Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2022 - 2042

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120159735#Comment_120159735

This times 1000, It's hard to believe that at the moment in West Dublin, you have 2 separate urban areas divided by the liffey, with populations of about 200,000 and 100,000 facing eachother and the only way to get across is get in a car and drive over the m50 and up to the year 2042, there is no plan to remedy that. Wtf is that? Obviously they want to protect the toll revenue, promoting sustainable travel is very much secondary to toll revenue

bk

“Good to hear that they are finally realising that articulated buses are required for capacity, not to mention speeding up boarding/alighting. I wonder is it the difficulty recruiting drivers which brought on this realisation, less than 100 passengers max per driver with DDs is ridiculous. BusConnects should have been based on articulated buses and would be far more successful had it been. As planning applications there have stalled and some applications wont happen for years, they really should pivot now for those corridors.”

Ive been saying this since they cancelled the BRT project for BusConnects. I get that BusConnects is a much bigger project that covers the entire city, rather then just the original 3 planned BRT routes, however I strongly feel that the BRT plan should have been merged into the BusConnects plan and those three routes (and maybe more) should have been BRT, while still doing all the other elements of BusConnects (orbital routes, etc.).

That would have given us a much better network then just BusConnects on its own.

As you say, I suspect the driver shortages is changing minds amongst the planners. Issues with drivers is likely to make larger vehicles, more Luas, longer trams, metros and trains, plus fully automated metro/trains more acceptable. The old ideas of just throwing more busses and drivers on isn’t going to work in a high cost of living country with very low unemployment levels and difficult housing availability.

“I think tri-axle double deck buses such as those in Berlin with two staircases would be a better buy - more seats and about the same capacity.”

While Id love to see those Berlin style, dual stairs tri-axles here, specially now that we have gotten use to actually using the rear door, they definitely aren’t a replacement for BRT.

The Berlin tri-axles have a capacity of only 112 people and while that is a nice bump up from the 80 - 90 of the dual axle busses, it is only roughly a 20% increase, versus 200 people on a BRT which is more then a doubling of capacity.

Having said that the Berlin style busses might be a quick capacity bump on suitable routes, until they get into place the infrastructure that would be required for longer BRT vehicles.

LXFlyer

None of that deals with the substantive issue that I raised though.

There’s quite a difference between standing on a train or a normal bus for a significant distance to doing it on an articulated vehicle. It’s anything but as comfortable on the latter.

Many of the Spine routes are very long, far longer than the Glider in Belfast. Just going to the city centre on many of them can and will take over an hour. I would suggest that there would be a significant diminution in passenger comfort using articulated vehicles. Far more standees travelling for significant periods isn’t an improvement in my opinion.

bk

"None of that deals with the substantive issue that I raised though.

There’s quite a difference between standing on a train or a normal bus for a significant distance to doing it on an articulated vehicle. It’s anything but as comfortable on the latter."

The Berlin tri-axles have only 80 seats. It depends on the layout, but some bi-articulated buses have as many as 130+ seats. I'd expect any configuration Dublin would go with would have at least as many seats as the Berlin buses.

Then there is the whole conversation if all of those seats are really even used on Double Decker buses. Obviously the seats upstairs are inaccessible to mobility impaired folks, plus there is the very frequent issue of people not realising that there are seats free upstairs.

BTW I think you might be mixing up the original BRT plan, with what we are talking about in the GDA plan now. The original BRT plan was for 18m long single articulated buses. The GDA plan is talking about 25m long bi-articulated buses. These are long buses with very big capacity. Almost as long as the original Luas (30m on the Red Line). By comparison the Berlin buses are less then 14m, so they were somewhat equivalent to the 18m BRT, but these 25m buses are a whole different ball game.

alentejo

Not convinced that longer buses are suitable for Dublin Streets. Some of the turns that buses are required to take at tight enough, coupled with road design seeming always hell bent on designing tighter turning radii.

p_haugh

Alexander Dennis last year announced a fully electric tri-axle ALX500EV for the US market. If that gets announced for markets this side of the pond, that could be an option for the NTA.

https://www.alexander-dennis.com/media/news/2021/june/alexander-dennis-unveils-its-first-zero-emission-three-axle-double-deck-bus-the-enviro500ev-charge-for-north-america/

Now they'd obviously have to go to tender for such an order, but there isn't much more choice in the market at the moment. That may change in a few years time however.

Grandeeod

Yet another plan that promises rail projects and yet another plan that will fail to deliver. How far does the state have to go before people wake up to the utter BS that they spout via report after report and plan after plan? I guess a new generation arrives to buy into the crap. From Metro to Dart Underground to a railway to Navan. I've been there, bought the T-Shirt, learned to play the banjo and remain confident that none of it will happen. It doesn't make me happy by the way. I said this here 13 odd years ago under a different guise.......reinvent the wheel. That's all they do and it will go on and on.

VeryOwl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120162913#Comment_120162913

Sadly you are as right now as then.

How apt that the cover is a bunch of toy projects swirling down the drain. Public transport in Ireland is a landfill of glossy PDFs and broken promises, and this trash is just the latest to add to the heap. The report is still talking about Phoenix Park Tunnel as if it's recent progress. It highlights the paucity of what's been delivered.

There's no urgency in Government to build any of this or to make our cities liveable, and it breeds cynicism sadly.

murphaph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120162913#Comment_120162913

I got fed up waiting and was lucky enough to be able to emigrate to somewhere with decent public transport. Since I left Dublin in January 2009 the city has added perhaps a dozen miles of new Luas extensions (no new lines) and a couple of miles of heavy rail on and existing alignment in the suburbs. That is depressingly little in 14 years. Just for comparison, Munich (not where I live but comparable in size to Dublin) has built its second interconnector in that time frame.

CatInABox

I get that a lot of people have intense scepticism about these plans, and usually I'd agree with you. This time there is a significant difference, absolutely massive in fact. Ireland has signed up to massively reduce our emissions, and because we didn't want to stand up to our largest emitters, we're now in the situation where our transport sector has to reduce it's emissions by 51%. We're going to face growing fines if we don't hit these targets, and that seems to be focusing minds a fair bit. Politicians don't like being responsible for bad news, and these fines are going to be real bad news.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120163993#Comment_120163993

This is the key point. Public transport, especially electrified public transport is absolutely necessary to meet our climate targets.

Factoring that into the CBAs (which I am not sure DPER is capable of) makes all the difference.

namloc1980

I'm beyond sceptical at this stage, just tired of an endless stream of plans and maps.

None of the Luas extensions are due to be delivered before 2031 per the strategy. When you consider that the Luas cross city was opened in December 2017, it'll be at least c.15 years before the next inch of Luas track is opened after that. We should be continuously rolling from one project onto the next.

And then consider that the most advanced of the extensions, Luas Finglas, adds just 4km and 4 stops to the network! Hopefully elements of DART+ will be up and running by the end of this decade but overall the lack of urgency is mindboggling and very disappointing.

cgcsb

I would say DART+ West will be largely operational by 2030. I cant see Coastal DART or South West happening tbh. The latter is basically a level crossing scheme that just won't ever be accepted in Sandymount. They won't even accept a cycle lane. And then South West is a fairly pointless project providing 10 minute frequency to isolated rural stations only.

I think finglas luas might be delivered early. Its an 'easy' project in terms of engineering and public support.

I don't think metrolink will happen but that's just me. Some people believe it will.

I think the bus corridors will only be partially built but it'll be an improvement none the less.

I expect the 2027 strategy to be more or less the same as this one with dates further in the future.

D.L.R.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120163833#Comment_120163833

Munich has a metro area of 6 million people how is that comparable to Dublin. Not defending Dublin's CRAP transport network mind.

Murph85

This plan is a total and utter farce, dublin heading for two million people and two pathetic light rail lines are all it can muster after the initial boom, then this boom, with tens of billions being thrown around like confetti with increased government spending! LOL!

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168622#Comment_120168622

The Porto metropolitan area has a population of about 1.5m, comparable to Dublin. They have an extensive Metro, partly on disused rail lines, partly underground partly street running. Its a step up from LUAS, but not quite full heavy rail.

They are currently extending and you see costs for 3 or 4 km underground quoted in the 100s of millions of €, not Billions. I'd love to get the frank opinions of the Porto engineers and operators about the NTA circus.

And Portugal is much poorer than Ireland. I think we can learn a lot from other countries, including from the UK, whare we can learn how not todo things.

AngryLips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120169026#Comment_120169026

In fairness, this is what Frank McDonald has been arguing for

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120169441#Comment_120169441

Yes, but my main point is the relatively low cost and high speed with which decisions are made and projects actually getting done. We need some people who have a proven track record to come here and have a good hard look.

murphaph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120168622#Comment_120168622

I was astounded to see a figure of 6 million for the metro area but it isn't because Wiki is taking the "metro area" figure from what is called the "Metropolregion" on German, but this is a vast area, almost half the size of the entire state of Bavaria which is itself about the size of Ireland. It would be like including Cork or Belfast in Dublin's metro area, which is clearly wrong. The "Metropolregion" simply doesn't translate as "metro area" which is what we might otherwise define as the city plus its commuter belt. A "Metropolregion" is something like "city hinterland" or something like that. For example the entire state or Brandenburg belongs to the Metropolregion around Berlin but I assure you, there are virtually no commuters into Berlin from more than about 20km out into the surrounding state.

There's a map here:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_M%C3%BCnchen

A real "commuter belt" definition might be the Region München:

https://www.region-muenchen.com/der-rpv/region

This contains about 2.9m people and would be about the size of Leinster, which has 2.5m people. So, highly comparable. The populations of the urban area of Munich and Dublin would be very similar.

cgcsb

I was thinking that. Munich certainly doesn't seem that big and and the metro region in question according to wiki seemed to go all the way to the suburbs of nurnburg, really not comparable to the greater Dublin area

getoutadodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167426#Comment_120167426

All the relevant agencies hide in their separate silos. Their only interaction or accountability is thru Twitter feeds. DCC should be compelled to have regular press conferences as should Dublin Bus, Dublin Port, IE, TFI and Waterways Ireland etc. There's no sanction for inaction or incompetence. No penalties on contract overspends or missed deadlines.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120174160#Comment_120174160

Seems like there is a lack of good, sharp, well-informed investigative journalism. That might smoke them out of their silos.

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120162508#Comment_120162508

The advantages of articulated buses are stark when you use them. The dwell time is similar to trams so they can use tramways and share the same integrated stops. This is particularly useful in city centres where road-space is valuable. Double-deckers require twice the road space around stops to allow passing so for example Westmoreland street needs the equivalent of three lanes to carry buses and a tram in one direction, where with single decker artics, a single lane could carry trams and buses - allowing the saved space to be used for cycle lanes, expanded footpaths and trees.

As well as the more economical use of roadspace, having less-tall vehicles would allow new routes through the docklands which are currently impossible due to low railway bridges.

Another advantage is that the infrastructure is re-usable as routes are upgraded and there is a natural/smooth upgrade path - starting with building a bus route, then trolley buses up to full tram - and each mode can share roadspace and stops/interchanges as they have compatible dwell times. The investment in BusConnects would have been future-proofed - providing the basis for future upgrades to trams and BRT.

Extended dwell times are inevitable with double deckers and this means that bunching is inevitable EVEN with fully dedicated lanes. There's a reason why 99% of public transport buses the world over are single deckers - it's just impossible to efficiently support the types of stopping patterns you need for city centre public transport with the double decker format. Hence the queues and walls of double decker buses that clog up Dublin's streets. Double deckers and coaches should be confined to longer distance routes in outer suburbs/satellite towns which have infrequent stops. They shouldn't be running through the city centre except maybe as a novelties like open-top tourist buses.

murphaph

And if double deckers must be used for some reason, use a design that maximises throughput like the Berlin ones with front stairs for boarding and rear stairs for alighting.

snotboogie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120170045#Comment_120170045

The OECD do the best measures of metro areas with their Functional Urban Areas imo and use consistent statistics, unlike national stats which are very inconsistent across countries. Munich has 2.8 million in its FUA, Dublin has 1.8 million.

cgcsb

Wild that a Dublin has 65% of Munich's population and Munich's metro and commuter rail map looks like this

https://images.app.goo.gl/EzBxUyG76YscgV7v5

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176276#Comment_120176276

Agreed that 2 doors are indeed better than 1. But not as good as 4 and you can never avoid the choke point of the stairs slowing egress and ingress and the associated lack of accessibility. And even in Berlin, double deckers are outnumbered by more than 2 to 1 by single deckers. The double decker has seen it's market share in sharp decline globally for the last 50 years or so and at this stage, in the 21st century, very few except a few stubborn ex-British colonies are clinging to this format to provide most of the bus capacity.

I also have come to the conclusion that it's simply impossible to have a pedestrian friendly city centre when you have queues of double decker buses clogging up the main streets of the city. These are big heavy vehicles (causing damage to street surfaces) and have a domineering effect on the streets they use. For me, most of the general unpleasantness of the quays in Dublin as a place to walk, cycle or spend time is due to incessant rumble of buses manoeuvring along the road way or the walls of them parked.

strassenwo!f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120176971#Comment_120176971

Unfortunately that picture does not include connection points for regional trains within that system, or show the extensive tram network, or give a picture of the comprehensive bus system in the city and its environs.

It does show what coverage can sensibly be achieved by efficient development and utilisation of what is actually just 4 lines: one S-Bahn line (approximate equivalent of DART) with branches at either end, and three metro (U-Bahn) lines, also with branches at each end, in quite a short period (50-60 years). Albeit, of course, with the original spur of the 1972 Olympics and the backing of a consistently rich city and region, and the German state.

D.L.R.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120170045#Comment_120170045

That 6 million figure reflects Munich's much more densely populated hinterland ie Augsburg is nearby with 300k. Dublin's hinterland is empty by comparison. Munich's urban area is 2.6 million, way higher than Dublin's 1.5ish (being generous).

Dublin is just not in the same weight class. All Dublin really needs is a couple of metro lines but sadly its run by thicks.

CrabRevolution

I wouldn't mind these reviews, strategies, plans etc. if they were legally bound to actually implementing them.

The problem is that the plans/reviews are used in a "heads I win, tails you lose" way by the government at the moment. Any demands for infrastructure today is met with "Well the plan calls for that to be built in 2035, so you're getting it eventually and shouldn't complain" or "Oh we'd love to build that right now, our hands are tied though since the strategy doesn't project it to be built until 2030"

But then when the year finally comes when said infrastructure was originally projected to be delivered; "We're pausing the project and commissioning a review to determine whether this project still represents value for money/meets environmental obligations/ is the best possible design" or some other waffle to stall and kill it so that another strategy or review can be released. Infrastructure plans are cast iron in the future tense, but when the time actually comes to build they disappear into thin air.

Not only that but the whole process always just starts again to be redesigned to see if the problem (which existed 30 years ago and has been getting worse ever since) is still there.

It's like your house catching fire and the fire brigade are called, but when they're half way to your house they ring and say they're returning to the station to determine if your house is still on fire, and also to determine whether the right course of action is to put it out. Then repeating this process several times while your house burns to the ground, and heaping praise upon themselves every time they leave the station.