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

NTA Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy Review

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #34
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?
    RXx9uLw.png


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Will Metro West ever re emerge ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    yascaoimhin
    Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #49
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    544248.jpg


  • Options
    #50
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭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.

    544248.jpg

    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.


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    544248.jpg
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Kellyconor1982
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭Kellyconor1982


    I'm a northsider but this part of the city is criminally under resourced by public transport. The green line should be completed but i see no issue with the sw being prioritised and having a Metro line by the 2030s.

    The area that most needs (Ballycullen/Knocklyon) it is young with further big developments planned. It should go on to Tallaght imo though. I would place a stop where Rathfarnham shopping centre is and build retail above it. This would be a good place for getting Templeogue as well as Rathfarnham residents. The Rathmines/Harolds Cross area is very vibrant so I think it would be brilliant with a Metro station.

    Look we all want the best for this city, no more than I want cities like Cork to have a proper pt system. It seems that for years we have been served crumbs so that when anything decent has been offered like Metrolink, it leads to people fighting to get the service and sometimes downplaying what other areas deserve. Not saying that is happening here but to say an area like Dublin south west hasn't got the population for this is wrong. It does and it's needs will be greater in 20 or 30 years.

    Even if work patterns change and they will, we need to have a plan over the next 40 or 50 years to have multiple Metro lines with every part of the city served.


  • Options
    #53
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,546 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Kellyconor1982 wrote: »
    I'm a northsider but this part of the city is criminally under resourced by public transport. The green line should be completed but i see no issue with the sw being prioritised and having a Metro line by the 2030s.

    The area that most needs (Ballycullen/Knocklyon) it is young with further big developments planned. It should go on to Tallaght imo though. I would place a stop where Rathfarnham shopping centre is and build retail above it. This would be a good place for getting Templeogue as well as Rathfarnham residents. The Rathmines/Harolds Cross area is very vibrant so I think it would be brilliant with a Metro station.

    Look we all want the best for this city, no more than I want cities like Cork to have a proper pt system. It seems that for years we have been served crumbs so that when anything decent has been offered like Metrolink, it leads to people fighting to get the service and sometimes downplaying what other areas deserve. Not saying that is happening here but to say an area like Dublin south west hasn't got the population for this is wrong. It does and it's needs will be greater in 20 or 30 years.

    Even if work patterns change and they will, we need to have a plan over the next 40 or 50 years to have multiple Metro lines with every part of the city served.

    Absolutely agree with this - for the record I have no issue with the need to provide adequate transport to/from the massive developments planned for Cherrywood.

    But it really does grate with me when I read posts telling me that there's not going to be much more significant development in the south and southwest areas, when in fact I know that there is such development happening and more is planned.

    It is an area that has historically been completely starved of any form of decent public transport and which has suffered the slowest bus speeds in the city for decades at this point.

    These ongoing and future developments are just going to make that situation worse.

    The narrative from some here that there are no major developments happening in the area needs to stop.


  • Options
    #54
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    yascaoimhin wrote: »
    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

    Is there such legislation?

    If so, could you direct us to it, perhaps on something like irishstatutebook.ie?


  • Options
    #55
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭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.

    Instead of Metro if you built a public transport road along the route of what was metro west allowing only buses, cyclist and pedestrians it would probably work out a lot cheaper and end up with the same efficiency as a metro with the added benefit of cycle/walking lanes as well


  • Options
    #56
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Instead of Metro if you built a public transport road along the route of what was metro west allowing only buses, cyclist and pedestrians it would probably work out a lot cheaper and end up with the same efficiency as a metro with the added benefit of cycle/walking lanes as well

    In fact, that's what the NTA decided upon, a BRT along the route of the old Metro West alignment would meet the capacity needs for a few decades before an actual metro was required.


  • Options
    #57
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Instead of Metro if you built a public transport road along the route of what was metro west allowing only buses, cyclist and pedestrians it would probably work out a lot cheaper and end up with the same efficiency as a metro with the added benefit of cycle/walking lanes as well


    Why would we need to build a new public transport road? Sure we have plenty of roads lying around the place just waiting to be turned into public transport roads. We could solve the entire city's problems in one swoop.


  • Options
    #58
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Why would we need to build a new public transport road? Sure we have plenty of roads lying around the place just waiting to be turned into public transport roads. We could solve the entire city's problems in one swoop.

    Because that's not realistic


  • Options
    #59
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    CatInABox wrote: »
    In fact, that's what the NTA decided upon, a BRT along the route of the old Metro West alignment would meet the capacity needs for a few decades before an actual metro was required.

    Are they going ahead with that?


  • Options
    #60
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Are they going ahead with that?

    It's still in the plan, eventually, but it's so far off that I can't say with any kind of certainty one way or the other.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,707 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Why would we need to build a new public transport road? Sure we have plenty of roads lying around the place just waiting to be turned into public transport roads. We could solve the entire city's problems in one swoop.

    We don't have many roads lying around crossing the Liffey. The M50 isn't really an option due to access difficulties. Ideally we'd build a bridge linking the R113 and R121.


Advertisement