New Master Plan for Cherrywood

Larbre34 wrote: »

Eh, Luas?

Eh, East?

Awaaf wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breadth for public transport to improve for Cherrywood.

Sandyford Industrial Estate is there for 30 years or so (I guess) and its link to its hinterland to the East (i.e. the old DL borough) is a couple of diverted 75s (half-hourly) and a couple of 114s (45-minutely) each morning. Parking there seems quite restricted (by planning?) as a stick measure but the carrot?

Have you honestly never heard of the LUAS? Or the upgraded metrolink?

ted1 wrote: »

Have you honestly never heard of the LUAS? Or the upgraded metrolink?

Yes indeed it must be fantastic and a great source of pride for those living north and south of the Industrial Estate. Now back to my issue if you don't mind

Awaaf wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Have you honestly never heard of the LUAS? Or the upgraded metrolink?

Yes indeed it must be fantastic and a great source of pride for those living north and south of the Industrial Estate. Now back to my issue if you don't mind

Which is what ? The existing LUAS is being upgraded, the planned and built future stops will open. Cycle tracks and bus lanes are being provided and upgraded.

The LUAS links up with busses that serve DL. There’s also busses which link up.

ted1 wrote: »

The LUAS links up with busses that serve DL. There’s also busses which link up.

Apologies I hadn't (and still don't) consider the Luas being relevant to accessing the SBD from the East but since you feel it is I will include it below.

So we have DL-SBD (Sandyford Business District) links in the morning as follows:

(direct): 2 (no.) diverted 75s (half-hourly) and 2-3 (no.) 114s (45-minutely)
(indirect): a few 63's to Carrickmines Luas (via Cabinteely/Cornelscourt) and then Luas to the bottom of the SBD.
(partial): 75/46a to Brewery Road (or maybe Kilmacud on the 75) and Shanks Mare

anything else?

I can't see that diverting too many people out of their cars.

astrofool

To be fair, Awaaf has a point, Sandyford industrial Estate is also woefully linked up for public transport, unless you live along the Luas line, the bus services are a joke, and it's even worse in Cherrywood.

Just as the Dart is great if your work is near it and you live near it, basically buses are useless unless you're heading to the city centre

LXFlyer

Awaaf wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breadth for public transport to improve for Cherrywood.

Sandyford Industrial Estate is there for 30 years or so (I guess) and its link to its hinterland to the East (i.e. the old DL borough) is a couple of diverted 75s (half-hourly) and a couple of 114s (45-minutely) each morning. Parking there seems quite restricted (by planning?) as a stick measure but the carrot?

We will have to wait and see what the BusConnects plan includes for the area.

To be fair Dublin Bus had planned to re-route the 75 and a new orbital route 175 all day via Sandyford Industrial Estate under Network Direct, but the plans got canned due to lack of funds as the recession bit.

Cherrywood, when it is developed, will need a massive increase in local bus routes - the 7, 84, 84a and 111 will certainly all need to be beefed up significantly and other routes possibly developed.

Various members of my extended family have been working in Sandyford Industrial Estate since the 80s, the only public transport improvement we have ever seen (Knocklyon/Firhouse/Tallaght) has been the 75 which is useless for commuting.

It has always been commute by car and it looks like it will remain that way for at least the next decade or two.

astrofool

Deleted User wrote: »

Various members of my extended family have been working in Sandyford Industrial Estate since the 80s, the only public transport improvement we have ever seen (Knocklyon/Firhouse/Tallaght) has been the 75 which is useless for commuting.

It has always been commute by car and it looks like it will remain that way for at least the next decade or two.

One, maybe 2 motorway junctions away, and over an hour away by public transport, you'd be mad not to use a car.

A third option is cycling

LXFlyer

astrofool wrote: »

One, maybe 2 motorway junctions away, and over an hour away by public transport, you'd be mad not to use a car.

To be fair if the realigned (straightened) 75 and new 175 had happened it would have been a massive improvement in east/west transport to/from the Sandyford Business Park. Instead the service is so limited to be rendered not far off useless. Traffic in the business park is also woeful - bus lanes are badly needed.

markpb

LXFlyer wrote: »

bus lanes are badly needed.

I can't see any of the existing roads inside the estate being covered to bus lanes. The council suffered incredible abuse when they were changed Blackthorn road to two way and added a cycle lane, removing a lane of traffic would be unthinkable. Not to mention the one existing bus lane along Burton Hall road extension is entirely and routinely disregarded.

Their plans for adding a footpath and cycle lane between the estate and the village are laughable, amounting to no more than some red paint and a complete unwillingness to interfere with vehicular traffic.

ted1 wrote: »

A third option is cycling

Cycling is no more public transport than walking is unfortunately.

markpb

Deleted User wrote: »

Cycling is no more public transport than walking is unfortunately.

Why is that?

markpb wrote: »

Why is that?

Because public transport doesn't include individual journeys using individual motive power.

I would have thought that was obvious.

markpb

Deleted User wrote: »

Because public transport doesn't include individual journeys using individual motive power

If you're planning for transport, you have to plan for every option. Some people will have fixed requirements which mean they must walk, drive or take a bus/train. Some people have the flexibility to choose between several options. Ignoring cycling because it's not public transport means not giving people all the information they need to make a decision.

markpb wrote: »

If you're planning for transport, you have to plan for every option. Some people will have fixed requirements which mean they must walk, drive or take a bus/train. Some people have the flexibility to choose between several options. Ignoring cycling because it's not public transport means not giving people all the information they need to make a decision.

Who said "ignore cycling" exactly?

Deleted User wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

A third option is cycling

Cycling is no more public transport than walking is unfortunately.

Exactly that’s why I stated a third option.

1.) public transport
2.) car
3.) cycling

ted1 wrote: »

Exactly that’s why I stated a third option.

1.) public transport
2.) car
3.) cycling

Why did you reply to a series of posts talking about the lack of public transport to Sandyford to just throw in a random comment about the fact that people are able to cycle?

I don't see any sort of 'exactly' anything.

Also, why no mention of walking, car-pooling, hitchiking or jogging while you're busy throwing out non-sequiturs?

*shrug*

Deleted User wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Exactly that’s why I stated a third option.

1.) public transport
2.) car
3.) cycling

Why did you reply to a series of posts talking about the lack of public transport to Sandyford to just throw in a random comment about the fact that people are able to cycle?

I don't see any sort of 'exactly' anything.

Also, why no mention of walking, car-pooling, hitchiking or jogging while you're busy throwing out non-sequiturs?

*shrug*

You were complaining about lack of public transport. , then stated the only option was to drive.

I gave you a 3rd option to which you seem to be upset about.

I didn’t mention walking because it’s to slow.
Car pooling would is shrewdly covered by the car option as you never stated that you where talking about a single occupancy car.
In many cases cycling is faster than both public transport and private motor car.

*shrug*
As for hitch hiking , at this stage you are just being obnoxious.
The three I listed would be the three most commonly used modes of transport

Also the thread is about cherrywood not sandyford

ted1 wrote: »

You were complaining about lack of public transport. , then stated the only option was to drive.

I gave you a 3rd option to which you seem to be upset about.

I'm not upset, I just don't understand why

a) The other user seemed unaware that nowhere is cycling considered a form of public transport

b) You're interjecting irrelevant waffle about cycling being an option.

If every time someone posts something about cycling as commuting should I chip in with a stupid reply about 'walking being an option'? Or when people complain about lack of cycle lanes, should I obnoxiously reply that they're forgetting about the option of commuting by bus or car?

Also, noting the lack of something isn't the same as complaining about something.

Also the thread is about cherrywood not sandyford

I didn't bring up Sandyford, I replied to a post about it.

You can put yourself back in your box now.

It was I who mentioned Sandyford in the Cherrywood context. I did so purely to make the point that IMHO there is little hope for good public transport (in the directions not served by the Luas) for Cherrywood if Sandyford is anything to go by.

LXFlyer

Awaaf wrote: »

It was I who mentioned Sandyford in the Cherrywood context. I did so purely to make the point that IMHO there is little hope for good public transport (in the directions not served by the Luas) for Cherrywood if Sandyford is anything to go by.

Again we will have to see what BusConnects offers.

As I said the plan before was for two east/west all day routes but that got canned due to the recession.

loyatemu

the renders of the new Cherrywood show the luas running down the main street - so is it planned to raise the buildings up to the level of the existing viaduct?

patrickbrophy18

loyatemu wrote: »

the renders of the new Cherrywood show the luas running down the main street - so is it planned to raise the buildings up to the level of the existing viaduct?

It is indeed. There are going to be a few artificially raised road ways to serve the planned town center. You can see the overall plan for the Cherrywood Development at the following address:

http://www.cherrywooddublin.com/masterplan/

You can zoom in and see how the exact layout of the road will be. So the reason for the dips in elevation would be the planned basement car parks which will serve it. There will also be tree-lined boulevards.

Garda just shot the suspected kidnapper up there

Thargor

ted1 wrote: »

Garda just shot the suspected kidnapper up there

Was that part of the Cherrywood Master Plan do you think?

slavetothegrind

what super form of transport is getting you to the city centre in 25 minutes as claimed in the plan?

slavetothegrind

sorry, realised it was at 4 in the morning via car on empty roads therefore a legitimate claim.......