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

Terminate Heuston trains at Docklands express bus connection to airport

2»

Comments

  • #32
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    beauf wrote: »
    People are living in the Midlands because they cant afford Kishogue. You can't move into affordable housing that doesn't exist.

    The DU should be built. No one is going to argue it shouldn't. But I dunno how you are going to cram these extra people on trains that are already at capacity (maybe beyond that already) at peak.

    That 4 billion would built a lot of housing in the city, or near existing lines. So that people don't need to use a car or a new train to get to work. More housing would allo people to change where they live to suit work. Instead everyone is commuting from unsuitable locations.

    You're honestly in a feedback loop. You really haven't grasped anything that's really being said here.

    Fine let's build a load of houses with the 4 billion. Problem solved. What's next?

    But wait, why build houses when we can use that money for the health service. That's probably more important than houses eh?

    ---

    Housing problems are caused by demand. Demand (and therefore prices) rises because of desirability of certain areas.
    In order to dampen demand we need to make other places more attractive ie. Spread the demand about.
    By doing so you also make seeming peripheral areas more attractive for development. (See the Adamstown and Clonburris SDZs)

    The most cost effective way to do this is to improve public transportation links.

    In this country we would sooner spend money on tax breaks for development to encourage building than build transportation links to encourage demand. We even have evidence (real and anecdotal [sic]) to show how improved transportation links encourage demand and house pricing.

    This is all of course without considering the other "unseen" benefits of a comprehensive transport network such as improved health outcomes and productivity and the obvious economic benefits of same.

    But yes, let's build a load of semi-detached houses in the Naul and Kinnegad.


  • #33
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    ...Housing problems are caused by demand. Demand (and therefore prices) rises because of desirability of certain areas.
    In order to dampen demand we need to make other places more attractive ie. Spread the demand about.
    By doing so you also make seeming peripheral areas more attractive for development. (See the Adamstown and Clonburris SDZs)

    The most cost effective way to do this is to improve public transportation links.

    In this country we would sooner spend money on tax breaks for development to encourage building than build transportation links to encourage demand. We even have evidence (real and anecdotal [sic]) to show how improved transportation links encourage demand and house pricing.

    This is all of course without considering the other "unseen" benefits of a comprehensive transport network such as improved health outcomes and productivity and the obvious economic benefits of same.

    But yes, let's build a load of semi-detached houses in the Naul and Kinnegad.

    Your solution will accelerate the problem of people moving to Naul and Kinnegad. If you improve the links and make other areas more attractive you just move the problem further out, and make new accessible areas more expensive.This is exactly what happened in other places.

    What you need is to provide housing where people need it, so they don't have to travel all over the place. or provide work where people live.

    We already have an imperfect solution to the OP suggestion in the LUAS. Even if there was more capacity on that, you'd still have the capacity problem on the mainline. We also have a huge potential in improving the cycle infrastructure across the city. People spend 30-50 mins using cars, public transport to avoid a 15 min cycle.


  • #34
    falconio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭falconio


    Ok I'll have a go at refocusing the thread:

    There is a excellent, fast bus connection from the docklands to the airport that exists today. It is superb, no traffic jams, drops you right at the terminals, no delays - it is a very short trip.
    The bus service passes two railheads before entering the traffic logjam, one near the point depot and one with an existing if under-utilised railway station.

    Assuming DU / metro will not be operational for the next 20 years at least (which I think is realistic in the current political climate) is it possible that there is an interim solution to better connect current railway services with the airport that could be examined?


  • #35
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,763 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The only realistic addition could be some Maynooth Line services. They won't add anything else.


  • #36
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    falconio wrote: »
    .. is it possible that there is an interim solution to better connect current railway services with the airport that could be examined?

    The bus link to the airport from city centre I'm told is excellent. Not used it personally. Its just far quicker to drive to the airport directly for me anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,557 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    yeah when you get into the port tunnel is is excellent, the traffic on the quays is a joke. The public transport bridge over the dodder is urgently needed... It will double the road capacity on that section of the quays. The eastlink toll should be scrapped too. Id lower the cost of the port tunnel toll, the peak one anyway, lower it down to the point, where it is operating safely, with the max amount of vehicles in it, thus generating more revenue from this expensive bit of infrastructure.

    The proper solutions are so far away, we need to take all simple measures that we can now, to buy more time...

    the other thing I am thinking of is, could a metro west, (but using buses for the time being) with large park and rides at key road and rail interchanges, be built on concrete stilts, that way down the line, you could convert to electric rail running, when funding allowed?


  • #38
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    yeah when you get into the port tunnel is is excellent, the traffic on the quays is a joke. The public transport bridge over the dodder is urgently needed... It will double the road capacity on that section of the quays. The eastlink toll should be scrapped too. Id lower the cost of the port tunnel toll, the peak one anyway, lower it down to the point, where it is operating safely, with the max amount of vehicles in it, thus generating more revenue from this expensive bit of infrastructure.

    The proper solutions are so far away, we need to take all simple measures that we can now, to buy more time...

    the other thing I am thinking of is, could a metro west, (but using buses for the time being) with large park and rides at key road and rail interchanges, be built on concrete stilts, that way down the line, you could convert to electric rail running, when funding allowed?


    The infrastructure to run these buses would be the jaw-droppingly most expensive part. So, no way would it happen.


Advertisement