Re: Re: The destruction of St. Stephen’s Green

Home Forums Ireland The destruction of St. Stephen’s Green Re: Re: The destruction of St. Stephen’s Green


@Seamus O’G wrote:

I intend to reply to Alonso’s post when I get a chance – it requires more thought than the answer to your question above.

Ouch! But not so fast, Seamus. I suspect ‘more thought’ may be required here too. 😉

I say this mainly because I would dispute the transferability of the O’Reilly figures. That analysis was for a very different arrangement from that currently under examination. Did it include passengers from all parts of the city and the wider GDA? Did it examine the full pattern of movement? Did it analyse the network effect? Did it consider the interaction of all modes? Did it include the land use implications of the siting of an interchange?

As I understand it, it was essentially a narrowly focused Metro corridor study. We’re talking about an interchange- a very different beast.

1.1 Terms of Reference for Consultants Study

1. Review and hold discussions with Dublin Metro Group, Dublin Chamber of Commerce and Platform 11, all of whom have made submissions to the Joint Committee.

2. Obtain and report on the cost benefit analysis prepared by the RPA for St. Stephens Green/Airport [Route Central 3(b)] giving details on:
a. costs,
b. benefits,
c. assumptions

3. Examine the cost competitiveness of the proposed RPA construction cost estimates for the Metro to Dublin Airport by comparison with international Metro project costs.

4. Consider the case made for the extension of the Metro from Dublin Airport to Swords.

5. Consider the possibility of a bus alternative to the Metro.

6. Consider the possibility of an Iarnrod Éireann alternative to the Metro.

7. Make an assessment of a “do nothing” option, including implications of disbenefits.

8. Provide a comparison between and report on the implications of State funding and a PPP approach.

9. Assess the ongoing financial implications of a PPP approach for the State once the Metro is operational e.g. availability / usage payments.

10. Present the arguments for and against the Metro by international comparison to a comparable size city such as Newcastle or other city, excluding Copenhagen.

11. Give views on how the Metro project should be structured and managed so as to ensure the most effective implementation of the project.

12. Give views on the measures needed in the proposed Infrastructure Bill in order to ensure timely delivery of the project.

Having considered all of the above –

1. Form a reasoned judgement on the viability of the Metro project

2. Prepare a draft report for consideration by the Committee

3. Prepare a final report which reflects the Committee’s views.

It goes without saying that all passengers should be taken into account. However, to state that ‘much [travel] takes place at times outside the “commuting” hours’ gives a misleading impression that the lion’s share of travel is not commuter. If calculated as time, then your answer is right (morning peak + evening peak = 5[?] hours), but if calculated as numbers carried, then it’s not; not to mention the latent demand for public transport which isn’t being met due to capacity issues at peak time.

There are myriad other factors that should be included here, such as passenger numbers in car in the peak hours vs passenger numbers in car for retail trips, i.e. the actual impact on car commuting. In addition, the likely modal shift in retail vs the likely modal shift in commuting needs to be acknowledged- there is greater potential in the latter case; etc etc.

In essence, I accept your point re servicing retail demand, but as I said before, that’s not the primary issue, nor should it be.

Latest News