Is transportation in the Dublin the worst in any European capital?

cgcsb

Istanbul is mostly in Europe and has worse public transport than Dublin. Moscow has bad to mediocre public transport. I would argue that public transport in London is very bad and poorly integrated relative to it's size.

I note these are mega cities and have a whole different set of problems than a medium sized capital like Dublin has.

Nicosia public transport doesn't exist, but granted that's on the other end of the scale in terms of size.

Reykjavik is worse I'd say, but is about the size of Galway.
Sarajevo is worse, it's a Cork sized City.
Tirana is a disaster for public transport, Cork sized

So I guess the lesson is that other capitals with bad pt are either pretty small or mega cities.
Dublin is in the anglosphere though, so we're influenced by anglo-american culture to a greater extent, this invariably means worse public services, most of all public transport, and greater consumption of resources.

dancingwith

I would say we pay first class prices for third class services. That's not just in transport though

cgcsb

dancingwith wrote: »

I would say we pay first class prices for third class services. That's not just in transport though

it's anglosphere culture, have a look at the journal comments section where the great unwashed lower middle classes lament the building of new social housing schemes but complain that houses are expensive etc. They don't see a connection between there being no available social homes and high cost private accommodation, to many yankee low brow movies maybe.

Strumms

The plans for a metro in Dublin were first put on the table in 2001, construction will start in 2021. The completion date is 2027 now.

That should tell people everything they require to know about this fûcking hellhole of a country.

1 line, 16 stops...and from inception to cutting of the ribbon is taking well over 26 years, welllll over a third of the adult male life expectancy just to put bums on seats.

20 years of ‘planning’, talking, debating, and costs incurred for one fûcking metro line. ! Before any actual work gets done 20 years.

No other country on the face of this planet, would that be allowed or contemplated.

It’s a hellhole, corrupt as fûck, citizens being ridden like donkeys.

Going by the donkeys in Dáil Éireann it will get worse before better.

RasTa

I was shocked at the state of some of the Northern trains in Manchester. I'd seen better in India for 30p for a 5 hour journey.





Seriously depressing in the winter

MOH

cdeb wrote: »

A trolleybus is just a bus. Here's the Dublin Bus route map.. Doesn't look worse than Chisinau to me.

That's helpful. It's nice to see an actual map. Which isn't available on the Dublin bus website since they've been fare dodging the Google API fees for over a year now.

H3llR4iser

Das Reich wrote: »

Rome.

strandroad wrote: »

Has extensive underground and overground rail, several tram routes (not a practical mode there because of Rome's hills) and a network of fast moving buses. It all looks manky though, I'll give you that, dirty torn and graffittied.

The Nal wrote: »

Huh? Trolling I assume. The underground is great and goes all the way to the foot of the mountains! Buses and trams that also link up.

You can get from the Colleseum to Anagnina and then be drinking wine up in the Frascati hills in 35 minutes in Rome on public transport. Underground and bus.

To answer the OP, Dublin has the worst public transport by far in any European capital. By a fúcking mile. Its embarrassing.



Why unviable?

Oh no, Rome IS a completely unmitigated disaster - The "metro" lines might stretch relatively far (relatively), but only serve limited areas of the city. If you need to move around in the outskirts, you need a car as everything basically goes to the Termini station - which in its own is stupendously overcrowded, as all the three metro lines and all the buses cross there.

There are no bus lanes for the most part and where they exist, they are useless as drivers are undisciplined and block them. I've lived there for about a year, getting anywhere without using the car was pretty much a no go - especially at night. People visiting the city get the idea that public transit is "good" because it's entirely geared towards tourist routes. If you live and work there, every single daily commute is a hopeless nightmare.

Dublin transport has two main issues: the lack of fare integration, where you need to pay multiple times along the same journey (subsequent sectors are only 1E with a Leap card, but still it adds up quickly) and the nimby-ism resulting in an over reliance on buses, which get stuck in traffic and generally aren't a great transportation option. An underground system, even a basic one, should have been put in place two decades ago.

wakka12 wrote: »

Dublins density is normal or even above average. Its the 27th most densely populated city in europe and more densely populated than Prague, Berlin , Vienna, Rome, Manchester, Glasgow,Munich, Nice and Hamburg. That might come as a surprise but Id say it is because of how narrow dublins roads are making it more densely packed, its quite an important factor, for example the landmass of most american cities consists of 50% roadspace due to how wide their city roads are

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_cities_proper_by_population_density

Dublin can and should densify further with more high rise buildings though of course, density is almost always a good thing until you get to crazy levels like in Hong Kong. But yeh Dublins density is no excuse for how bad its public transport is and its also nowhere near as low as most people make it out to be

I've seen those stats many times and they are skewed by the method they're collected - it's comparing the density of the inner "capital city" part of Dublin with sprawling metropolitan areas comprising commuter town and bits of countryside.

The values in that table are based on the administrative "limits" of the cities, which sometimes include the metropolitan area and sometimes don't; Rome, for example, has expanded its "city council" limits to encompass the whole metropolitan area and outskirts, including some commuter towns; As a result, plenty of empty areas/countryside are included in the statistic, dramatically lowering the reported density. Take a look at the density of Milan and Naples, whose city council limits do NOT include commuter towns; Rome's city "proper" would be on a very similar level.

The density of the urban area of Dublin which is basically the entire county (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Dublin) is about 1460 inhabitants / sq.km, which is NOT high and would not make that table at all.

Furthermore, the NTA considers Dublin asGreater Dublin - buses and trains stretch all the way from Malahide to Wicklow, from Maynooth to the Docklands. As a metropolitan area, Greater Dublin is extremely low density - I had to do the calculation myself, but with a population of 1.9M inhabitants over 7185 square KM...That's roughly 265 inhabitants per square KM.

Now, that last figure is obviously a bit misleading as there are vast areas of Wicklow, Kildare and Meath that aren't covered by transport, but saying that Dublin is "high density" is, simply, as incorrect as it gets.

Interested Observer

North county Dublin in particular is extremely low density. There's the coastal towns - Malahide, Rush/Lusk, Skerries, Balbriggan and then a whole load of farm land.

Peregrine

Dublin is a medium density city by most standards.