbitrarily across regions without consideration to viability of sustainable transport provision needed to support growth. We're now trying to apply these principles retrospectively.

Bsharp

I highlighted a different consideration for suburban schemes in cities. We're prone to understating the benefits of the schemes. For example, the positive outcome of 'build it and they will come'.

The Green Luas line is a good example of this. Demand forecasts for the corridor don't fully capture the extent of consolidated development; where one or two houses are replaced by +25 apartments. So future demand is understated. We should do a review of the Green Corridor to understand how it's introduction has altered density along the corridor over time. This study could be used as a scenario based assessment on potential impact of new rail and luas corridors across the GDA and other cities.

For example, Metro Southwest corridor doesn't have densities to support a metro now, but how many one off houses would be replaced by apartments if it was built? This type of growth doesn't generally feature in our DP and LAP processes but it can be considerable and influences the ultimate success of PT.

Kellyconor1982

There is some big developments in the south west corridor of the city. I can't remember where I read it, but they are expecting a gigantic population increase in that area with some high density developments. It may have been on one of the commuter pages. I'm a Northsider so probably a retweet I half looked at.

Knocklyon is a very young and vibrant area and Ballycullen as well. Rathfarnham covers a big area, so a properly positioned station could take a lot of people....I often thought that Rathfarnham Shopping Centre could be a good place for a station. Near Templeogue as well. In a lot of cities, I think it works well having stations under shops.

I saw something on twitter from possibly the Dublin Commuter Coalition, that they favour a SW line starting in Tallaght (think they suggested the square). It really makes sense imo. Tallaght is essentially a city and the current red line isn't enough. They seem to favour it going to Coolock. I noticed a lot of comments suggesting it should go out to Howth or link up with one of the Dart stations. I think this is a wonderful idea.

I must say I am very hopeful about how things could progress in the city. Metrolink (1) being built even if it is essentially only a Metro North at the current time will be a game changer. It will be a great success and by the 2040s (I know) I would expect multiple lines the way a good sized and growing European city like Dublin should have.

p_haugh

Kellyconor1982 wrote: »

I saw something on twitter from possibly the Dublin Commuter Coalition, that they favour a SW line starting in Tallaght (think they suggested the square). It really makes sense imo. Tallaght is essentially a city and the current red line isn't enough. They seem to favour it going to Coolock. I noticed a lot of comments suggesting it should go out to Howth or link up with one of the Dart stations. I think this is a wonderful idea.

It would be a no-brainer to change the Howth branch of the dart to Metro standard and convert Howth Junction into a metro/rail interchange.
Metro runs from Howth, goes underground just before Howth Junction (with Platforms below the main line), and continues through the city (via Coolock, Marino on the north
& Knockloyn, Ballyroan etc on the south) before ending up in Tallaght. Doubt that would happen anytime soon though

CatInABox

p_haugh wrote: »

It would be a no-brainer to change the Howth branch of the dart to Metro standard and convert Howth Junction into a metro/rail interchange.
Metro runs from Howth, goes underground just before Howth Junction, and continues through the city (via Coolock, Marino on the north
& Knockloyn, Ballyroan etc on the south) before ending up in Tallaght. Doubt that would happen anytime soon though

That's actually a good idea, I'd never thought of that. That'd allow an increase in frequency on both the Dart line past Howth Junction, and more trains heading out to Howth.

The only problem is that out past Howth Junction towards Howth doesn't really need such a massive increase in frequency, what with most of the catchment area being the sea.

LXFlyer

The Howth Branch is likely to become a shuttle under DART+ - that I think is probably more than sufficient.

cgcsb

I made my submission. In addition to what is currently proposed/in planning I think the following should be added:

- A public transport / cycling /walking bridge and road between Liffey Valley and the Carpenterstown Road. It's hard to believe that we have the M50, busiest road in the state and there are no parallel PT/cycling/walking options. If you want to travel between Blanch(100,000 people) and Clondalkin/Tallaght (250,000 people) you MUST drive. The areas are only separated by 1.5km. Busconnects will provide some PT option but sending buses onto the M50 is not ideal and there's nothing for walking and cycling unless you fancy a dangerous windy and steep cycle via Chapelizod or Lucan village.

- DART Underground

- Bus Connects Orbital Corridors, which I'm amazed have hardly been mentioned. Bus connects depends on orbital routes to function. I believe this should bus gates at Hanlon's Corner, Phibsboro, NCR/Dorset St, Maken St and Adelaide/Harcourt

-A massive pedestrianisation / bike only campaign in the very centre of the City, focus should change from 'can we increase pedestrian space' to 'do cars really need to be here'. This should also include improving the streetscape, getting rid of poles, signage and clutter, invest more in pendant lighting.

- A suburban street permeability scheme. Dublin is awash with stupid cul de sacs and residential streets that end at a brick wall, behind which is a bus stop, or another suburban street that leads to one. All barriers to permeability should be removed. 1.5km walks to access services that are 100m away as the crow flies need to end.

- A New Tallaght-Beaumont Metro line, this closes any remaining gaps in the radial rail network and finally most of the urban area will be within the catchment of DART, Luas or Metro.

Heartbreak Hank

cgcsb wrote: »

I made my submission. In addition to what is currently proposed/in planning I think the following should be added:

- A public transport / cycling /walking bridge and road between Liffey Valley and the Carpenterstown Road. It's hard to believe that we have the M50, busiest road in the state and there are no parallel PT/cycling/walking options. If you want to travel between Blanch(100,000 people) and Clondalkin/Tallaght (250,000 people) you MUST drive. The areas are only separated by 1.5km. Busconnects will provide some PT option but sending buses onto the M50 is not ideal and there's nothing for walking and cycling unless you fancy a dangerous windy and steep cycle via Chapelizod or Lucan village.

- DART Underground

- Bus Connects Orbital Corridors, which I'm amazed have hardly been mentioned. Bus connects depends on orbital routes to function. I believe this should bus gates at Hanlon's Corner, Phibsboro, NCR/Dorset St, Maken St and Adelaide/Harcourt

-A massive pedestrianisation / bike only campaign in the very centre of the City, focus should change from 'can we increase pedestrian space' to 'do cars really need to be here'. This should also include improving the streetscape, getting rid of poles, signage and clutter, invest more in pendant lighting.

- A suburban street permeability scheme. Dublin is awash with stupid cul de sacs and residential streets that end at a brick wall, behind which is a bus stop, or another suburban street that leads to one. All barriers to permeability should be removed. 1.5km walks to access services that are 100m away as the crow flies need to end.

- A New Tallaght-Beaumont Metro line, this closes any remaining gaps in the radial rail network and finally most of the urban area will be within the catchment of DART, Luas or Metro.

Yet again I wish I had seen this before I sent mine in. Great ideas.

strassenwo!f

In relation to cgcsb's submission, posted above, I think any new vision of the DART Underground project would have to include a proper appraisal of how the line would be used, and where the capacity is going to come from.

When ABP approved the DART Underground project, way back when, it was very unclear where the trains necessary to make the project viable were going to come from. ABP never seemed to address this.

Could Hazelhatch-Dublin city centre ever realistically reach 16 full trains per hour at peak times, the proposed throughput of the tunnel? Probably not, so there was at one stage a fairly nebulous idea to terminate trains at Heuston.

A Tallaght-Clondalkin-Hazelhatch line corridor would be an obvious way to use at least some of this excess capacity.

The Clondalkin and Tallaght numbers make sense for such a line - a bit underground, and perhaps a bit overground, but overall a rapid journey into the city (20 minutes?) for a very major chunk of the residents of Tallaght.

The numbers for a metro to the southwest certainly add up in terms of densities and populations along a potential St. Stephen's Green-Camden St.-Rathmines-Rathgar-Terenure-Rathfarnham-Firhouse corridor (which I favour) - relative to the much lower figures, generally, along the Green Line south of the canal.

But could such a metro line cope with a connection to the huge population of Tallaght if there were no other rapid connection between Tallaght and the city?

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I
But could such a metro line cope with a connection to the huge population of Tallaght if there were no other rapid connection between Tallaght and the city?

Right now there is only a slow (45 min) tram connection and some buses. Adding the metro would increase capacity. Assuming the same spec as planned Swords Metro that's 18,000 ppdph ontop of the existing red line.

riddlinrussell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

In relation to cgcsb's submission, posted above, I think any new vision of the DART Underground project would have to include a proper appraisal of how the line would be used, and where the capacity is going to come from.

When ABP approved the DART Underground project, way back when, it was very unclear where the trains necessary to make the project viable were going to come from. ABP never seemed to address this.

Could Hazelhatch-Dublin city centre ever realistically reach 16 full trains per hour at peak times, the proposed throughput of the tunnel? Probably not, so there was at one stage a fairly nebulous idea to terminate trains at Heuston.

A Tallaght-Clondalkin-Hazelhatch line corridor would be an obvious way to use at least some of this excess capacity.

The Clondalkin and Tallaght numbers make sense for such a line - a bit underground, and perhaps a bit overground, but overall a rapid journey into the city (20 minutes?) for a very major chunk of the residents of Tallaght.

The numbers for a metro to the southwest certainly add up in terms of densities and populations along a potential St. Stephen's Green-Camden St.-Rathmines-Rathgar-Terenure-Rathfarnham-Firhouse corridor (which I favour) - relative to the much lower figures, generally, along the Green Line south of the canal.

But could such a metro line cope with a connection to the huge population of Tallaght if there were no other rapid connection between Tallaght and the city?

Where would you put a heavy rail line from Fonthill to Tallaght, and wouldn't it needlessly complicate movements on the countries main rail link?

The idea (mass transit from Tallaght to Clondalkin) definitely has merit, but surely the way to go would be actually building metro west and also linking Blanchardstown etc to the western main line? Fonthill could become a major interchange between metro and heavy rail/DART.

strassenwo!f

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Where would you put a heavy rail line from Fonthill to Tallaght, and wouldn't it needlessly complicate movements on the countries main rail link?

The idea (mass transit from Tallaght to Clondalkin) definitely has merit, but surely the way to go would be actually building metro west and also linking Blanchardstown etc to the western main line? Fonthill could become a major interchange between metro and heavy rail/DART.

My answer is, quite simply, that I don't know how such a line should be created.

Such a line was envisaged as part of the plan back in the 1970's, and there is nowhere in County Dublin which comes close to the population of Tallaght, outside of the city centre.

The big focus is now on Swords, and the metrolink, but in population terms this is paltry compared to Tallaght, and there is no question that the main employer in Swords is the Airport. It is probable that the most significant movement along the metrolink north of the Airport will be Swords-Airport movement, not Swords-City movement.

Tallaght does not such an enormous neighbour, so Tallaght-City movement is going to be the key thing for any line serving that suburb.

It is clear from many cities that lines into the city are the way to go. For an orbital route, you'd combine these.

Thus, you'd have a line between Tallaght and Clondalkin and the Hazelhatch line, going into the heart of the city along a DART Underground line. You'd also have, say, a Clonsilla to Hazelhatch line going into the city along the samesaid DART Underground line.

If you want to go between Tallaght and Clonsilla, you change at some point.

If you are from Tallaght or Clonsilla, or ponts in-between, and you want to go to the city (as the largest number of passengers do) you just stay on your train until you get there.

strassenwo!f

cgcsb wrote: »

Right now there is only a slow (45 min) tram connection and some buses. Adding the metro would increase capacity. Assuming the same spec as planned Swords Metro that's 18,000 ppdph ontop of the existing red line.

Yes, of course it would increase capacity. But would it be enough?

We have a whole load of people on this board bleating that there isn't enough capacity on the southside Green Line, even though there is nothing on that route to in any way compare with the population of Tallaght.

My point is that Tallaght, with its colossal population (second only to the city in County Dublin, and way ahead of Swords) needs to be served by something more than a southside metro

If you only build a southwest metro, providing a 20-25 minute service to the city, there will be an immediate exodus from the Red Line with its 45-50 minute service. This will create many problems in inner suburbs, similar to but greater than, those being seen now on the Green Line.

The solution to this potential metro problem would be, as you suggested above, DART Underground, and a spur from it.

bk

strassenwo!f wrote: »

We have a whole load of people on this board bleating that there isn't enough capacity on the southside Green Line, even though there is nothing on that route to in any way compare with the population of Tallaght.

Sigh... The advantage of the Green line is the massive amount of green fields all along the southern length of the line which will be prime real estate to develop into high density housing.

Similar with Swords, it's population maybe less then Tallaght at the moment, but it is projected to grow to 100,000 in just 15 years, well past Tallaght. Swords and North Dublin are basically a sea of green fields, ripe for development.

The problem Tallaght faces is that it's development potential is already largely tapped out. It can't really develop much further south due to the Dublin Mountains.

Swords and the Green Line will house the next 100,000+ people and far surpass Tallaght.

Now I'm not saying that Tallaght shouldn't be developed too, but your comparison with Swords and the Green Line is extremely lacking and simplistic.

cgcsb

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Yes, of course it would increase capacity. But would it be enough?

We have a whole load of people on this board bleating that there isn't enough capacity on the southside Green Line, even though there is nothing on that route to in any way compare with the population of Tallaght.

My point is that Tallaght, with its colossal population (second only to the city in County Dublin, and way ahead of Swords) needs to be served by something more than a southside metro

If you only build a southwest metro, providing a 20-25 minute service to the city, there will be an immediate exodus from the Red Line with its 45-50 minute service. This will create many problems in inner suburbs, similar to but greater than, those being seen now on the Green Line.

The solution to this potential metro problem would be, as you suggested above, DART Underground, and a spur from it.

Would it be enough? well Tallaght would have more rail capacity than 99% of the country at that point. The luas would become more for short journeys as a tram should be and the metro would do the City Centre to Tallaght heavy lifting.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Sigh... The advantage of the Green line is the massive amount of green fields all along the southern length of the line which will be prime real estate to develop into high density housing.

Similar with Swords, it's population maybe less then Tallaght at the moment, but it is projected to grow to 100,000 in just 15 years, well past Tallaght. Swords and North Dublin are basically a sea of green fields, ripe for development.

The problem Tallaght faces is that it's development potential is already largely tapped out. It can't really develop much further south due to the Dublin Mountains.

Swords and the Green Line will house the next 100,000+ people and far surpass Tallaght.

Now I'm not saying that Tallaght shouldn't be developed too, but your comparison with Swords and the Green Line is extremely lacking and simplistic.

That’s not quite true. There are several large scale apartment developments in the offing south and southwest of Rathfarnham that are going to significantly add people to the commuting traffic - the mantra of no development happening really needs to stop.

(I fully recognise that Cherrywood is a massive development but it really isn’t true to say that there’s no large developments happening in the south west).

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

That’s not quite true. There are several large scale apartment developments in the offing south and southwest of Rathfarnham that are going to significantly add people to the commuting traffic - the mantra of no development happening really needs to stop.

(I fully recognise that Cherrywood is a massive development but it really isn’t true to say that there’s no large developments happening in the south west).

Of course, I didn't say no development is happening, of course infill development is continuing to happen, just as it is in almost every corner of Dublin.

But per the census, the population is increasing at 1.9% per year in Tallaght. Which is very good, but hardly extraordinary. By comparison, when Tallaght was built, between the 1971 and 1981 census, it's population went from 6,174 to 55,104, a +792.5% increase in population in 10 years or 79% per year!!

1.9% is fine, but it is that sort of explosive growth of 79% increase that you will expect to see along greenfield developments on the Green line and in Swords. Basically you are seeing multiple Tallaght scale developments being built around Dublin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment saying that Tallaght and the areas in between shouldn't see an eventual Metro 2 line. But given the housing crisis, the priority needs to be on the much larger developments, which will house vastly larger numbers of new people.

strassenwo!f

bk wrote: »

Sigh... The advantage of the Green line is the massive amount of green fields all along the southern length of the line which will be prime real estate to develop into high density housing.

As with the southwest of the city, there is currently no plan to develop a metro to the southern reaches currently served by the Green Line. We would have to go back to the ludicrous ‘Platform for Change’ plan from the early 2000s’ for a plan for a metro to either location.

bk wrote: »

Similar with Swords, it's population maybe less then Tallaght at the moment, but it is projected to grow to 100,000 in just 15 years, well past Tallaght. Swords and North Dublin are basically a sea of green fields, ripe for development.

The population of Swords is quite considerably smaller: its population is (2016 census figures) 42,988 (density 1,231 per sq. km.), while Tallaght’s is 76,119 (density 3,285).

So, Tallaght’s population is almost double that of Swords.

However, you can count on a large section of Swords metro users, no matter what population it reaches, using the metro to get to and from the Airport – perhaps half? - and leaving space free for other users between the Airport and the city.
I doubt if the same is true for journeys to/from Tallaght. A person getting on a Tallaght-City metro in Tallaght will, by and large, be going the whole way into the city (and vice versa) and will not free up other spaces for other commuters along the way, as a Swords person would perhaps 50% of the time.
This is the nub of my question: Tallaght has a large enough population to be served by metro or a DART, but can a metro alone handle it?

bk wrote: »

The problem Tallaght faces is that it's development potential is already largely tapped out. It can't really develop much further south due to the Dublin Mountains.

Development of Tallaght is irrelevant. Its location and its population should be enough to warrant a better service than a 45-minute tram connection. The question I’m asking is whether a metro connection is enough, or whether a DART spur should be part of the solution for such a large population.

bk wrote: »

Swords and the Green Line will house the next 100,000+ people and far surpass Tallaght.

I’ve no problem with a metro to Swords, but the Green Line to Dundrum, at least, is not going to see any significant population growth in the next 50 years or so. Beyond Dundrum it certainly will, but there are no current plans to ever build a metro to areas beyond Sandyford.

Peregrine

strassenwo!f wrote: »

As with the southwest of the city, there is currently no plan to develop a metro to the southern reaches currently served by the Green Line. We would have to go back to the ludicrous ‘Platform for Change’ plan from the early 2000s’ for a plan for a metro to either location.


..

I’ve no problem with a metro to Swords, but the Green Line to Dundrum, at least, is not going to see any significant population growth in the next 50 years or so. Beyond Dundrum it certainly will, but there are no current plans to ever build a metro to areas beyond Sandyford.

There's the GDA Transport Strategy 2016-2035. You know.. the topic of the thread. Could you please read it before diving in and starting arguments?

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Of course, I didn't say no development is happening, of course infill development is continuing to happen, just as it is in almost every corner of Dublin.

But per the census, the population is increasing at 1.9% per year in Tallaght. Which is very good, but hardly extraordinary. By comparison, when Tallaght was built, between the 1971 and 1981 census, it's population went from 6,174 to 55,104, a +792.5% increase in population in 10 years or 79% per year!!

1.9% is fine, but it is that sort of explosive growth of 79% increase that you will expect to see along greenfield developments on the Green line and in Swords. Basically you are seeing multiple Tallaght scale developments being built around Dublin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment saying that Tallaght and the areas in between shouldn't see an eventual Metro 2 line. But given the housing crisis, the priority needs to be on the much larger developments, which will house vastly larger numbers of new people.

I'm not referring to Tallaght on its own.

I am referring to the whole of south and southwest of Dublin, which already suffers the worst traffic congestion in the city. The infrastructure was never put in place in the first place to deal with the large number of developments already in situ, let alone with the new ones coming along.

There are 500 new apartments going to be built on one single site in Ballyboden and there are other large developments in the offing southwest of Rathfarnham, particularly in Knocklyon which is still being developed to the south, and the road space simply isn't there to cope with them.

The area is just going to grind to a standstill sooner rather than later.

strassenwo!f

Peregrine wrote: »

There's the GDA Transport Strategy 2016-2035. You know.. the topic of the thread. Could you please read it before diving in and starting arguments?

I've read it.

Since 2016 there has been a significant change to the strategy shown in your image: the NTA no longer intend to build a metro to Sandyford within the lifetime of this plan.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've read it.

Since 2016 there has been a significant change to the strategy shown in your image: the NTA no longer intend to build a metro to Sandyford within the lifetime of this plan.

That is not certain. Upgrading the Green Line has not been settled yet.

Peregrine

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've read it.

Since 2016 there has been a significant change to the strategy shown in your image: the NTA no longer intend to build a metro to Sandyford within the lifetime of this plan.

You just said yourself that "there are no current plans to ever build a metro to areas beyond Sandyford" in the post I was replying to. Now you're saying there are no plans to build a metro to Sandyford either?

As in stands, the NTA absolutely intends to build a metro to Sandyford and beyond to Cherrywood within the lifetime of the strategy. The MetroLink plans make it clear that it's simply deferred beyond 2027. Until the strategy is changed (which is what this thread is about), that's the strategy.

roadmaster

Will Metro West ever re emerge ?

cgcsb

roadmaster wrote: »

Will Metro West ever re emerge ?

Even if there was a bus only bridge from Liffey Valley to Blanch I'd be happy with that. The fact that we have no public transport or active mode alternative to the state's busiest road is damning. If you want to walk or cycle the 2km crow flying distance you must take a 10km diversion. The route by car is a much shorter using the M50, which should never be the case.

roadmaster

cgcsb wrote: »

Even if there was a bus only bridge from Liffey Valley to Blanch I'd be happy with that. The fact that we have no public transport or active mode alternative to the state's busiest road is damning. If you want to walk or cycle the 2km crow flying distance you must take a 10km diversion. The route by car is a much shorter using the M50, which should never be the case.

You would have taught there was a business case for it considering what is in that part of Dublin west, you have Blanch shopping area, Blanch IT, NSC, a major hospital with a new children's center . Then Ballycoolin is a big employment area and finally to add on top of that all the housing that's going up and will go up around hollystown.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

Even if there was a bus only bridge from Liffey Valley to Blanch I'd be happy with that. The fact that we have no public transport or active mode alternative to the state's busiest road is damning. If you want to walk or cycle the 2km crow flying distance you must take a 10km diversion. The route by car is a much shorter using the M50, which should never be the case.

The W4 will do that trip all day from either later this year or at the start of next year - every 15 minutes at peak and every 30 minutes during the rest of the day.

It will link Blanchardstown SC with Liffey Valley via the M50 and then operate via the Outer Ring Road, Grange Castle, Citywest to Tallaght.

That's a brand new service that will make a difference.

It is however far harder to coax people making orbital journeys out of their cars and onto public transport for the simple reason that such journeys tend to be much more unique in nature in terms of start and end points. To use public transport could often require up to two changes en route (even under the new plans) which will act as a deterrent.

Add to that (and I speak from experience!) some premises in business parks can be up to 20 minutes from the nearest bus stop - that's going to be another deterrent.

That being said the planned western orbitals W4 and W6 will be the first of the new orbitals and will offer completely new journey opportunities.

cgcsb

Agreed that the W4 will help but it depends on reasonable M50 traffic flow. A direct link would offer better journey times. Also even with W6 there remains no walking or cycling option between Clondalkin/Tallaght and Blanch. Truly unique in Europe that you would have massive towns with hundreds of thousands of people with less than 2km between them and the only transport method between them in 2021 is driving.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

Agreed that the W6 will help but it depends on reasonable M50 traffic flow. A direct link would offer better journey times. Also even with W6 there remains no walking or cycling option between Clondalkin/Tallaght and Blanch. Truly unique in Europe that you would have massive towns with hundreds of thousands of people with less than 2km between them and the only transport method between them in 2021 is driving.

That’s the W4 you mean.

The W6 is Maynooth-Celbridge-Hazelhatch-Newcastle-Saggart-Citywest-Tallaght.

As for walking/cycling the geography doesn’t exactly help with a massive valley and steep hills either side. People don’t live at Liffey Valley or Blanch SC. They live in the housing estates and the distances involved from them to business parks either side of the Liffey are much greater than 2km.

I would point out that the 76A and 239 do offer (limited) public transport currently - it isn’t correct to say that nothing exists.

yascaoimhin

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I've read it.

Since 2016 there has been a significant change to the strategy shown in your image: the NTA no longer intend to build a metro to Sandyford within the lifetime of this plan.

There has been no change whatsoever to the Strategy since 2016, it's legislatively underpinned. It cannot be changed on a whim. Despite the issues in Beechwood, the Metro is still planned to go to Sandyford and then to Bride's Glen by 2035. The NTA are legally required to pursue this alignment.

There's no evidence anywhere to suggest that metro services will not be extended to Bride's Glen between 2027 and 2035. The only timeframe given for the metro from Charlemont to Sandyford is the year by which the upgrade MUST be made to meet capacity.
May 2019
The goal is still, of the Strategy, to deliver a metro to Sandyford. Simply, we are not going to do it now, or in the short term.

— Paolo Carbone, Head of Public Transport Capital Programmes at Transport Infrastructure Ireland

I'm confused, has bk or whoever argued that there's vast realms of potential development land abutting the existing green line but not in the southwest ever actually looked at a map?

There's significantly more room for expansion south of Knocklyon/Firhouse/Old Bawn and west of Tallaght. If you look at http://airomaps.nuim.ie/id/AI_Atlas/?mobileBreakPoint=400/ linked above, it shows population density along any mooted alignments from Terenure onward looks about the same population density as along the green line map.

You can make the point that upgrading the green line to metro standards is significantly cheaper per additional passenger journey without arguing things that appear to be quite untrue.

Dodderbrook, Ballycullen Green, Abbots Grove, 2x White Pines developments & Scholarstown Wood were all completed in the last year or two and within a 1.5km radius - they're all greenfield developments on the outside of the existing southern suburbs, with more developments planned to be built. Add to that the 500 apartments on Scholarstown Road and the further 500 on the former Augistinian's site (both infill, and approx 1.2km from each other) to be completed within the next 2 years.

As LXFlyer has pointed out, public transport from this area of Dublin is chronically slow. I could frequently walk into the city centre pre-covid at the same speed it would take a rush hour 15. Busconnects will improve this, but nowhere near to the extent claimed - it's simply not possible given road constraints. Add to that, cycling facilities are awful (and busconnects really screwed the pooch on their plans for this).

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_transport/2003-06-19/2/

It was amusing coming across this on my searches, well worth a read.

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm confused, has bk or whoever argued that there's vast realms of potential development land abutting the existing green line but not in the southwest ever actually looked at a map?

There's significantly more room for expansion south of Knocklyon/Firhouse/Old Bawn and west of Tallaght. If you look at http://airomaps.nuim.ie/id/AI_Atlas/?mobileBreakPoint=400/ linked above, it shows population density along any mooted alignments from Terenure onward looks about the same population density as along the green line map.

Yeah, you might want to take a glance at a topology map there. South of Knocklyon/Firhouse/Old Bawn and you are basically in the Dublin Mountains.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Yeah, you might want to take a glance at a topology map there. South of Knocklyon/Firhouse/Old Bawn and you are basically in the Dublin Mountains.

Well when you can, you might go and have a look at the area.

You are clearly not familiar with the area, nor with what is happening there.

There are still significant new developments happening on green field sites - Stocking Avenue and Old Court Road for example are not low lying areas and yet there are still significant developments being built there, and more planned, not to mention the two 500 strong apartment developments being built south of Rathfarnham in the Ballyboden area on infill land.

This nonsense that has been peddled that there are no significant developments south and southwest of Rathfarnham needs to stop and some actual solutions put forward to deal with transport in the area.

There has never been proper public transport in that area, with most people there spending their entire adult lives enduring the slowest bus speeds in the city.

Perhaps if you saw the problems on a daily basis you would not be quite as flippant about it.

bk

bk wrote: »

Yeah, you might want to take a glance at a topology map there. South of Knocklyon/Firhouse/Old Bawn and you are basically in the Dublin Mountains.

It's pretty clear there's a significant strip of land all along the current southern extent of development - unless what you meant with the below

The advantage of the Green line is the massive amount of green fields all along the southern length of the line which will be prime real estate to develop into high density housing.

is that you're counting land so distant from the green line as to be immaterial to usage of the green line for commuting?

If that's the case, why are you talking about it as being a boon to the green line?


What exactly is your point other than "I have a grá for the green line and I'm going to waffle in support of it"?

It's fine to not know south/southwest Dublin but don't double down on it when you're caught out making faulty assumptions. You're wasting everyone's time and detracting from the discussion purely to protect your own ego.