After BXD: The next big public transport project for Dublin?3

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't see a way on from Cabra stop to the Finglas on satellite view

It is about 600 metres between them. From the top of Mount Berard Pk is 400 m, so some bridge like they have in Dundrum or a cut and cover might do it.

MJohnston

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is about 600 metres between them. From the top of Mount Berard Pk is 400 m, so some bridge like they have in Dundrum or a cut and cover might do it.

It's not possible without a lot CPOing of houses, and parts of the cemetary, a canal, and two trains lines are in the way too. It's just not really a likely route.

Additionally there's not much more room for additional housing construction along the Finglas Road, whereas the Ratoath Road is largely greenfield.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is about 600 metres between them. From the top of Mount Berard Pk is 400 m, so some bridge like they have in Dundrum or a cut and cover might do it.

And what happened to Broombridge then it's an odd appendage?

MJohnston

Here's my crayons attempt:



Google Maps version: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mcayVvxU7ojtR9wLJLI4GTiXubXl6uKh&usp=sharing

My rational here is that I'd rather see an off-street Luas, and going up the Finglas Road would require an on-street one. Additionally, I think it's a better idea to construct these lines through areas of potential residential development, rather than already built-up areas (which most of the Finglas Road/N2 corridor already is).

I know the Dunsink landfill has special restrictions about construction on it directly, but they won't prevent development nearby, and there's tonnes of land west of Ratoath Road that would be ripe for medium/high density residential developments (similar to Royal Canal Park).

After Dunsink, it's a matter of getting out across the M50 and providing a massive park and ride facility just north of the motorway on the Cappagh Road. Of course this part of the M50 doesn't currently have slip-roads, but I would suggest there's enough distance between Cappagh Road and the N2 junction for an additional junction, plus this would be a fairly low usage one. Or you could do without the M50 connection and just let N2/N3 traffic access the P+R from the roads to the north.

The next bit is beyond crayons. I wouldn't argue for it to happen until after the Metro South upgrade occurs and Green Line becomes Broombridge to SSG/Charlemont only. Once that's done, well the whole Finglas extension is much more feasible then, but this last bit more so, with the capacity issues it might introduce.

Basically, from the M50 it'd travel NW along that unnamed ring road (R121?), with 1 intermediate station to serve all the tech companies that are up there like IBM, PayPal/eBay, Symantec, etc.

Then there would be a final stop on this extension's extension at the Damastown Avenue roundabout, and right here would be another Park and Ride facility that would be more designed for the local housing developments like Hollystown/Hollywoodrath, Mulhuddart, Clonee, etc. etc. This area is a huge potential growth area for residential, and it's basically served by bus only right now.

An alternative to that final section would be to head from Cappagh Road out towards Blanchardstown. The problems I have with that are that B'town is already creaking under the weight of the current traffic volumes and I don't think it could handle a huge amount of Park and Ride commuters. The other is that the train line already kinda serves this area, whereas the segment between the N2 and N3 has nothing.

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

I think it's a better idea to construct these lines through areas of potential residential development, rather than already built-up areas (which most of the Finglas Road/N2 corridor already is).

The whole point is serve current demand not potential demand. This makes no sense. Also it's hardly a Luas for Finglas if it barely enters Finglas

Pete_Cavan

MJohnston wrote: »

Here's my crayons attempt:



Google Maps version: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mcayVvxU7ojtR9wLJLI4GTiXubXl6uKh&usp=sharing

I don't really see the benefit in that route tbh. There isn't much scope for residential development around Dunsink. The business parks around Ballycoolin really wouldn't benefit much from light rail. They are too spread out, the units have plenty of parking and traffic isn't that bad to entice people out of their cars and very few of the workers live along that route anyway. A lot of the vehicle movements around there would relate to the movement of goods and materials which won't be switching to Luas. The last thing the M50 needs is more junctions and without one a P&R there would be too isolated to attract people.

Through Finglas has a decent population, there is Charlestown SC which also has apartments and scope for more, plus a P&R is better accommodated off the M2.

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The whole point is serve current demand not potential demand. This makes no sense. Also it's hardly a Luas for Finglas if it barely enters Finglas

I disagree quite heavily with that - I think it's better to target future development which is vitally needed by looking beyond already built-up areas to spots which could be developed. This is why the Green Line was extended through lots of green fields to Bride's Glen, and now that's beginning to pay off. It's why the Red Line was extended to Saggart and CityWest where it stimulated a tonne of new development. It's why the Metro North is intended to serve Swords and its rapidly expanding, heavily densified, commuter population.

It would require a concerted, co-ordinated effort to plan residential development in these areas in a timeline that links up with the transport becoming available.

I think Finglas Road would be much better served becoming a BRT route. Additionally there's barely anywhere left along that road left to redevelop, and most of what is there is semi-ds/terraces as far as the eye can see.

MJohnston

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't really see the benefit in that route tbh. There isn't much scope for residential development around Dunsink. The business parks around Ballycoolin really wouldn't benefit much from light rail. They are too spread out, the units have plenty of parking and traffic isn't that bad to entice people out of their cars and very few of the workers live along that route anyway. A lot of the vehicle movements around there would relate to the movement of goods and materials which won't be switching to Luas. The last thing the M50 needs is more junctions and without one a P&R there would be too isolated to attract people.

Through Finglas has a decent population, there is Charlestown SC which also has apartments and scope for more, plus a P&R is better accommodated off the M2.

Yeah, like I said, I'm more solid on the "inside the M50" portion of my made up route. The bits outside I could see going in different ways, a kind of inversion of how the Red Line crosses the M50 at the N7, but then takes a 90 degree turn and heads down to Ballymount and then out west again.

For this, you could have the route I outlined, or you cross the M50 at Cappagh Road and then turn towards the N2 or N3 junctions. As I mentioned before, I'd be less inclined to serve Blanchardstown because of the train line, plus thinking about it, they're supposed to be the destination of one of the planned Swiftway BRT routes too.

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

I disagree quite heavily with that - I think it's better to target future development which is vitally needed by looking beyond already built-up areas to spots which could be developed. This is why the Green Line was extended through lots of green fields to Bride's Glen, and now that's beginning to pay off. It's why the Red Line was extended to Saggart and CityWest where it stimulated a tonne of new development.e.

The Saggart extension is hardly in the middle of a field and either is the Bride's Glen barring the end and there was basically no other way to get where they needed to go.

Your proposing avoiding built up areas nearly completely . If you want to run the Luas through fields it would be better to go the the Airport via St Margret's . If and when that land you highlighted is targeted for development then a line could be build hand in hand with that development.

MJohnston wrote: »

I think Finglas Road would be much better served becoming a BRT route. Additionally there's barely anywhere left along that road left to redevelop, and most of what is there is semi-ds/terraces as far as the eye can see.

And? The density in Finglas is on a par with most of the rest of the city and far higher than your proposed route.

monument

MJohnston wrote: »

I disagree quite heavily with that - I think it's better to target future development which is vitally needed by looking beyond already built-up areas to spots which could be developed. This is why the Green Line was extended through lots of green fields to Bride's Glen, and now that's beginning to pay off. It's why the Red Line was extended to Saggart and CityWest where it stimulated a tonne of new development. It's why the Metro North is intended to serve Swords and its rapidly expanding, heavily densified, commuter population.

It would require a concerted, co-ordinated effort to plan residential development in these areas in a timeline that links up with the transport becoming available.

I think Finglas Road would be much better served becoming a BRT route. Additionally there's barely anywhere left along that road left to redevelop, and most of what is there is semi-ds/terraces as far as the eye can see.

Agreed with everything up to your last paragraph...

Here’s no clear route for BRT into town and it would be a duplicate of Luas in too much of the route — around Phibsboro there’ll be Luas to one side and Metro North to the other and Luas to Finglas should be freeing Phibsboro up for wider footpaths and segregated cycle paths.

The development plan map shows that’s there is still notable lands zoned for residential along the Finglas Road and more could be re-zones or redeveloped and there could be mix use around the retail at both Clearwater and Finglas village. See: http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/MapsetA.pdf

Finglas Road also offers the potential for a high degree of full and total segregation for Luas (other routes via Finglas will have people in cars, on bikes and on foot crossing the tracks away from stops.

It would also serve more of the urban centres — Clearwater, the village, Charlestown.

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Saggart extension is hardly in the middle of a field and either is the Bride's Glen barring the end there was basically no other way to get where they needed to go.

They were built in the middle of green fields though, and the developments have mostly sprung up since they were built.

Your proposing avoiding built up areas nearly completely . If you want to run the Luas threw fields it would be better to go the the Airport via St Margret's . If and when that land your highlighted is targeted for development then a line could be build hand in hand with that development.

The airport extension actually was on the table at one point, with the whole tunnelling under Glasnevin and all that. I don't think that's a great idea if Metro North is coming, as there's no point in large network overlaps yet when we haven't actually got full coverage.

Your arguments are fine if you're considering this a line that is going to be built within the next 10 years, but I'm 99% certain it's not going to be. I think that this is a future project, that'll land sometime around 2030 at best, and my thinking about the route is entirely driven by that.

And the density in Finglas is on a par with most of the rest of the city and far higher than your proposed route.

The former point is not a high bar to clear. There's actually quite a bit of higher density residential along the Ratoath Road already (darker colours are more dense):



And population growth has largely stopped along the Finglas Road (aside from the apartments just north of the Tolka Valley Road, or in some cases there's been a population decrease, over the last 10 years. Whereas the new suburbs like Tyrrelstown or Hollystown seem to be growing substantially:



And this is largely unscientific, but here's what MyHome.ie shows as the locations of new residential developments in this area:

monument

MJohnston wrote: »

Here's my crayons attempt:



Google Maps version: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mcayVvxU7ojtR9wLJLI4GTiXubXl6uKh&usp=sharing

My rational here is that I'd rather see an off-street Luas, and going up the Finglas Road would require an on-street one. Additionally, I think it's a better idea to construct these lines through areas of potential residential development, rather than already built-up areas (which most of the Finglas Road/N2 corridor already is).

I know the Dunsink landfill has special restrictions about construction on it directly, but they won't prevent development nearby, and there's tonnes of land west of Ratoath Road that would be ripe for medium/high density residential developments (similar to Royal Canal Park).

After Dunsink, it's a matter of getting out across the M50 and providing a massive park and ride facility just north of the motorway on the Cappagh Road. Of course this part of the M50 doesn't currently have slip-roads, but I would suggest there's enough distance between Cappagh Road and the N2 junction for an additional junction, plus this would be a fairly low usage one. Or you could do without the M50 connection and just let N2/N3 traffic access the P+R from the roads to the north.

The next bit is beyond crayons. I wouldn't argue for it to happen until after the Metro South upgrade occurs and Green Line becomes Broombridge to SSG/Charlemont only. Once that's done, well the whole Finglas extension is much more feasible then, but this last bit more so, with the capacity issues it might introduce.

Basically, from the M50 it'd travel NW along that unnamed ring road (R121?), with 1 intermediate station to serve all the tech companies that are up there like IBM, PayPal/eBay, Symantec, etc.

Then there would be a final stop on this extension's extension at the Damastown Avenue roundabout, and right here would be another Park and Ride facility that would be more designed for the local housing developments like Hollystown/Hollywoodrath, Mulhuddart, Clonee, etc. etc. This area is a huge potential growth area for residential, and it's basically served by bus only right now.

An alternative to that final section would be to head from Cappagh Road out towards Blanchardstown. The problems I have with that are that B'town is already creaking under the weight of the current traffic volumes and I don't think it could handle a huge amount of Park and Ride commuters. The other is that the train line already kinda serves this area, whereas the segment between the N2 and N3 has nothing.

I missed this before posting my other post...

The part and ride isn’t a runner because of the need for another M50 junction, but the real potential besides that inside the M50 is redevelopment of the business/light industrial area into a mixed use area like Sandyford.

It would take a lot of vision to do. Some of the tech companies would love it but other companies will likely hate it.

The area out there is a mess.

bk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The whole point is serve current demand not potential demand. This makes no sense. Also it's hardly a Luas for Finglas if it barely enters Finglas

This argument comes up from time to time.

Should new public transport be built to existing areas, which already have some form of public transport, even if insufficient or should it be built towards green field sites thus allowing large scale, new residential development?

There are of course arguments to be made for both.

However given that the biggest issue we face is a housing crisis and that much of our housing stock is low density and relatively unsuited to high density public transport, then for me I fall very much in the latter camp. That new public transport should be built towards green field sites, with strong planning to require high density apartments be built within easy walking distance of the stations.

At a glance, MJohnston's plan looks very good. Build high density apartments in those green and brown fields and link to the rest of Finglas with a circulating mini bus, etc.

That is basically what tram and Metro looks like in most European cities. Once you get outside the city, you will see the metro/tram stops have big apartment buildings built right next to them, with low density Irish style houses much further away, but served by local bus services from the stations.

You can easily see that government policy is to do much the same, just look at the Luas green and red line and MN plans. While they might run through older areas closer to the city, they all serve major green areas with planning for high density building further out.

I've no doubt that any extension into Finglas will be much the same.

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

They were built in the middle of green fields though, and the developments have mostly sprung up since they were built.



The airport extension actually was on the table at one point, with the whole tunnelling under Glasnevin and all that. I don't think that's a great idea if Metro North is coming, as there's no point in large network overlaps yet when we haven't actually got full coverage.

Your arguments are fine if you're considering this a line that is going to be built within the next 10 years, but I'm 99% certain it's not going to be. I think that this is a future project, that'll land sometime around 2030 at best, and my thinking about the route is entirely driven by that.



The former point is not a high bar to clear. There's actually quite a bit of higher density residential along the Ratoath Road already (darker colours are more dense):



And population growth has largely stopped along the Finglas Road (aside from the apartments just north of the Tolka Valley Road, or in some cases there's been a population decrease, over the last 10 years. Whereas the new suburbs like Tyrrelstown or Hollystown seem to be growing substantially:



And this is largely unscientific, but here's what MyHome.ie shows as the locations of new residential developments in this area:

Had a really long reply but quite frankly one sentence will do.

It's moronic to build a Luas in the middle of no where when their is massive demand currently in Finglas/Glasnevin/Ballymun.

The government are taking about building this in the next few years not decades from now.

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

This argument comes up from time to time.

Should new public transport be built to existing areas, which already have some form of public transport, even if insufficient or should it be built towards green field sites thus allowing large scale, new residential development?

There are of course arguments to be made for both.

It's not either or. We can build the Luas where demand currently exists and build MJohnston's line as the apartments are being constructed. MJohnston's demand is purely fictional at the moment . Who know's what moronic planning will occur on his alignment we might end up will a load of 5 bed mansions. Where as the demand in Finglas exists now and is growing plus we've green and brown areas north of Finglas too. By making the Finglas Extention actually serve Finglas you can have your cake and eat it and the land north of Finglas isn't an unusable former dump

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Had a really long reply but quite frankly one sentence will do.

It's moronic to build a Luas in the middle of no where when their is massive demand currently in Finglas/Glasnevin/Ballymun.

The government are taking about building this in the next few years not decades from now.

If all you can say is "it's moronic", that's fine, you'll forgive me for completely ignoring your opinion though.

Also the government have said basically nothing about this, certainly haven't given any timeline.

Strong Life in Dublin

marno21 wrote: »

If they are serious about it being an airport connection, it has to be 24 hours, or close to it. Early flights start leaving Dublin shortly before 6, and flights arrive at night until 1am, and this isn't accounting for delays.

Haha no way it would be 24 hours mega cities such as Shanghai and London end at midnight.

Pete_Cavan

bk wrote: »

This argument comes up from time to time.

Should new public transport be built to existing areas, which already have some form of public transport, even if insufficient or should it be built towards green field sites thus allowing large scale, new residential development?

There are of course arguments to be made for both.

However given that the biggest issue we face is a housing crisis and that much of our housing stock is low density and relatively unsuited to high density public transport, then for me I fall very much in the latter camp. That new public transport should be built towards green field sites, with strong planning to require high density apartments be built within easy walking distance of the stations.

At a glance, MJohnston's plan looks very good. Build high density apartments in those green and brown fields and link to the rest of Finglas with a circulating mini bus, etc.

But there really isn't much green fields suitable for development on that route, much of it is a former landfill and a quarry. Far more sustainable than developing green fields is redeveloping previously developed areas. Much of Finglas West is old, poorly built, badly laid out houses not really suitable for the modern world. An extension of the Luas through here will allow for redevelopment in the future. The social infrastructure is already in place, schools, library, garda station, sports facilities, etc. The proper way to tackle the housing crisis is to redevelope areas, not look for more fields to develop.

cgcsb

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

Haha no way it would be 24 hours mega cities such as Shanghai and London end at midnight.

A driverless system can run at night for the same cost as it runs during the day.

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

If all you can say is "it's moronic", that's fine, you'll forgive me for completely ignoring your opinion though.

Also the government have said basically nothing about this, certainly haven't given any timeline.

I've said far more than it's moronic but you've decided a Luas to a field that no one can use is better than serving an existing population. Not much more can be added really. I just noticed you're talking about some potential post 2030 future. In which case it might make sense but Leo and Co are talking about now.

I seen a graphic/ government spin somewhere here with Luas Finglas starting construction 2021/2022 anyone else recall this?

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I've said far more than it's moronic but you've decided a Luas to a field that no one can use is better than serving an existing population. Not much more can be added really. I just noticed you're talking about some potential post 2030 future. In which case it might make sense but Leo and Co and talking now.

I seen a graphic/ government spin somewhere here with Luas Finglas starting construction 2021/2022 anyone else recall this?

The only thing I've seen is the 2035 Transport Strategy, which also mentioned Poolbeg and Lucan. And also previous talk has had the Lucan line ahead of the Finglas extension in priority.

Added to that, I don't believe any northwards extension of the Green Line is possible without the Metro South upgrade being competed. The capacity issues would be insane.

Stephen15

cgcsb wrote: »

A driverless system can run at night for the same cost as it runs during the day.

But a driverless system would still require maintenance which would have to be done at night.

Zebra3

I work in Damastown and outside Monday to Friday rush hour there is almost no demand. Can’t see any financial justification for a Luas to those areas. They’d be far better served by QBCs connecting with a Maynooth DART line.

Any extension to Broombridge Luas if heading to Blanch would I assume need to be taking in the hospital there which would be a good trip generator off peak.

bk

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But there really isn't much green fields suitable for development on that route, much of it is a former landfill and a quarry.

Landfill should be no problem. East Point Business Park was built on landfill and now it employs thousands of people.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Far more sustainable than developing green fields is redeveloping previously developed areas. Much of Finglas West is old, poorly built, badly laid out houses not really suitable for the modern world.

You are basically suggesting CPOing peoples homes to build new ones. If you think the water charge protests were bad, wait until you see how that goes. CPOing for public transport is one thing, doing so to build new homes goes very much against the Irish psyche for some very obvious historical reasons. And no politician in their right mind will want to try that.

I do agree that this is a nettle that needs to be grasped some day, but I expect every green and brown field to be developed before they start thinking about doing this.

Stephen15 wrote: »

But a driverless system would still require maintenance which would have to be done at night.

Only 40% of the Dublin Bus fleet operates off peak. Not all buses are maintained at the same time. There should be plenty of buses to operate a 24/7 service.

That isn't to say buses would operate 24 hours straight. They would operate about 16 to 20 hours, come off service at a scheduled time for maintenance and another bus takes it's place.

Also maintenance doesn't just have to be done at night, it can also be done at other offpeak times, between the two peaks or after the evening peak.

This is how London Bus and even Aircoach operate 24 hour services.

It is definitely wages and unsocial hours concerns that stops DB from operating at night. It is actually a big waste of resources to have a bus sitting there unused overnight when it could be out earning money. Self driving buses will definitely enable 24/7 services.

wakka12

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But there really isn't much green fields suitable for development on that route, much of it is a former landfill and a quarry. Far more sustainable than developing green fields is redeveloping previously developed areas. Much of Finglas West is old, poorly built, badly laid out houses not really suitable for the modern world. An extension of the Luas through here will allow for redevelopment in the future. The social infrastructure is already in place, schools, library, garda station, sports facilities, etc. The proper way to tackle the housing crisis is to redevelope areas, not look for more fields to develop.

I agree completely
Many people seem to think current residential areas are no go for any development
Many of them are completely unsustainable but take up large amounts of land, even if you bought 4 or 5 small homes which all have front and back garden you could easily place a larger dense 6-7 story block within the space of these 2 story 1960's council build cottages

Some of the council builds in non- georgian suburbs are horrific looking. It would be well worth it to buy a few off the owners and demolish them all and redevelop. Corner areas near major roads would be good places for densification in these maze like residential suburban areas

It'd make the whole city look a lot better and function a lot better.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

Only 40% of the Dublin Bus fleet operates off peak. Not all buses are maintained at the same time. There should be plenty of buses to operate a 24/7 service.

That isn't to say buses would operate 24 hours straight. They would operate about 16 to 20 hours, come off service at a scheduled time for maintenance and another bus takes it's place.

Also maintenance doesn't just have to be done at night, it can also be done at other offpeak times, between the two peaks or after the evening peak.

This is how London Bus and even Aircoach operate 24 hour services.

It is definitely wages and unsocial hours concerns that stops DB from operating at night. It is actually a big waste of resources to have a bus sitting there unused overnight when it could be out earning money. Self driving buses will definitely enable 24/7 services.

The OP seemed to be referring to a driverless rail system not a driverless bus system. If your building the Luas or MN to the airport whether it be driverless or not you still couldn't run trains/trams as night as train/tram is more complex than bus maintenance and more importantly maintence on tracks and OEL would need to be done at night.

I would a 24 hour link to airport MN/Luas between 05:00hrs and 00:30hrs but it would have be replaced with buses during the night for maintenance. There won't be driverless buses anytime soon anyway unless we don't even have electric buses yet anyway.

Idbatterim

a few things, if this line is to work with a reasonable journey time for people further out, like on the m50 belt, it will have to have a reasonable journey time to town etc, so like the old green line, plenty of off street running.

secondly I agree about it going through greenfield if they can and will be developed to reasonable densities. Old housing wont be knocked, forget it. Although given the current government only care about current and not future votes, like everything with them, now now now. wont surprise me at all to see them simply go with the biggest vote winner, i.e the most popular route. Residents will see the increase in values etc of homes on the new line, its substantial. Could the line be split? one serving old area and one the greenfield and park and ride?

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

a few things, if this line is to work with a reasonable journey time for people further out, like on the m50 belt, it will have to have a reasonable journey time to town etc, so like the old green line, plenty of off street running.

secondly I agree about it going through greenfield if they can and will be developed to reasonable densities. Old housing wont be knocked, forget it. Although given the current government only care about current and not future votes, like everything with them, now now now. wont surprise me at all to see them simply go with the biggest vote winner, i.e the most popular route. Residents will see the increase in values etc of homes on the new line, its substantial. Could the line be split? one serving old area and one the greenfield and park and ride?

The only issue would be the trunk line gets too congested but you could do Finglas-Ballymun to Blanch/Green fields as out lined above as a line with an interchange at Broombridge for town in the future. Also hopefully by the time this happens the green line will only be running to SSG anyway.

wakka12

Idbatterim wrote: »

a few things, if this line is to work with a reasonable journey time for people further out, like on the m50 belt, it will have to have a reasonable journey time to town etc, so like the old green line, plenty of off street running.

secondly I agree about it going through greenfield if they can and will be developed to reasonable densities. Old housing wont be knocked, forget it. Although given the current government only care about current and not future votes, like everything with them, now now now. wont surprise me at all to see them simply go with the biggest vote winner, i.e the most popular route. Residents will see the increase in values etc of homes on the new line, its substantial. Could the line be split? one serving old area and one the greenfield and park and ride?

Why not? If a developer purchased the properties, they could be developed, and depending on location it could be greatly densified.

Idbatterim

wakka12 wrote: »

Why not? If a developer purchased the properties, they could be developed, and depending on location it could be greatly densified.

the thing is, I totally agree with the concept . it is very straighforward and makes sense. There are lots of houses in Dublin 18 on large plots, starting to be purchased and knocked down and far higher density put on site. You would wonder to really get the ball rolling on this, could the government offer some incentive to get owners of low density homes, to do this. See its one thing if you have one house on a large site etc, but try to convince the owners of several houses to all agree! Also a lot of older people probably wouldnt leave their home, for all of king midas silver!