Navan Road Community Council Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy

NAVAN ROAD COMMUNITY COUNCIL

WWW.NAVANROAD.COM                              [email protected]

SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSALS FOR THE GREATER DUBLIN AREA TRANSPORT STRATEGY

16 12 2201

1. Introduction and Context

The Strategy is aligned with other policies and guidelines, and this is to be welcomed and particularly in relation to the alignment of Land Use Planning and Spatial Strategies. It is also acknowledged that cognisance has been given to the effects and lessons from the Covid 19 Pandemic and the recent work on the creation of safer cycling and safer pedestrian opportunities in the four Dublin Council areas. The increase in the length and consequent increased capacity of LUAS trams is welcome.

However, despite this Strategy document it is the impact on local residents of proposals that are not sustainable that will determine the public acceptance of them. For example,

• the Core Bus Corridor proposal for the Blanchardstown to City Centre 5 will impact negatively on the Quality of Life of our local population in the Navan Road Area. From the Parkway Railway Station to Ashtown Roundabout, all the trees are proposed to be felled and after the Ashtown Roundabout more than 150 Street Trees and significant numbers of open space trees are to be felled also. This is not sustainable and yet your document cites sustainability and protection of the Natural Environment as core principles.

• Additionally, the plans for the electrification of the Maynooth line, whilst welcome and long overdue will impact negatively on the residential population of the Ashtown residential area and where there is an issue with the proposed underground road to be constructed under the rail line.  Under-road or rail tunnels have an unfortunate consequence of facilitating anti-social behaviour and by implication reducing the Quality of Life of a neighbourhood.

Ironically, you cite under Policy Review the following:

“the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the Climate Action Plan 2019 and recent climate action legislation, and local authority development plans”

There is therefore a dangerous contradiction between what are worthwhile aims in your Strategy and the actual intent of what will happen in our community. Community is everything, and not just in the Navan Road. Quality of Life, Economic Progress and Sustainability are what determines a liveable community.

These issues must be confronted. They contradict the aspiration in the Strategy of having an enhanced Public Realm;

“Place-making focuses on the interaction between people and the urban environment and achieving a high quality of life, sense of place and belonging. Planning and urban design play a central role in realising quality places. Well-designed streets, which make up a key element of the public realm, can create connected physical, social and transport networks that promote real alternatives to car journeys, namely walking, cycling or public transport. High quality, integrated street design can be effective in cost and efficiency by managing traffic speeds and through fostering a greater understanding between users of all transport modes.”

2. Strategy Challenges

It is acknowledged that there are significant challenges in creating a Transport system that is workable, fit for purpose and sustainable. Those challenges must be met in a sustainable way and in a community building way. Indeed, this is mentioned in your Strategy as follows;

“To provide a sustainable, accessible and effective transport system for the Greater Dublin Area which meets the region’s climate change requirements, serves the needs of urban and rural communities, and supports economic growth.”

3. Greater Dublin Area

One of the problems with the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy is that it does not encompass the whole of the Republic. Indeed, the whole of the island of Ireland is a relatively small country and by concentrating on just the Greater Dublin Area the Strategy is in effect and ironically, adding to the bloating of the GDA area itself. If there were an overarching transport strategy for the island instead of seemingly piecemeal and uncoordinated plans it could be that the GDA might condense rather than continually expand as it is now doing.  In dealing with an overall transport plan the larger centres throughout the country could then concentrate on their own areas but also be connected by the overarching transport plan. The effect of this would be that not everyone would have to move to Dublin. This vision would require moving our current transport infrastructure into the 21st Century rather that tinkering with one that is now just about a 19th Century one. The distance from Dublin to Galway by train could be made in one hour if compared to a similar situation in China or indeed most of the European countries. It would free up these larger centres to expand properly in a planned and sustainable manner. Doing what we have always done – dealing in the short term and mostly with Dublin will continue to create greater transport problems for Dublin and the rest of the country.

Under 3.10 Fostering Economic Development, there is some consideration given to the role of economics in transport. However, without an overarching view of Transport in Ireland the outcome of the Strategy will be to favour the Greater Dublin Area even more and contradict the aims of Government for a more balanced spatial economy.

The Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) as adopted by the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly (EMRA) in June 2019 is cited but again there appears to be no overall plan – and indeed this overall Transport plan should include the North of Ireland.

The transport Strategy is essentially focused on the EMRA area but in essence on the GDA area only.

4. Contradictions

The Strategy reads:

“The transport system proposed in the Transport Strategy facilitates a far more sustainable pattern of commuting and is likely to remove a significant number of people out of congested networks onto free-flowing public transport and cycling networks, in particular in Metropolitan Dublin and the larger urban centres of the GDA.”

The devil is in the detail here! You say; “and is likely to remove a significant number of people out of congested networks onto free-flowing public transport and cycling networks..”.  It cannot be “likely to”. You must provide proper Park and Ride facilities at a much further distance from the Greater Dublin Area – otherwise the commuter will continue to stay in the car on the way into the Dublin Region. In addition, the Park and Ride facilities should not be like the Motorway Service Stations which have relatively poor toilet, waiting areas, washing facilities and food choices that are not sustainable and as promoted by the Healthy Ireland programme.

You must entice the commuter with proper toilet, refreshment, shelter and changing facilities.

5. Car Traffic Management

The dominance of the car is mentioned many times in the Strategy and rightly so. However, there are no definite decisions proposed on how to reduce car numbers. Congestion charges are mentioned inside the M50. This is tinkering at the edges. Congestion Charges will impact on the less well off in society and benefit those in larger cars and who can afford Congestion Charges.

There are two parallel ways to deal with the dominance of the car:

• Car traffic must be intercepted by proper Park and Ride facilities at significant distances from the GDA area. And the pick-up by Bus or Train must be on time, frequent and comfortable.
• No serious consideration has been given to proactively restricting/managing car traffic. Other cities in America, Europe, even Columbia in South America and China have, or are considering, or implementing systems based on computer reading systems that will allow for car use on specific days only.

This Strategy has fudged on this aspect of traffic management. It talks but does not commit!

Public Transport cannot move effectively if it is continually blocked by the car. One only has to look at the Dublin Quays area and where great efforts have been made to increase the permeability of the Bus, but which is continually hindered by the car.

In addition, in trying to facilitate both Bus and Car there is the contradiction of promoting Sustainability but allowing the removal of trees to make way for both.

In relation to the impact of large scale sporting or other events (GAA, Soccer, Rugby, Bloom, Dublin Horse Show, for example) there appears to be no consideration given in the Strategy to the positive impact of a good transportation system in reducing car traffic jams and that could reduce the need for car based travel to these. The attendees at sports events, music events and other large-scale gatherings would change to public transport but only if there was one that was on time, comfortable and inexpensive to use. Doing this would also dovetail with the intent in the Strategy to enhance the Public Realm, deal with Climate Change and reduce pollution.

6. Walking Accessibility, Cycling and Personal Mobility Devices and Public Realm

We acknowledge the significant shift in thinking recently in relation to provision for safe cycling, in particular, but also in relation to walking and including more effective pedestrian crossing areas.

6.1 Walking

You have suggested “the development of suitable maintenance programmes and the delivery of new footpaths where required”. Unfortunately, the experience to date contradicts this noble aim.

For the pedestrian, those walking with prams and children and the old and disabled there are problematic infrastructure problems and including inadequate footpath width, sinkage on paths that have not been constructed properly, unrepaired damage by tree roots and inadequate space for tree planting that leads to the tree root damage in the first place. The Canal side picture in page 21 of the short document proves the point very well indeed.

6.2 Cycling

For the cyclist there are multiple issues to contend with at present. For example,

• Drainage gullies that are not positioned at cycle lane level
• Drainage gullies and other services that sink and that do not get repaired
• Damaged road surfaces including cycle lanes that do not get repaired within a reasonable time limit
• Ramps that impede safe cycling and that are dangerously encroached on by car drivers. The simple way to deal with this is to allow a level space adjacent to the ramp and that is restricted by a bollard. This has been undertaken in a small number of areas only.

There is a need for a Service Level Agreement for the maintenance of footpaths and cycle paths

In conclusion

The Strategy has moved significantly in dealing with Transport in the GDA. However, it is mainly a discussion document. No hard decisions are being proposed, and despite much comment on an enhanced Public Realm and updated Transport System.

It makes only two comments on Bus Connects. This is outrageous. Bus Connects should be part of this Strategy document and integrate some of the forward-looking ideas contained in the GDA Strategy. Here we have proposals in one document that indicated some significant foresight on public transport and the public realm but that would seem to be contradicted by the Bus Connects proposal.

REDACTED

Chairperson Navan Road Community Council

15 December 2021