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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

NTA - GDA transport strategy approved

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    It's more than 1 phase completed. From that document it's phases 2A/2B and parts of 3. There's also some stations planned from section 4 (Phibsborough/Grangegorman) for later this year.


  • Options
    #33
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    IThere's also some stations planned from section 4 (Phibsborough/Grangegorman) for later this year.

    I'd not heard that? Any media?

    Last I heard was this http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0209/766606-dublinbikes-council-change/


  • Options
    #34
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    monument wrote: »
    I'm don't think they have it right but 'orbital' is mentioned 30 times, so it's a bit unfair to claim there's little mention of orbital.

    The rail routes or road routes or bus or what do you mean?
    Mainly road/bus. The major premise of the report is the Corridors to Dublin. But the section on heavy rail omits the line form Drogheda to Tara Mines, which is probably the heaviest trains running on the network.

    I was thinking of the likes of Drogheda/Slane/Navan or Airport/Swords/Ashbourne or Ashbourne/Rathoath/Dunsaughlin

    Or a N3/N4 link is not mentioned
    monument wrote: »
    Agreed on that -- and the orbitals seem a bit strange in way -- the orbital are such a big ask / shift, I think they need their own constipation.

    Some of the routes look very questionable -- ie running via back roads in the Phoenix Park and, by the look of the inner routes, likely minor residential streets where cross-city buses do not belong.
    One of the orbital bus routers looks like the existing 75....

    monument wrote: »
    To Malahide seems strange alright -- I'm gussing they want the funding and focus to be on the East Coast Trail.
    Fingal are building a cycleway from Malahide to Donabate, it seems daft not to have this connected to Dublin.
    monument wrote: »
    To Naas: It does not directly follow the N7 and isn't as direct as it could be but from Saggart there's a link to Kill and onwards to Naas (D5, K14, and K4). See page 7 of this:
    My point was more that as a new road for non-motorway traffic will be built along the N7 to enable that to be motorway, a dedicated cycle route should be built as part of this. I'd think any new project roads project should have dedicated cycling infrastructure included. the proposed routing doesn't help anyone in ill working in Citywest for example.
    monument wrote: »
    Parkgate Street west to Lucan is East/West and primary route 6 follows Parkgate Street to Lucan. See PDF page 9 here:
    I might have phrased this badly. There is no cycle route to get from the northside to the southside between Lucan and Parkgate street.

    monument wrote: »
    On population: There's a lot of supporting reports related to the plan but I'm not searching them all... a guess: census or what's zone or allowed in the development plans?
    I think the issue is the legend is unclear what is being counted.
    I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be any village with >20 extra over the plan from natural growth though..


  • Options
    #35
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    I'd not heard that? Any media?

    Last I heard was this http://m.rte.ie/news/2016/0209/766606-dublinbikes-council-change/


    I knew I'd seen it somewhere


    http://irishcycle.com/2016/03/18/cycling-secures-large-chunk-of-e23-2m-funding-for-125-projects/


  • Options
    #36
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    I knew I'd seen it somewhere


    http://irishcycle.com/2016/03/18/cycling-secures-large-chunk-of-e23-2m-funding-for-125-projects/

    Thanks . Progress at last!


    http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/25/mini-expansion-of-dublinbikes-residents-disappointed-and-dismayed-at-station-locations/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Thanks . Progress at last!


    http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/25/mini-expansion-of-dublinbikes-residents-disappointed-and-dismayed-at-station-locations/
    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    I knew I'd seen it somewhere


    http://irishcycle.com/2016/03/18/cycling-secures-large-chunk-of-e23-2m-funding-for-125-projects/

    Thats pretty crazy to see that so much is being invested to cycling. I suppose it goes with the year.

    I also wondered why the key elements of the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016 – 2035 includes the following:
    To construct the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network, expanding the urban cycle network to over 1,485 kilometres in length, and with over 1,300 kilometres of new connections between towns in the rural areas of the GDA. The network is intended to provide a quality of service sufficient to attract new cyclists, as well as catering for the increasing numbers of existing cyclists.

    Sure the majority of cyclists do not use the existing cycle network due to poor maintenance etc? Would it not make sense to start with what me have and improve from there?


  • Options
    #38
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    By definition we are starting with what we have and improving from there.

    I'd say the majority of cyclists don't use the existing network because it is badly designed and constructed.
    The bike lanes from the N2 Cherryhound to Blanch for example are pointless.
    The Bike lane on the r125 you can't get onto the lane without stopping.
    the Bike lane behind the yellow pole is a two way bike lane

    The Bike lane at the red cow just stops


    The Bike path along the Grand canal forces you to stop

    As does


  • Options
    #39
    MrMorooka
    Registered Users Posts: 710 ✭✭✭MrMorooka


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    The bike lanes from the N2 Cherryhound to Blanch for example are pointless.

    What's wrong with them? Are we talking about the lane behind the fence on the left?


  • Options
    #40
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    You can't cycle SW on the cycle lane to get to the roadway sw of the roundabout. You can only take the first exit off the roundabout, on a road with a concrete median barrier...


  • Options
    #41
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    By definition we are starting with what we have and improving from there.

    I'd say the majority of cyclists don't use the existing network because it is badly designed and constructed.
    The bike lanes from the N2 Cherryhound to Blanch for example are pointless.
    The Bike lane on the r125 you can't get onto the lane without stopping.
    the Bike lane behind the yellow pole is a two way bike lane

    The Bike lane at the red cow just stops


    The Bike path along the Grand canal forces you to stop

    As does

    I can see what you mean. if traveling by bike you can only take the first exit. Looking at the rest of the road, it looks like construction is still going on. I wonder if there are any plans for bridges/tunnels to allow a crossing? Also the road looks like it is designed to take high capacity...a 3 lane roundabout only says trouble for a cyclist.

    On the link to the R125 there is a dip in the path that allows you to cycle from the road to the path without dismounting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    If you also go a little further than the "Yellow Pole" there is a cyclist in the bus lane so this would tell me that the two lane cycle track it just not used.

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.432612,-6.2298258,3a,37.5y,210.09h,83.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGE5Bqg0z7a5lMtngY1g-hw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en


  • Options
    #43
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Roadhawk wrote: »

    On the link to the R125 there is a dip in the path that allows you to cycle from the road to the path without dismounting.

    Except that that's only a footpath, and its illegal to cycle from there to the signed part of the cycle lane....


    The link between N2 and Blanch is open a while, Streetview hasn't caught up though.


  • Options
    #44
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Except that that's only a footpath, and its illegal to cycle from there to the signed part of the cycle lane....


    The link between N2 and Blanch is open a while, Streetview hasn't caught up though.

    dont quote me on this but to me it looks like that the tarmacked area on the path is the cycle track and the concrete area is for pedestrians?

    as for the N2 i guess that just poor planning. kinda standard in Ireland unfortunately.


  • Options
    #45
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Thats pretty crazy to see that so much is being invested to cycling. I suppose it goes with the year.

    Could you please support your views rather than making wild unsupported statements?

    How do you think the DublinBikes investment and the €23 million across 125 projects across 7 council areas? It's tiny compared to what some other cities spend per year on cycling.

    Given the spread of area and projects involved and compared to the overall transport budget -- it's small amounts of funding.

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I also wondered why the key elements of the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016 – 2035 includes the following:
    To construct the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network, expanding the urban cycle network to over 1,485 kilometres in length, and with over 1,300 kilometres of new connections between towns in the rural areas of the GDA. The network is intended to provide a quality of service sufficient to attract new cyclists, as well as catering for the increasing numbers of existing cyclists.

    Why not? Investment in a new and improved network hardly going to be not done because of issues with the current network... Does not apply to road or rail and so should not apply for cycling.
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Sure the majority of cyclists do not use the existing cycle network due to poor maintenance etc?

    Wide sweeping statement much?

    From my observation:

    Cycle lanes on Rathmines Road -- used when cars etc not blocking them. Cycle lanes and cycle path along the Grand Canal used by 99% of people cycling along and not turning off. New cycle lanes/tracks on the Blackrock bypass used by a clear majority of users. The still disconnected S2S used by the bulk of people on that route. The Phoenix Park cycle paths used by the vast bulk of people cycling in the park. Even the still fairly flawed N11 / former N11 cycle paths are used by 95%+ of commuters, bar a small section near the city which has low compliance. Cycle lanes along from Parkgate St to the Four Courts -- used in the most part by the vast bulk of those not turning off or advising stuff, same for Church Street etc.

    I think with tha list on its own we're getting close to places where the majority of cyclists in Dublin use and your statement holds little or no water.

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Would it not make sense to start with what me have and improve from there?

    That's what's being done -- linking and improving what's there now!

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    If you also go a little further than the "Yellow Pole" there is a cyclist in the bus lane so this would tell me that the two lane cycle track it just not used.

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.432612,-6.2298258,3a,37.5y,210.09h,83.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGE5Bqg0z7a5lMtngY1g-hw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

    1. That's not a two lane cycle track shown in your link, that's a very narrow and poorly connected shared use footpath. The yellow poll is a bus stop poll and attached is the street view of your link where you turn the view to the left -- it shows the narrow path half taken up by overgrown grass. There may be some improvements since the street view images were taken, but you linked to street view as is.

    2. People cycling bicycle are allowed to use the bus lane and bus lanes are counted as part of the current cycle network.

    3. Even if the above was not true, still and videos are not a reflection of use -- For example, I can find street view images of the M50 where there's only a few cars near the Google street view car, or I can take a video of the Grand Canal Cycle route with no to few cyclists in it, but rush hours for both are jammed.


  • Options
    #46
    MGWR
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭MGWR


    MrMorooka wrote: »
    The most interesting thing I see is that they frequently state that:
    The extensive transport modelling work done to date indicates that, based on predicted passenger usage, a rail link from Navan to Pace, with services travelling onwards to Dublin City Centre, is not economically justifiable
    But they propose protecting the alignment at least.
    If they have to repeat it so often, it's obviously a lie. Any railway alignment that parallels a motorway is viable; after all, they built the motorway to serve the pertinent areas.


  • Options
    #47
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    MGWR wrote: »
    If they have to repeat it so often, it's obviously a lie. Any railway alignment that parallels a motorway is viable; after all, they built the motorway to serve the pertinent areas.

    The motorway "technically" serves more than Navan and in Irish terms the corridor doesn't support both. But that's a different argument. However the Navan railway issue isn't a "lie". The fact that since it's closure, the alignment has been compromised so many times and in so many places, makes it expensive to reopen along its original route. Ironically the final nail in its coffin was the M3 as the motorway compromised the alignment without any thought to the railway. The "box" at Cannistown will go down in history as an example of local people power and then the same local people being hoodwinked.


  • Options
    #48
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    MrMorooka wrote: »
    The most interesting thing I see is that they frequently state that :



    But they propose protecting the alignment at least.

    Protecting an alignment that has been compromised so much in more recent years that I doubt the costs/figures will ever stack up.


  • Options
    #49
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    MrMorooka wrote: »
    By the way, I assume you all made submissions last year, so you can look for your name and see their response to it here https://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/greater-dublin-areatransport-strategy-2016-2035/ (Public Consultation Submissions Report )

    Having said that, I made a submission but I don't see it here.

    Thanks for that link. A read through of the submissions was a pretty grim experience. We did this kind of thing 16 years ago and we are still no closer to a integrated and expansive plan that will actually deliver/be delivered.

    The amount of vested interests and ignorance in the submission list justified my own reasons for not bothering. The standout area for me was the level crossing issues on the Maynooth commuter line. There will be trouble there from the "I want my road access maintained" brigade.


  • Options
    #50
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    monument wrote: »
    Could you please support your views rather than making wild unsupported statements?

    How do you think the DublinBikes investment and the €23 million across 125 projects across 7 council areas? It's tiny compared to what some other cities spend per year on cycling.

    Given the spread of area and projects involved and compared to the overall transport budget -- it's small amounts of funding.




    Why not? Investment in a new and improved network hardly going to be not done because of issues with the current network... Does not apply to road or rail and so should not apply for cycling.



    Wide sweeping statement much?

    From my observation:

    Cycle lanes on Rathmines Road -- used when cars etc not blocking them. Cycle lanes and cycle path along the Grand Canal used by 99% of people cycling along and not turning off. New cycle lanes/tracks on the Blackrock bypass used by a clear majority of users. The still disconnected S2S used by the bulk of people on that route. The Phoenix Park cycle paths used by the vast bulk of people cycling in the park. Even the still fairly flawed N11 / former N11 cycle paths are used by 95%+ of commuters, bar a small section near the city which has low compliance. Cycle lanes along from Parkgate St to the Four Courts -- used in the most part by the vast bulk of those not turning off or advising stuff, same for Church Street etc.

    I think with tha list on its own we're getting close to places where the majority of cyclists in Dublin use and your statement holds little or no water.




    That's what's being done -- linking and improving what's there now!




    1. That's not a two lane cycle track shown in your link, that's a very narrow and poorly connected shared use footpath. The yellow poll is a bus stop poll and attached is the street view of your link where you turn the view to the left -- it shows the narrow path half taken up by overgrown grass. There may be some improvements since the street view images were taken, but you linked to street view as is.

    2. People cycling bicycle are allowed to use the bus lane and bus lanes are counted as part of the current cycle network.

    3. Even if the above was not true, still and videos are not a reflection of use -- For example, I can find street view images of the M50 where there's only a few cars near the Google street view car, or I can take a video of the Grand Canal Cycle route with no to few cyclists in it, but rush hours for both are jammed.

    It’s not exactly a wild statement. I mean there are clearly more important things the government could be spending our money on. Ireland is not exactly debt free. I know it seems like a tiny amount in comparison to other cities and I’m sure you are referring to the almighty cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam but my point is that the legislation in Ireland was reversed to allow cyclists use road even when a track is provided. I find more often than not, cyclists use the road as it is a smoother ride. I don’t really see the need for such an investment when the infrastructure has a very high chance of not being used. Again it’s not exactly a “wide sweeping statement”…

    I can’t really comment on cycling locations you mentioned but I know for sure that the Phoenix park has cycle lanes that are not used solely because of the amount of pedestrians that walk on the cycle track instead of the (inner) path. I do see a large number of cyclists using the tracks provided. I gather from the type of bike and clothing that commuters use the cycle lanes and enthusiasts/racers use the roads. My perception of commuter being a person in casual clothes and a hybrid style bike and an enthusiast as a racer style bike kitted out in the racing gear etc.

    1) Is a marked two way cycle track. Albeit shared with a foot path
    2) Can they use all bus lanes including contra-flow?
    3) It was more of a coincidence that the bus lane in that link was provided by another poster. Sure it’s only one cyclist. Im not basing my opinions on one cyclist.


  • Options
    #51
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    It’s not exactly a wild statement.

    I don’t really see the need for such an investment when the infrastructure has a very high chance of not being used. Again it’s not exactly a “wide sweeping statement”…

    It is a wide sweeping statement -- most cycling infrastructure is used by the majority of cyclists in Dublin. I've given many examples already.

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I mean there are clearly more important things the government could be spending our money on. Ireland is not exactly debt free.

    Are there other modes of transport which give the transport, health, and environmental benefits?

    Is this a bias you have against cycling or should we stop all spending on transport, health preventive measures and environmental measures?

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I know it seems like a tiny amount in comparison to other cities and I’m sure you are referring to the almighty cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam

    Amsterdam is far from a cycling Nirvana, but I'm not thinking about Amsterdam, which is about the same size as Dublin -- smaller cities than Dublin are spend more on cycling than the is spent across the GDA.

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I can’t really comment on cycling locations you mentioned but I know for sure that the Phoenix park has cycle lanes that are not used solely because of the amount of pedestrians that walk on the cycle track instead of the (inner) path. I do see a large number of cyclists using the tracks provided. I gather from the type of bike and clothing that commuters use the cycle lanes and enthusiasts/racers use the roads. My perception of commuter being a person in casual clothes and a hybrid style bike and an enthusiast as a racer style bike kitted out in the racing gear etc.

    It's a park. If anything should change it's the volume of cars and vans.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    “It is a wide sweeping statement -- most cycling infrastructure is used by the majority of cyclists in Dublin. I've given many examples already.”
    Ok well you are of the opinion that most of the infrastructure is used by cyclists however you specifically wrote an article on the reasons why the current cycle tracks are not used? Many cyclists have also commented under your article on why they don’t use the existing network.

    http://irishcycle.com/2015/11/05/images-25-reasons-why-cyclists-dont-use-cycle-lanes/

    Im not bias against cyclists however I am skeptical of the spending trends.

    Unless you choose to run/jog/walk as a mode of transport then no I don’t think there are any other modes that provide health or environmental benefits but what has that got to do with investment in cycle tracks?

    Im not sure that a direct comparison should made between Dublin and smaller cities spending more on cycling? I mean I could be wrong but shouldn’t other factors be considered like population, density, weather, etc?

    “It's a park. If anything should change it's the volume of cars and vans.”
    Would you be bias toward motorists by any chance? Volume reducing measures for the park have already been implemented such as complete HGV ban and main roads blocked off during weekends. This has reduced the through traffic (visually anyway) of motorists. The next step would be to ban motorist from entering.


  • Options
    #53
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    Another member of boards (also a cyclist) recently pointed out that their perception of the newly suggested cycle network would be too dangerous and will continue to cycle on the road?
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    see here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057590078

    extremely dangerous for cyclist IMO and i would certainly be sticking to the road in those circumstances.

    This is what makes me think that this will be another wasted investment.


  • Options
    #54
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    “It is a wide sweeping statement -- most cycling infrastructure is used by the majority of cyclists in Dublin. I've given many examples already.”
    Ok well you are of the opinion that most of the infrastructure is used by cyclists however you specifically wrote an article on the reasons why the current cycle tracks are not used? Many cyclists have also commented under your article on why they don’t use the existing network.

    http://irishcycle.com/2015/11/05/images-25-reasons-why-cyclists-dont-use-cycle-lanes/

    While some of what is currently being built has major design flaws, 99% of what is being built in the last few years in Dublin is still many times better than what was built 10 years ago or more -- and some of the new stuff has already replaced some of the worst old stuff.

    But even if this was not the case the article is mainly about how people can't always use cycling infrastructure.

    Is you read it, you'll see sometimes it's just about leaving a cycle lane before it ends badly, or when you're turning right, or when there's an obstruction, or not using it because it's only for one direction and you're going the other direction. Most of it is reason to improve and expand the network rather than abandon it.

    Some of the article is as much about motorist's misconceptions or too high of expectations as it about actual flaws in network.

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Unless you choose to run/jog/walk as a mode of transport then no I don’t think there are any other modes that provide health or environmental benefits but what has that got to do with investment in cycle tracks?

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Im not sure that a direct comparison should made between Dublin and smaller cities spending more on cycling? I mean I could be wrong but shouldn’t other factors be considered like population, density, weather, etc?

    I'm thinking of Utrecht. Amsterdam might spend even more (although maybe not so per head of population).

    Weather -- little difference between Amsterdam and Dublin (Dublin comes out lower on rainfall) and Utrecht isn't far away and has around the same climate. ...and I've got wetter cycling in Utrecht than I ever have in Dublin! ;)

    And Utrecht has a lower population density than Dublin. Amsterdam and Dublin btw have as close as identical of population density as you will find comparing any two capital cities.
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    “It's a park. If anything should change it's the volume of cars and vans.”
    Would you be bias toward motorists by any chance? Volume reducing measures for the park have already been implemented such as complete HGV ban and main roads blocked off during weekends. This has reduced the through traffic (visually anyway) of motorists. The next step would be to ban motorist from entering.

    The park's management plan looks for reduction in the traffic in the park.

    For god's sake it's a park. There could still be both a massive reduction in through traffic and access kept for motorists busing the park.

    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Another member of boards (also a cyclist) recently pointed out that their perception of the newly suggested cycle network would be too dangerous and will continue to cycle on the road?

    This is what makes me think that this will be another wasted investment.

    Great, so you're taking the 1% of anti-infra cyclists as spokespeople for the everybody?


  • Options
    #55
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Their strategy doesn't count for much, at least with pedestrian and cyclist access, when the NTA is still pledging funding to local authorites to link up footpaths, and no mention of cycle lane provision whatsoever. Like the Celbridge Road in Maynooth as a particularly shameful example of somewhere with no cycle lane whatsoever but with the space to do it.


  • Options
    #56
    Last Stop
    Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    So just 3 years later and well it seems the NTA strategy is in tatters.
    - Metro South has been on the long finger until after 2040 at the earliest
    - Lucan Luas has been replaced by a bus corridor
    - BRT is dead
    - Green Line extension to Bray unlikely due to capacity issues

    And this 16 years out from the proposed finish!!!
    Honestly at this stage the NTA really isn’t fit for purpose.

    It’s not as if the plan was overly ambitious to start with, leaving out Metro West and the Navan Rail line amongst others.

    Would I be correct in saying that no public transport project will be under construction between 2018-2020 with Busconnects and Metrolink subject to planning starting after that.

    The more I think about it, the more of a sham Busconnects is. 3bn for 230km of bus lanes. You could build 75km of Luas for that, could you imagine the impact that would have. That would be:
    - Lucan (14km)
    - UCD (4km from Harcourt)
    - Tallaght via Rathfarnham and Knocklyon (14km)
    - Clongriffin (11km)
    - Metro West (25km)


Advertisement