Dublin Port Masterplan

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is an example that a stupid person is someone who should keep their mouth shut for fear of being considered stupid, or opening it and removing all doubt.

In his rant he says the money would build ten Luas lines and later eight, but has a scatter gun approach. He cites among others of Ballymun and Glasnevin as being served by his magical Luas lines, oblivious of the fact that Metro will serve them. Surface running would be fine for the far suburbs, but there is no surface left in Dublin City Centre.

He also states that the airport is served by an adequate bus service. The other evening, I got an Aircoach at St Vincents to go to the Airport, only for the Driver to tell me that the 36 min scheduled time would actually take an hour to an hour and a half as the traffic was appalling. He also said they are having to try different routes to see if they are quicker. It used to take 25 mins for the bus when it avoided the city centre.

The Metro from Tara will be about 20 mins, with a frequency in the order of 2 minutes, instead of travel time between 30 mins and 50 mins and frequency of 30 mins for the bus.

I think he is talking utter rot.

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Read this recently on another trend:

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/chaos-of-the-metrolink-project.html

Mostly an ill informed rant against the metro but at the bottom he states that Dublin Port has get permission to infill more of the bay. I thought they were denied this; has it been reversed? Or is it more absolutely bullsh*&e in keeping with the rest of the article?

Dublin Port Company has today launched a project to deliver the third and final Masterplan, 3FM;

The plan includes;

• New bridge over the Liffey east of the EastLink for internal port traffic only (but interestingly including provision for Luas extension to Poolbeg)
• The construction of the largest container terminal in the country in front of ESB’s Poolbeg Power Station
• Three new new public parks on the Poolbeg Peninsula and 5.5 km of cycle paths and pedestrian routes
• New sailing, rowing and maritime campus adjacent to the existing Poolbeg Yacht Club
• Site to accommodate utilities needed, firstly, for the City’s district heating scheme powered by the incinerator for the Pembroke at Dublin Four development (more commonly known as Irish Glass Bottle Site)

Proposed new bridge for port traffic and Luas, as well as potential new pedestrian/cyclist bridge across Liffey and proposed Dodder bridge);

Overall map and more images available here;

Consultation now live with a planning application to be lodged with APB in 2023. Virtual Exhibition for the 3FM Project is here;

The bridge set-up looks desperate. We should be moving these activities outside of the city, and redeveloping the lands for housing etc. The dedicated trucking route squeezed in between the cycle lane and the marina also looks nuts. Awful.

I'd prefer if the new bridge were further east. Port vehicles shouldn't need to go near Ringsend or the Point to get across the river - these areas are residential/office/commercial. A high bridge continuing Breakwater Rd south over the river would more directly link the two parts of the port.

A single bridge accommodating two general traffic lanes, two port traffic lanes, Luas and peds/cyclists would be a even bigger monstrosity. That's before you consider that building such a bridge at the current location would mean no bridge during the construction.

I'm sure the existing bridge could be reconfigured to accommodate peds/cyclists. It is about 11m wide, the driving lanes could be shifted to the eastern side and narrowed a bit, space for peds/cyclists could be provided on the western side. It could even overhang a bit on the western side to give more space if necessary. Provide a bit of screening between the traffic and peds/cyclists. Replace the railings on either side with something a bit more aesthetically pleasing and it could look decent. This would obviously be a DCC issue, nothing to do with DPC.

I'm pretty sure the original intended location for SPAR was further east. The current location seems to have been selected in order to accommodate Luas.

The inclusion of Luas would be coming from TII not DCC. DCC wanted to build the pedestrian bridge near the CB. They actually had two plans, the first was rejected by ABP because its foundations could impact the future DART+ Tunnel intended to pass under. They then moved the bridge away to avoid that issue but that was rejected because ABP said it should link to the DART station! DCC has now shelved the plan.

DCC also want another bridge across the Liffey immediately west of the EastLink. This was to be in addition to the bridge at the CB and has nothing to do with the propsed SPAR bridge. The EastLink is obviously not suitable for pedestrians and cyclists.

I like the idea of EastLink connecting directly to York Rd and Thorncastle St. but it's not going to fly. Locals would be completely opposed to it (and I wouldn't blame them). The problem with any river side amenity there is that it will always be very isolated and separated from everything else by at least two traffic lanes and Luas tracks. There is as much scope to create more of an amenity along North Wall Quay, which I think there were plans for.

The 3FM plan does have a new marina along the Liffey south bank immediately east of the EastLink, plus a new 5acre park from the existing Poolbeg Yacht & Boat Club going east. In creating the new port road along the south bank, they could provide a walkway along there, along with screening and at a lower level to the road to give a good level of separation from the traffic.