Cork developments

lisasimpson

You would think a few park and rides a and the dunkettle train station shouldn't be too hard to achieve over the next few years.
Speak to some of the staff in Clearstream that's moving their new premises and it's clear to see how the lack of public transport options is going to be a big problem for any company that's planning on locating in the dockland/city centre

cgcsb

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

Fantastic, so Douglas (may) have a Luas after 2100. Anyone actually think these plans will be actually completed? I'm skeptical to say the least...

The land take is greater for light rail so there's obviously significant design issues there. Maybe a future douglas rail link would be tunneled. Anyway let's get the bus corridor built.

cgcsb

kub wrote: »

There is no private money in these projects, all to be funded by the Government.
We all know how this part of the country does not get much in the way of Government spending.
I wonder what the position would be with The Event Centre if it was being built in Dublin, well and truly finished at this stage no doubt.
All I can see from this joke of a plan is more bus lanes and extra bus services.
The tunnel was first planned back in the 1970's, look how long it took for that to be built.
I have zero confidence in any of those major expenditure parts of that plan ever happening.
This is Cork and I as a long term resident know where we are in Dublins eyes

Dublin is also chronically underfunded. You'll find it's a hang over from the ruralisation policy of the 20th century. Big industrial cities were 'too English ' we were supposed to sell eachother knitted sweaters and dance at the crossroads. The result was cities being unliveable.

cgcsb

namloc1980 wrote: »

Instead of electrifying the rail network should be looking at Hydrogen powered trains. Some of these are operational in Germany. The only byproduct is pure water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vgxrsn_bY4

And how do you manufacture hydrogen?

Markcheese

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

Fantastic, so Douglas (may) have a Luas after 2100. Anyone actually think these plans will be actually completed? I'm skeptical to say the least...

The problem with Douglas, is its low density housing..(. A lot of areas of the North side would be higher density...),
Its not a luas for everybody in the audience plan,
Buses are still going to be the heavy lifters of public transport... And they could be seriously improved for Douglas...

namloc1980

cgcsb wrote: »

And how do you manufacture hydrogen?

Chemically currently which isn't clean however electrolysis is increasingly used and is commercially viable and will continue to grow. Using electricity from renewable or mostly renewable sources makes hydrogen fuel almost 100% clean.

cgcsb

namloc1980 wrote: »

Chemically currently which isn't clean however electrolysis is increasingly used and is commercially viable and will continue to grow. Using electricity from renewable or mostly renewable sources makes hydrogen fuel almost 100% clean.

Producing it with electricity (realisticly through mixed sources of power) and then transporting it in bulk is a very inefficient process. Electrifying the railway is still much better option.

snotboogie

Markcheese wrote: »

The problem with Douglas, is its low density housing..(. A lot of areas of the North side would be higher density...),
Its not a luas for everybody in the audience plan,
Buses are still going to be the heavy lifters of public transport... And they could be seriously improved for Douglas...

Lots of higher density planning has gone into the fast track scheme and there have been a few big land sales for housing too. There is close to 1,000 units in Maryborough alone and not far off another 1,000 across the rest of Douglas. While none of these are ideal, I believe that every scheme has at least some apartments in the mix.

namloc1980

cgcsb wrote: »

Producing it with electricity (realisticly through mixed sources of power) and then transporting it in bulk is a very inefficient process. Electrifying the railway is still much better option.

Very costly to electrify. And transporting hydrogen is no different to transporting any fuel. Alternatives should be considered and with a timeframe proposed of 2040 in the plan overhead power lines may not always be the best option into the future. Actually it touches on this in the plan:

An alternative to the full electrification of
the suburban rail network could be to
examine the feasibility of a fleet upgrade
to hydrogen and/or battery power
trains. While providing similar benefits
to a standard electrification network this
type of electric train does not require the
significant network wide retrofitting of
electrification infrastructure such as power
supply, bridge alterations, etc.
This has the potential to save significant
costs on the electrification of the suburban
rail network. Hydrogen powered trains
are about to be passenger tested in the
Netherlands, Germany and the UK.

marno21

Battery powered trains.. why?

It's ~50km of railway line that just needs wire strung along it and the associated ancilliary equipment. Why bother spending all that money on batteries, having to charge them, the maintenance/replacement costs, and that's aside from the energy required to haul the batteries around all day.

Overhead wires are a no brainer for high frequency rail systems, it's a proven technology used all over the world for many years. It's also not that expensive.

hans aus dtschl

MrDerp wrote: »

It’s unfortunate, I agree that this is all which can be aspired too. But we’re coming from a low base. Dublin has significant commuter rail and two Luas lines. If cork can catch up with one tram line and a few stations that’s a good incremental improvement.

Aspiring to have even lower than the current national urban area average cycling in 20 years time is something of a red line for me: I'm afraid I'd see that as a complete failure.

So in short:
The CMATS ambition is to maintain current walking levels, stay short of the very low current national urban cycling levels for the foreseeable future and keep private car usage levels higher than Dublin's current levels: the third most congested city in the world this year.

It's like some kind of cruel joke!

cgcsb

The hydrogen is supposed to be a better alternative to diesel for trains that operate infrequent services on the lesser use lines of the UK and Germany. The frequent rail network, both urban and intercity are still much better off running on electricity via overhead supply. The electric trains are cleaner, there's a lot of energy lost in the hydrolysis process, they give instant acceleration which is what a frequent stop suburban rail service needs and of course electric trains are quieter and have far fewer moving parts and thus less prone to mechanical failure. The hydrogen is still experimental and it's meant to provide a cleaner service to more isolated regions, not replace electric urban rail.

namloc1980

marno21 wrote: »

Battery powered trains.. why?

It's ~50km of railway line that just needs wire strung along it and the associated ancilliary equipment. Why bother spending all that money on batteries, having to charge them, the maintenance/replacement costs, and that's aside from the energy required to haul the batteries around all day.

Overhead wires are a no brainer for high frequency rail systems, it's a proven technology used all over the world for many years. It's also not that expensive.

It's a consideration in CMATS so NTA should be asked why.

Either way don't think it'll happen anyway. Hard to see much of the stuff in CMATS, especially in the 2031-2040 projected timeframe, happening at all.

cgcsb

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Aspiring to have even lower than the current national urban area average cycling in 20 years time is something of a red line for me: I'm afraid I'd see that as a complete failure.

So in short:
The CMATS ambition is to maintain current walking levels, stay short of the very low current national urban cycling levels for the foreseeable future and keep private car usage levels higher than Dublin's current levels: the third most congested city in the world this year.

It's like some kind of cruel joke!

I was at a transport planning society presentation a few weeks ago. Invariably the conversation turns to policy. This was before cmats was made public. Basically the modelling shows that with bus connects, metrolink, dart expansion and the cycling network being overhauled that the % modal choice will remain largely the same as now in 2030.

The additional capacity provided by these projects is basically just enough to meet the anticipated growth in demand over the coming 10 years. The modelling also shows that actually the real modal change % happens not when the carrot comes out but the stick. Adding costs to work place parking is particularly effective. Of course these punative measures aren't popular so really new pt infrastructure and lots of it has to come first.

Come 2030, assuming metrolink bus connects and dart expansion are delivered as described, then you'll start to see a lot more stick. The Oslo model (allowing electric cars only but almost no parking) is currently attracting great interest among planners. And of course Cork won't be long behind when these ideas are implemented in Dublin.

cgcsb

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's a consideration in CMATS so NTA should be asked why.

Either way don't think it'll happen anyway. Hard to see much of the stuff in CMATS, especially in the 2031-2040 projected timeframe, happening at all.

The time frame is an interesting one. Every project for Dublin publicised thus far has a completion date of circa 2027. Hard to see Dublin having such an advanced transport system in 2030 when Cork is basically left as is until then.

namloc1980

cgcsb wrote: »

The time frame is an interesting one. Every project for Dublin publicised thus far has a completion date of circa 2027. Hard to see Dublin having such an advanced transport system in 2030 when Cork is basically left as is until then.

Not hard to see at all. That's what I expect will happen. Some BusConnects stuff will probably happen but beyond that there'll be little more of consequence before 2030 in Cork.

hans aus dtschl

cgcsb wrote: »

I was at a transport planning society presentation a few weeks ago. Invariably the conversation turns to policy. This was before cmats was made public. Basically the modelling shows that with bus connects, metrolink, dart expansion and the cycling network being overhauled that the % modal choice will remain largely the same as now in 2030.

The additional capacity provided by these projects is basically just enough to meet the anticipated growth in demand over the coming 10 years. The modelling also shows that actually the real modal change % happens not when the carrot comes out but the stick. Adding costs to work place parking is particularly effective. Of course these punative measures aren't popular so really new pt infrastructure and lots of it has to come first.

Come 2030, assuming metrolink bus connects and dart expansion are delivered as described, then you'll start to see a lot more stick. The Oslo model (allowing electric cars only but almost no parking) is currently attracting great interest among planners. And of course Cork won't be long behind when these ideas are implemented in Dublin.

I broadly agree with all of this. But they're not even aiming for the nationally achieved poor figures here for Cork.

They state they're expecting 40% population growth to 315k people.
They hope that 49% of that population will use cars. 157k people ~ish.
They say that currently 66% of the stated population of 189k use cars. 125k people.
So they're aspiring for approx 32k extra cars in the cork Metropolitan area by 2040.

There's a clue in the doc as to how they arrived at these numbers:

The following lists the order in which the transport network has been developed. Initial stages focused on the development of the public transport network ....[]....
The road, cycling and walking networks were subsequently developed. The overall order of development was:
ƒ Public Transport Network;
ƒ Development of Indicative Overall Public Transport Network;
ƒ Strategic Public Transport Network;
ƒ Corridor Specific Public Transport Network Options;
ƒ Road Network;
ƒ Cycling Network; and
ƒ Walking Network.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I broadly agree with everything you're saying. It seems to make sense.
I'm just disappointed that our 20-year dream future is some kind of "marginal improvement on the status quo".
If they even included some of the "stick" you described that'd be something.

sheff_

kub wrote: »

The tunnel was first planned back in the 1970's, look how long it took for that to be built.

It took c.20 years from the release of LUTS, much like the timescale of this plan. I’m not being overly hopeful of seeing it happen, but a tram line and 86km of bus lanes over 20 years would be a massive improvement on the last 5 years - maybe 1kn of new bus lanes if even that?

hans aus dtschl

namloc1980 wrote: »

Not hard to see at all. That's what I expect will happen. Some BusConnects stuff will probably happen but beyond that there'll be little more of consequence before 2030 in Cork.

Yep, and their growth figures for Cork won't happen.
Nor will a modal shift happen.
I suspect some kind of EU directive is the only thing that could get them to take it seriously.

And Dublin will keep creaking at the seams because it's the only part of the country with any infrastructure. Housing and transport are going to be issues for the foreseeable future, with obvious knock-on effects on employment and national prosperity.

marno21

Well we already have the few hundred metres of bus/future LRT corridor between Dennehys Cross and Wilton Gardens subject to intense moaning. Let alone 100km.

While in the past we have had the LUTS and CASP plans, this CMATS plan has the one major advantage of having the NTA behind it, something the other 2 didn't. The main driver behind the implementation of the former two plans was local, or national if there was perceived votes in it. The difference this time is the NTA.

marno21

cgcsb wrote: »

I was at a transport planning society presentation a few weeks ago. Invariably the conversation turns to policy. This was before cmats was made public. Basically the modelling shows that with bus connects, metrolink, dart expansion and the cycling network being overhauled that the % modal choice will remain largely the same as now in 2030.

The additional capacity provided by these projects is basically just enough to meet the anticipated growth in demand over the coming 10 years. The modelling also shows that actually the real modal change % happens not when the carrot comes out but the stick. Adding costs to work place parking is particularly effective. Of course these punative measures aren't popular so really new pt infrastructure and lots of it has to come first.

Come 2030, assuming metrolink bus connects and dart expansion are delivered as described, then you'll start to see a lot more stick. The Oslo model (allowing electric cars only but almost no parking) is currently attracting great interest among planners. And of course Cork won't be long behind when these ideas are implemented in Dublin.

A very important point. We are basically running to stand still at this stage. Years upon years of chronic underinvestment in infrastructure, many of which saw unprecedented growth.

Meanwhile the Government continue to blame FF and the recession for the lack of capital spending. That line is getting quite tiring now and is no excuse for both the lack of ambition in infrastructure development and the lack of advancement of the few projects they do want to go ahead with.

janfebmar

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

Fantastic, so Douglas (may) have a Luas after 2100. Anyone actually think these plans will be actually completed? I'm skeptical to say the least...

2100 ! Sure the time will fly until then, you will not find it until we have it.

Corkbiiy

Oh and how convenient this says that there is no demand for north-south public transport, the consultants wanted to put 2 bus lanes on summer hill north, and I called this a few days ago. Absolute GOMS.

namloc1980

Corkbiiy wrote: »

Oh and how convenient this says that there is no demand for north-south public transport, the consultants wanted to put 2 bus lanes on summer hill north, and I called this a few days ago. Absolute GOMS.

Where does it say there is no demand for North-South public transport? If course there is but not at Luas scale. The East West corridor has massive trip generators (Mahon/Kent/Docklands/UCC/CUH/CIT/future technology Park) that justifies it.

hans aus dtschl

Corkbiiy wrote: »

RE free parking in mahon and wilton: good luck, they're private businesses, if they toll the car parks the shopping centers will be quickly deserted and Amazon will be more than happy to take up the business. It's probably the stupidest thing to come from the NTA to date, and I've heard of a lot of stupid from them, trust me.

They have some bit of stick with regards Wilton:
There's an upcoming refurb/rebuild so council could insert planning conditions
Wilton doesn't want CUH staff parking on-premise
CUH is a customer source
Regarding Mahon though I agree it'd go a nice way towards killing the place. It's one of the most car-dependent developments around. And they have no way of forcing the issue.

hans aus dtschl

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where does it say there is no demand for North-South public transport? If course there is but not at Luas scale. The East West corridor has massive trip generators (Mahon/Kent/Docklands/UCC/CUH/CIT/future technology Park) that justifies it.

Airport, Airport business park, Frankfield business park, South Link business park, Togher industrial estate, Kinsale road, Togher, Town, HollyHill.
It's not that there's no demand, it's that it's more difficult topography.

leahyl

Corkbiiy wrote: »

Oh and how convenient this says that there is no demand for north-south public transport, the consultants wanted to put 2 bus lanes on summer hill north, and I called this a few days ago. Absolute GOMS.

Absolutely, meant to say this. That's a load of rubbish about there being no demand from north to south. Even if, for example, they had a bus service going from Mayfield out to Mahon Point and around by blackrock and back again - that would take a lot of traffic away from Mahon for people who just go to Mahon for a "look around".

cgcsb

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I broadly agree with all of this. But they're not even aiming for the nationally achieved poor figures here for Cork.

They state they're expecting 40% population growth to 315k people.
They hope that 49% of that population will use cars. 157k people ~ish.
They say that currently 66% of the stated population of 189k use cars. 125k people.
So they're aspiring for approx 32k extra cars in the cork Metropolitan area by 2040.

Just a point worth mentioning, the percentages are percentages of trips, not a % of the population. I agree these are only marginal improvements but more importantly these actions will facilitate much more drastic actions such as widespread car bans and imposition of greater costs for parking. I'm surprised at the lack of improvement to cycling, Cork's urban area is small, marginal improvements to the facilities can generate massive benefits, I would expect the actual % to increase quite a bit more. In Dublin cycling as a mode increased massively in numbers in the 2000s with no infrastructure at all, it was simply part of a global trend, I expect the same will happen in Cork.

There's a clue in the doc as to how they arrived at these numbers:


Edit: don't get me wrong, I broadly agree with everything you're saying. It seems to make sense.
I'm just disappointed that our 20-year dream future is some kind of "marginal improvement on the status quo".
If they even included some of the "stick" you described that'd be something.[/QUOTE]

hans aus dtschl

cgcsb wrote: »

Just a point worth mentioning, the percentages are percentages of trips, not a % of the population. I agree these are only marginal improvements but more importantly these actions will facilitate much more drastic actions such as widespread car bans and imposition of greater costs for parking. I'm surprised at the lack of improvement to cycling, Cork's urban area is small, marginal improvements to the facilities can generate massive benefits, I would expect the actual % to increase quite a bit more. In Dublin cycling as a mode increased massively in numbers in the 2000s with no infrastructure at all, it was simply part of a global trend, I expect the same will happen in Cork.

Yes I expect the numbers to increase as part of a global trend also, even in a do-nothing scenario. It doesn't really explain their low targets though?

It took me a minute to understand your point about the percentages, and that's absolutely correct also. Those numbers are different: they say a daily travel demand change from 830k-1.3m. So 573k cars now and 641k cars in 2040. An increase of 68,000 cars.

Again, they even state the problem in the document: the Smarter Travel policy sets a target of 55% walk/cycle/bus/rail in the state. The document is aiming for 50.4% by 2040. So the metropolitan area (which should be better than the national average, with population density and public transport) does not achieve even the government's national average.

OK, maybe I'm missing something here, I've been wrong plenty times before, but this looks like a plan to fail?

fonecrusher1

https://twitter.com/corkcitycouncil/status/1128334530182623234?s=08