File Note - consultation.dublincity.ie · For reference, on Samuel Beckett Bridge, survey of December 2017 recorded 2,841 pedestrians and 823 cyclists, and survey of May 2019 recorded

File Note

Page 1 of 41

Traffic Survey Data Used for Reference A number of traffic surveys had been carried out in the Docklands by DCC, either as part of the Blood Stoney Bridge project, The Point Roundabout project, or periodical traffic counts. The following sets of data have been used to inform this traffic modelling exercise.

Location Date Type of Count Samuel Beckett Bridge

2017.12.07 Thursday

Junction Turning Counts + Pedestrian Crossing Counts Link Count

Samuel Beckett Bridge

2019.05.14 Tuesday

Junction Turning Counts + Pedestrian Crossing Counts Link Count

New Wapping Street

2017.12.07 Thursday

Pedestrian and cyclist OD counts at junctions.

Blood Stoney Bridge

2017.12.07 Thursday

Pedestrian and cyclist OD counts at junctions.

Tom Clarke Bridge

2012 Link traffic volumes (pcu) extracted from ARUP Technical Note for The Point Roundabout Improvement Scheme 2018.04.04.

Tom Clarke Bridge

2017.11.21-22 Tuesday, Wednesday

Link Count

East Link Bridge

2018.02.06 Tuesday

Junction Turning Counts + Pedestrian Crossing Counts

East Link Bridge

2018.04.10 Tuesday

Junction Turning Counts + Pedestrian Crossing Counts

East Link Bridge

2019.05.14 Tuesday

Junction Turning Counts + Pedestrian Crossing Counts Pedestrian and Cyclist Link Count

Table 1.1: Traffic Survey Data For reference, on Samuel Beckett Bridge, survey of December 2017 recorded 2,841 pedestrians and 823 cyclists, and survey of May 2019 recorded 3,427 pedestrians and 1,302 cyclists, in the AM peak hour. This is an increase of 20.6% in pedestrian volumes and 58.2% in cyclist volumes over 15 months. Summary of pedestrian and cyclist numbers recorded at Samuel Beckett Bridge and Tom Clarke Bridge during peak hours of Thursday 14th May 2019 is shown in Appendix D of this document.

Study Area The NTA’s Eastern Regional Model (ERM) was used in its entirety. The area of interest is the Docklands - specifically Liffey crossings, including and east of, Samuel Beckett Bridge. Figure 2-1 shows potential crossing locations at Forbes Street – Park Lane, Blood Stoney Road – New Wapping Street, and Castleforbes Road – Benson Street. The traffic modelling will compare the potential walking/ cycling demand along these crossings, in conjunction with new pedestrian/ cyclist infrastructure along the future Dodder Bridge and alongside Tom Clarke Bridge. The location of future Southern Port Access Route (SPAR) is also shown; however it should be noted that this link will not be open to public for walking and cycling.

Project: Docklands Bridge Traffic Modelling File No: FN-18-002-001 Subject: Network Modelling Results Date: 09 July 2019

File Note

Page 2 of 41

Figure 2-1: Study Area

Existing Samuel Beckett Bridge

Tom Clarke Bridge & Future Footbridge

Future Dodder Bridge

Potential Blood Stoney Bridge

Future Southern Port Access Route

(SPAR)

Potential Castleforbes Road Bridge

Potential Forbes Street Bridge

File Note

Page 3 of 41

Modelling Using NTA Eastern Regional Model The NTA’s Eastern Regional Model’s Active Mode Model (AMM) was used to predict walking and cycling volumes; and the Road Model was used to predict motorised vehicular volumes. Summarily, the modelling process involves running iterations between demand, mode choice, and assignment; with generalised costs being returned after each iteration, to inform the next iteration. For active modes, only the AM peak hour has been modelled, as the May 2019 surveys along Samuel Beckett Bridge and Tom Clarke Bridge recorded the highest numbers of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Liffey in the AM (5,420 in the AM peak hour vs. 4,610 in the PM peak hour), and therefore represents the critical case.

3.1 Scenarios

Scenario Year Model Description Base 2012 NTA Eastern

Regional Model (ERM) Base Model, 2012

The 2012 ERM Base Model network reflects existing infrastructure.

2035 Do-Minimum 2035 NTA ERM Do-Strategy Model, 2035

The NTA’s Strategy Model includes measures that have been outlined in the Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035.

Demand in Poolbeg and Docklands have been updated (see Section 2.2).

The Dodder Bridge is already included in this scenario.

Southern Port Access Road is also included; however there is no public access for walking and cycling.

2035 Do-Option 1: Forbes Street Bridge

2035 Do-Minimum + Option 1 Proposed Measures

Option 1 proposed measures include:

Pedestrian/ cycle bridge at Forbes Street;

Separate pedestrian and cycle bridge adjacent to the Tom Clarke Bridge (East Link Bridge);

Replacing The Point roundabout with a signalised junction.

2035 Do-Option 2: Blood Stoney Bridge



Blood Stoney Bridge, with signalised junctions on both ends;



2035 Do-Option 3: Forbes Street Bridge + Castleforbes Road Bridge



Pedestrian/ cycle bridges at Forbes Street and Castleforbes Road;



Table 3.1: Scenarios

File Note

Page 4 of 41

3.2 Demand In 2016, DCC and the NTA had carried out a similar modelling exercise for Poolbeg SDZ. As part of that, land use proposals associated with Poolbeg SDZ and Docklands SDZ had been updated based on more precise planning data which has emerged since the NTA’s 2035 Do-Strategy model was set up. These updated demands and trip-ends developed as part of that modelling exercise has also been used in this case.

Poolbeg SDZ Docklands SDZ Population 7,278 17,507

Jobs (Non-Retail) 6,824 52,522

Jobs (Retail) 342 900

Education 500 59

Trip Ends Production 12,518 48,825

Trip Ends Attraction 12,489 68,955 Table 3.2: Demands and Trip Ends

Walking & Cycling Modelling Results 4.1 Initial Modelling Results

Table 4.1: 2012 Base Model Initial Modelling Results, Active Modes

Peak Period Direction Samuel Beckett Bridge Tom Clarke Bridge

PT-Walk1 Other-Walk All Walk Cycle PT-Walk Other-Walk All Walk Cycle

AM2 NB3 / EB4 40 280 320 210 70 140 210 90

SB5 / WB6 250 500 750 430 90 190 280 60

Table 4.2: 2035 Do-Minimum Initial Modelling Results, Active Modes

Peak Period Direction

Samuel Beckett Bridge Tom Clarke Bridge Dodder Bridge PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle

AM NB / EB 90 440 530 230 50 430 480 120 40 170 210 60

SB / WB 980 780 1,760 420 160 310 470 90 160 280 440 110

1 PT-Walk = Walking trips that are taken in combination with public transport trips. 2 AM peak period is 1 hour, usually assumed as between 08:00-09:00am. 3 NB = Northbound for Samuel Becket Bridge, Tom Clarke Bridge, Blood Stoney Bridge. 4 EB = Eastbound for Dodder Bridge. 5 SB = Southbound for Samuel Becket Bridge, Tom Clarke Bridge, Blood Stoney Bridge. 6 WB = Westbound for Dodder Bridge.

File Note

Page 5 of 41

Table 4.3: 2035 Do-Option 1: Forbes St Bridge, Initial Modelling Results, Active Modes

Peak Period Direction Samuel Beckett Bridge Forbes Street Bridge

PT-Walk Other-Walk All Walk Cycle PT-Walk Other-Walk All Walk Cycle

AM NB / EB 30 300 330 90 160 220 380 170

SB / WB 360 270 630 130 990 660 1,650 400

East Link Footbridge Dodder Bridge


AM NB / EB 30 410 440 120 60 180 240 60

SB / WB 100 300 400 90 60 300 360 110

Table 4.4: 2035 Do-Option 2: Blood Stoney Bridge, Initial Modelling Results, Active Modes

Peak Period Direction Samuel Beckett Bridge Blood Stoney Bridge


AM NB / EB 50 320 370 120 120 250 370 180

SB / WB 370 380 750 260 980 650 1,630 240



AM NB / EB 30 370 400 90 70 160 230 60

SB / WB 90 200 290 60 50 240 290 100

Table 4.5: 2035 Do-Option 3: Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge, Initial Modelling Results, Active Modes


Samuel Beckett Bridge Forbes Street Bridge Castleforbes Road Bridge

PT-Walk

Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle

AM NB / EB 30 300 330 90 160 170 330 90 10 90 100 100

SB / WB 350 270 620 130 980 540 1,520 250 50 200 250 180



AM NB / EB 30 370 400 100 60 140 200 20

SB / WB 60 220 280 60 30 240 270 50

Screenshots showing the initial modelling results are attached in Appendix B of this document.

File Note

Page 6 of 41

4.2 Adjustments to 2035 Modelling Results The Base Model volumes shown in Table 4 were compared with pedestrian and cyclist volumes recorded in surveys of May 2019 (see Section 1). There were significant discrepancies, especially in terms of pedestrian volumes. These are due to the fact that the NTA’s Active Modes Model only includes certain defined walking trips, namely employers-business trips, work commuting trips, education trips, and “other journey purposes”. Trips that are irregular, i.e. not recorded by a census or travel survey, e.g. shopping or “going to get a coffee”, are not included. During consultations with the NTA, it was agreed that suitable scaling factors can be applied locally to adjust the outputs so that they are in line with what was recorded in the traffic surveys. The methodology used to determine and apply suitable scaling factors have been summarised below:

Figure 4-1: Methodology for Adjusting 2035 Initial Model Outputs

(1) 2012 Base Model Outputs•Results from NTA's 2012 Base Model is collated (shown in Table 4).

(2) 2019 NTA Active Modes Model (AMM) Volumes•The NTA model's growth factor is roughly 35% over 23 years. On that basis, growth rate for the 7 years between 2012 and 2019

was calculated and applied to the 2012 Base Model Outputs.•This approximates what might be the NTA model's outputs for 2019.

(3) 2019 Actual (Survey) Volumes•Pedestrian and cyclist volumes from 2019 surveys were collated.

(4) Compare 2019 NTA Active Modes Model (AMM) and Actual Volumes•Compare (2) the number of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Liffey in 2019 NTA Active Modes Model and (3) actual number

of pedestrians and cyclists recorded crossing the Liffey in survey of 2019, at Samuel Beckett Bridge and Tom Clarke Bridge.•Comparison ratios between model and actual volumes are calculated for each direction (NB/SB), peak period (AM/ PM), and

mode (Walk/ Cycle).

(5) Determine Scaling Factors to be Applied•The calculated ratios comparing 2019 NTA AMM and 2019 actual volumes were evaluated.•Scaling factors (to be applied to 2035 outputs) are then determined for each direction (NB/SB), peak period (AM/ PM), and

mode (Walk/ Cycle).• As a conservative measure, these scaling factors to be applied are generally less than the calculated comparison ratios.

(6) Apply Scaling Factors to 2035 Outputs•The scaling factors determined in (5) are applied to 2035 Do-Minimum and 2035 Do-Options initial modelling results.•This gives "Adjusted results for 2035 Do-Minimum and 2035 Do-Something.

File Note

Page 7 of 41

Table 4.6 shows the calculations involved in determining the scaling factors to be applied to 2035 outputs. Note that the “Walk” and “Cycle” volumes are total numbers crossing the Liffey using Samuel Beckett Bridge and Tom Clarke Bridge.

Table 4.6: Determining Scaling Factors to be Applied to 2035 Outputs

Walk Cycle (1) 2012 Base Model AM Northbound 530 300

Southbound 1,030 490

(2) 2019 NTA Active Modes Model Volumes Estimated by applying 1.01313^7 growth rate between

2012 and 2019.

AM Northbound 581 329


(3) 2019 Actual (Survey) Volumes AM Northbound 1,250 553


(4) Ratio from comparison of (2) 2019 Model Volumes vs. (3) 2019 Actual Survey Volumes

AM Northbound 2.15 1.68

Southbound 2.33 1.84

(5) Scaling Factors to be applied to 2035 outputs AM Northbound 2.0 1.5

Southbound 2.2 1.7

Com

pare

(2) a

nd (3

) to

cal

cula

te (4

) In

form

ed b

y (4

)

File Note

Page 8 of 41

Adjusted results for pedestrian and cyclist across the Liffey (on Samuel Beckett Bridge, Tom Clarke Bridge, Dodder Bridge, Forbes Street Bridge/ Blood Stoney Bridge/ Castleforbes Road Bridge) in 2035 Do-Minimum and 2035 Do-Options scenarios are shown in Table 10 – Table 13. These are also illustrated in Appendix A of this document.

Table 4.7: 2035 Do-Minimum Adjusted Results, Active Modes


Samuel Beckett Bridge East Link Bridge Dodder Bridge

PT-Walk

Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle

AM NB / EB 180 880 1,060 345 100 860 960 180 80 340 420 90

SB / WB 2,156 1,716 3,872 714 352 682 1,034 153 352 616 968 187

Table 4.8: 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) Adjusted Results, Active Modes

Peak Period Direction Samuel Beckett Bridge Forbes St Bridge


AM NB / EB 60 600 660 135 320 440 760 255

SB / WB 792 594 1,386 221 2,178 1,452 3,630 680



AM NB / EB 60 820 880 180 120 360 480 90

SB / WB 220 660 880 153 132 660 792 187

Table 4.9: 2035 Do-Option 2: Blood Stoney Bridge, Adjusted Results, Active Modes

Peak Period Direction Samuel Beckett Bridge Blood Stoney Bridge


AM NB / EB 100 640 740 180 240 500 740 270

SB / WB 814 836 1,650 442 2,156 1,430 3,586 408



AM NB / EB 60 740 800 135 140 320 460 90

SB / WB 198 440 638 102 110 528 638 170

Table 4.10: 2035 Do-Option 3: Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge, Adjusted Results, Active Modes


Samuel Beckett Bridge Forbes Street Bridge Castleforbes Road Bridge PT-

Walk Other-Walk All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle PT-

Walk Other-Walk

All Walk Cycle

AM NB / EB 60 600 660 135 320 340 660 135 20 180 200 150

SB / WB 770 594 1,364 221 2,156 1,188 3,344 425 110 440 550 306



AM NB / EB 60 740 800 150 120 280 400 30

SB / WB 132 484 616 102 66 528 594 85

File Note

Page 9 of 41

Level of Service for Footpaths The American Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) concept of Level of Service (LOS) for pedestrian traffic is widely used as a qualitative measure to describe operational conditions of footpaths and walkways, based on measurement of bi-directional pedestrian flow rates and available footpath widths. In the case of the Liffey crossings described in this report, pedestrian would be expected to often travel together as a group, voluntarily or involuntarily (e.g. due to signal control), hence the impact of platooning is also taken into account.

LOS Flow Rate (pedestrians/

minute /meter)

Description

A <= 1.6 Free flow

B >1.6 – 9.8 Pedestrians will respond to the presence of other pedestrians by electing a walking path.

C >9.8 – 19.7 Space is sufficient for normal walking speeds, and for bypassing other pedestrians in primarily unidirectional streams. Opposing or crossing movements can cause minor conflicts, and speeds and flow rates are somewhat lower.

D >19.7 – 36.1 Freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other pedestrians is restricted. Opposing or crossing movements face high probability of conflict. Friction and interaction between pedestrians is likely.

E >36.1 – 59.1 Virtually all pedestrians restrict their normal walking speed. Insufficient space for passing slower pedestrians. Extreme difficulties for bi-directional or crossing movements.

F >59.1 Forward progress only by shuffling. Frequent unavoidable contact with other pedestrians. Space is more characteristic of queueing rather than of moving pedestrian streams.

Table 5.1: HCM 2010 Platoon-Adjusted LOS Criteria for Walkways and Sidewalks LOS Level C is generally considered acceptable, and a minimum for design purposes. The AM Peak LOS calculated for Samuel Beckett Bridge and Forbes Street Bridge/ Blood Stoney Bridge/ Castleforbes Road Bridge are shown below (AM peak hour has higher bi-directional pedestrians volumes than PM peak). On the day of survey in May 2019, 62% of northbound pedestrians and 66% of southbound pedestrians were recorded walking on the eastern side of Samuel Beckett Bridge during AM peak hour. An earlier Pedestrian Study commissioned by Dublin City Council in 2015 had also noted that a higher proportion of pedestrians (75%) tend to walk on the eastern side of Samuel Beckett Bridge. In the calculations and assessments of potential Level of Service for pedestrian in 2035 AM peak, two different cases of pedestrian splits, listed in Table 15, have been considered.

Western Pavement Eastern Pavement

Northbound Pedestrians Southbound Pedestrians Northbound Pedestrians Southbound Pedestrians

Case 1 38% 34% 62% 66%

Case 2 50% 50% 50% 50%

Table 5.2: Western & Eastern Pavements Pedestrian Splits Considered for Assessment In the Do-Options scenarios, footpath widths of 2.5m and 3.0m have both been assessed for potential LOS.

File Note

Page 10 of 41

Table 5.3: Calculated LOS for Footpaths using HCM Criteria

Scenario Location (Bridge) Pedestrian volumes Assumed footpath usage ratio Available minimum footpath width (m) Flow Rate (ped/min/m) LOS

Northbound Southbound Case West Side East Side West Side East Side West Side East Side

NB SB NB SB

AM 2019 Survey Samuel Beckett Bridge 948 2,479 Survey 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 2.2 1.5 9.2 24.6 D

AM 2035 Do-Minimum Samuel Beckett Bridge 1,060 3,872 Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 2.2 1.5 13.1 35.6 D

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.2 1.5 18.7 27.4 D

AM 2035 Do-Option 1 Samuel Beckett Bridge 660 1,386 Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 2.2 1.5 5.5 14.7 C

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.2 1.5 7.8 11.4 C

Forbes St Bridge 760 3,630 Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 3.0 3.0 8.5 15.9 C

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 3.0 12.2 12.2 C

Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 2.5 2.5 10.2 19.1 C

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 14.6 14.6 C


Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.2 1.5 9.1 13.3 C

Blood Stoney Bridge 740 3,586 Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 3.0 3.0 8.4 15.7 C

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 3.0 12.0 12.0 C

Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 2.5 2.5 10.1 18.8 C

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 14.4 14.4 C


Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.2 1.5 7.7 11.2 C

Forbes St Bridge 660 3,344 Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 3.0 3.0 7.8 14.5 C

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 3.0 11.1 11.1 C

Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 2.5 2.5 9.3 17.4 C

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 13.3 13.3 C

Castleforbes Rd Bridge 200 550 Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 3.0 3.0 1.5 2.7 B

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 3.0 2.1 2.1 B

Case 1 0.38 0.34 0.62 0.66 2.5 2.5 1.8 3.2 B

Case 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 B

File Note

Page 11 of 41

Using pedestrian volumes recorded during AM peak in survey of May 2019, the overall LOS assessed for pedestrians on Samuel Beckett Bridge is Level D. Along the western pavement, the pedestrian flow rate is 9.2 pedestrians/ minute/ meter (peds/min/m); and along the eastern pavement it is busier, 24.6 peds/min/m. In the 2035 Do-Minimum scenario, the AM peak LOS for pedestrians on Samuel Beckett Bridge is Level D. This suggests that pedestrians will be experiencing congestion on the footpaths in this scenario. In the 2035 Do-Option 1 scenario, assessments suggest that both Samuel Beckett Bridge and Forbes Street Bridge will be able to cater to the predicted volume of pedestrians. Minimum footpath widths of 3.0m would be recommended for Forbes Street Bridge, as the LOS on the eastern footpath would be approaching Level D with 2.5m width. Similarly in the 2035 Do-Option 2 scenario, assessments suggest that both Samuel Beckett Bridge and Blood Stoney Bridge will be able to cater to the predicted volume of pedestrians. Minimum footpath widths of 3.0m would be recommended for Blood Stoney Bridge, as the LOS on the eastern footpath would be approaching Level D with 2.5m width. Modelling and pedestrian LOS assessment for Do-Option 1 (Forbes Street Bridge) and Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) scenarios produced very similar results in terms of demand on the new bridge(s) and the relief/ reduction of demand on Samuel Beckett Bridge (see Table 5.4). Compared to Blood Stoney Bridge, Forbes Street Bridge is expected to have 6% more active mode users, and is expected to have a greater relief for walking/ cycling demand on Samuel Beckett Bridge (-34% with Forbes Street Bridge vs. -18% with Blood Stoney Bridge). However, the Level of Service on all bridges are at Level C in both scenarios, assuming 2x3.0m footpath widths on new bridges - which is a notable improvement from the Do-Minimum scenario where Samuel Beckett Bridge would be at Level D.

Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge)

Samuel Beckett Bridge Forbes St Bridge

All Walk Cycle All Active Modes Level of

Service for Pedestrians

All Walk Cycle

All Active Modes

Level of Service for Pedestrians

2,046 356 2,402 C 4,390 935 5,325 C

Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge)

Samuel Beckett Bridge Blood Stoney Bridge

All Walk Cycle All Active Modes Level of

Service for Pedestrians

All Walk Cycle

All Active Modes

Level of Service for Pedestrians

2,390 622 3,012 C 4,326 678 5,004 C

Table 5.4 Summary Comparison of Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) and Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) In the 2035 Do-Option 3 scenario, assessments suggest that Samuel Beckett Bridge, Forbes Street Bridge, and Castleforbes Road Bridge will all be able to cater to the predicated volume of pedestrians. Minimum footpath widths of 3.0 would be recommended for Forbes Street Bridge, as the LOS on the eastern footpath would be approaching Level D with 2.5m width. On Castleforbes Road Bridge, demand is expected to be lower than the other two bridges, hence footpath widths of 2.5m, or even 1.8m should suffice.

File Note

Page 12 of 41

Highway Network Modelling The focus of the highway network modelling exercise is on Tom Clarke Bridge. Following mode choice selection, motorised vehicular trips are assigned routes in the highway network. Given that the scale of interventions under consideration are relatively contained, it was decided to focus our assessment on a cordon of the ERM (shown in Figure 6-1), around the city centre.

Figure 6-1: Highway Model Cordon

6.1 2012 Base Model Table 12 compares traffic volumes recorded during a 2012 traffic survey on Tom Clarke Bridge (extracted from ARUP Technical Note for The Point Roundabout Improvement Scheme 2018.04.04) and traffic volumes in the NTA’s 2012 ERM Base Model at the same location.

Peak Hour Direction Traffic on Tom Clarke Bridge, including cyclists 2012 Survey 2012 ERM Base Model

AM Northbound 716 778

Southbound 953 982

PM Northbound 831 522

Southbound 680 248 Table 6.1: Comparison of 2012 Surveyed Traffic Volumes vs. 2012 ERM Base Model Volumes

While the 2012 ERM Base Model AM peak flows on Tom Clarke Bridge are comparable with 2012 surveyed traffic, the PM peak comparison is poor. Hence when doing assessment work for the PM peak, it should be noted that potential effects might be under represented. However, at this stage of the project, the AM peak hour is considered the more critical, particularly in the southbound direction, as this would have a direct impact on the viability of allowing a right-turning movement for vehicles from Tom Clarke Bridge onto the proposed Dodder Bridge.

File Note

Page 13 of 41

6.2 Amendments to 2035 Do-Minimum ERM Highway Network A few adjustments were made to the NTA’s 2035 Strategy Network:

Junction between Dodder Bridge and Tom Clarke Bridge is signalised, with right-turning allowed for public transport from Tom Clarke Bridge to Dodder Bridge.

The Southern Port Access Road (SPAR) is amended to function as a private road instead of a public road. Three links have been used to model the SPAR, allowing the following traffic movements:

i. Originating from the north port, wanting to access South Dublin (southbound); and

Originating from somewhere in South Dublin, wanting to access the north port (northbound).

ii. Travelling to/from (between) north port and south port.

iii. Originating somewhere in North Dublin (e.g. the Port Tunnel), and wanting to access the south port (southbound); and

Originating from the south port, and wanting to access North Dublin (northbound)

Figure 6-2 Modified Links for Southern Port Access Road (Private Road)

(i) North Port ⇔ South Dublin

(ii) North Port ⇔

South Port

(iii) South Port ⇔ North Dublin

File Note

Page 14 of 41

6.3 2035 Do-Something For the purpose of this road-based assessment, a Do-Something scenario similar to the Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) has been used. The following were included as new measures:

The Point roundabout is amended to a signalised junction. Signal plans are as per LinSig model received from ARUP in April 2018.

Figure 6-3: Proposed Signal Sequencing for The Point Junction

New signalised junction south of proposed Blood Stoney Bridge; and revised signalised junction north of proposed Blood Stoney Bridge, with additional phase for cyclists coming from Blood Stoney Bridge. These are shown in Figure 5.

File Note

Page 15 of 41

Figure 6-4: Proposed Junction Arrangements North and South of Proposed Blood Stoney Bridge

File Note

Page 16 of 41

6.4 Highway Network Modelling Results Table 6.2: 2035 Do-Minimum, Highway Demand

Peak Period Direction Tom Clarke Bridge Dodder Bridge Southern Port Access Road (SPAR)

AM NB / EB 805 110 358

SB / WB 542 2 405

PM NB / EB 651 113 150

SB / WB 130 1 269

Figure 6-5: AM 2035 Do-Minimum Highway Demand SATURN Output

Figure 6-6: PM 2035 Do-Minimum Highway Demand SATURN Output

Tom Clarke Bridge

Proposed Southern Port Access Road Proposed Dodder

Bridge

Tom Clarke Bridge


Bridge

File Note

Page 17 of 41

Table 6.3: 2035 Do-Something, Highway Demand

Peak Period Direction Tom Clarke Bridge Dodder Bridge Southern Port Access Road (SPAR)

AM NB / EB 802 77 368

SB / WB 538 22 420

PM NB / EB 981 117 141

SB / WB 107 3 358

Figure 6-7: AM 2035 Do-Something Highway Demand SATURN Output

Figure 6-8: AM 2035 Do-Something Highway Demand SATURN Output

Screenshots showing the highway network modelling results are included in Appendix C of this document.

Tom Clarke Bridge


Bridge

Tom Clarke Bridge


Bridge

File Note

Page 18 of 41

In general, results for the 2035 Do-Minimum and 2035 Do-Something scenarios are similar - with the exception of PM northbound traffic on Tom Clarke Bridge, where the 2035 Do-Something scenario had 981no. going northbound compared to 651no. in the 2035 Do-Minimum scenario. In the 2035 Do-Minimum scenario, vehicles exiting the port from just north of the Point roundabout are able to do u-turns at the roundabout in order to go north (e.g. towards the Port Tunnel). However in the 2035 Do-Something scenario, these same vehicles cannot make the same manoeuvre as the Point junction is signalised. Instead they are exiting the Port further north (at Alexandra Road), which releases capacity at the Point junction. As a result, northbound traffic from other bridges are being attracted onto the Tom Clarke Bridge, rather than take the longer distance route further west (e.g. Butt Bridge). This is illustrated in Figure 6-9, which shows a difference plot between 2035 Do-Minimum and 2035 Do-Something in the PM Peak. Blue lines represent a reduction in traffic flow between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something; and green lines represent traffic flow increase.

Figure 6-9: Difference Plot between 2035 Do-Minimum and 2035 Do-Something

The same isn’t having such a pronounced effect in the AM, as there isn’t as much traffic heading north in the AM.

File Note

Page 19 of 41

Appendix A: 2035 Do-Minimum and 2035 Do-Something Adjusted Outputs, Active Modes

AM 2035 Do-MinimumWalk & Cycle Mode

1,060

345 ù 3,872

714 ù

960

180 ù

1,034

153 ù

420

90 ù

968

187 ù

AM 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge)

660

135 ù 1,386

221 ù

880

180 ù

880

153 ù

480

90 ù

792

187 ù

760

255 ù

3,630

680 ù

AM 2035 Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge)

740

180 ù 1,650

442 ù

800

135 ù

638

102 ù

460

90 ù

638

170 ù

740

270 ù

3,586

408 ù

AM 2035 Do-Option 3(Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge)

660

135 ù 1,364

221 ù

800

150 ù

616

102 ù

400

30 ù

594

85 ù

660

135 ù

3,344

425 ù

200

150 ù 550

306 ù

File Note

Page 20 of 41

Appendix B: Initial Modelling Results, Active Modes The following figures are screenshots from CUBE, provided by the NTA. Figure 0-1: AM 2012 Base, PT-Walk-Access

Figure 0-2: AM 2012 Base, Walk-Mode

Figure 0-3: AM 2012 Base, Cycle-Mode

Figure 0-4: AM 2035 Do Minimum, PT-Walk-Access

Figure 0-5: AM 2035 Do Minimum, Walk-Mode

Figure 0-6: AM 2035 Do Minimum, Cycle-Mode

Figure 0-7: AM 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) PT-Walk-Access

Figure 0-8: AM 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) Walk-Mode

Figure 0-9: AM 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) Cycle-Mode

Figure 0-10: AM 2035 Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) PT-Walk-Access

Figure 0-11: AM 2035 Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) Walk-Mode

Figure 0-12: AM 2035 Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) Cycle-Mode

Figure 0-13: AM 2035 Do-Option 3 (Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge) PT-Walk-Access

Figure 0-14: AM 2035 Do-Option 3 (Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge) Walk-Mode

Figure 0-15: AM 2035 Do-Option 3 (Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge) Cycle-Mode

File Note

Page 21 of 41

Figure 0-1: AM 2012 Base, PT-Walk-Access

File Note

Page 22 of 41

Figure 0-2: AM 2012 Base, Walk-Mode

File Note

Page 23 of 41

Figure 0-3: AM 2012 Base, Cycle-Mode

File Note

Page 24 of 41

Figure 0-4: AM 2035 Do Minimum, PT-Walk-Access

File Note

Page 25 of 41

Figure 0-5: AM 2035 Do Minimum, Walk-Mode

File Note

Page 26 of 41

Figure 0-6: AM 2035 Do Minimum, Cycle-Mode

File Note

Page 27 of 41

Figure 0-7: AM 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) PT-Walk-Access

File Note

Page 28 of 41

Figure 0-8: AM 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) Walk-Mode

File Note

Page 29 of 41

Figure 0-9: AM 2035 Do-Option 1 (Forbes St Bridge) Cycle-Mode

File Note

Page 30 of 41

Figure 0-10: AM 2035 Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) PT-Walk-Access

File Note

Page 31 of 41

Figure 0-11: AM 2035 Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) Walk-Mode

File Note

Page 32 of 41

Figure 0-12: AM 2035 Do-Option 2 (Blood Stoney Bridge) Cycle-Mode

File Note

Page 33 of 41

Figure 0-13: AM 2035 Do-Option 3 (Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge) PT-Walk-Access

File Note

Page 34 of 41

Figure 0-14: AM 2035 Do-Option 3 (Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge) Walk-Mode

File Note

Page 35 of 41

Figure 0-15: AM 2035 Do-Option 3 (Forbes St Bridge + Castleforbes Rd Bridge) Cycle-Mode

File Note

Page 36 of 41

Appendix C: Highway Network Modelling Results (Demand)

80

270

118

88

604

138

00

446174

6

9

262

237

166

633

35

104

247

379

245

14

142413

154

252

187

146

1556 542751

1690

564

696 711

1165

1561

1165

604

635

805

700

153

227

453

324

227

153

572

457

385

702

0

0

522

977

0

0

20440

40

204

696

564 154

591

1560

727

614

1879

544

698

2

110

805

542

129

1561

472

42

185

487

727

1561

577

979

587

1052

464

274

27080

464

3120

290

372

354

174

446

606

584

138

604

0

2

760

909

909

760

211

34

12066

15

245

14245

457

572

388

727

1293

7

904

760

5

35786

5

579

598

606

805

9

6

357

5

1560

727

0

0

110

2

10435

251

164

5

117

1

5

117

327

139

262

236

237

262

1

1117

603

782

73

960

907

762

919

634

233

1077

534

439

1132

697

701

698

286

379

247

654

557

751

768

252

154

413

142

633

166

262

11

11

262

20

4

420

139327

AM 2035 Do-Minimum Demand Flows

80

270

118

88

496

136

780

425173

6

9

263

240

168

654

30

106

247

371

241

28

141413

155

252

188

146

508

350 365

521

957

1064

1064

957

389

626

677

509

107

66

481

253

66218

567

474

363

531

0

111

540

914

0

78

212

145

107

207

350

508 205

331

1063

831

681

1402

518

726

22

77

802

538

557

69

182

442

831

1064

424

1029

464

274

27080

464

2880

277

328

303

173

425

551

420

136

496

0

2

725

897

897

725

176

44

11433

30

241

28241

474

567

379

660

538

802

7

892

725

6

30684

4

551

433

551

9

6

306

6

1063

831

0

78

77

22

10630

250

152

7

128

1

7

128

333

153

263

239

240

263

1

1160

614

746

75

954

910

737

928

649

271

1057

529

439

1139

702

666

686

282

371

247

621

562

763

773

252

155

413

141

654

168

263

12

12

263

23

4

423

153333

AM 2035 Do-Something Demand Flows

181

75

68

122

277

367

00

315207

16

27

226

125

232

211

281

9

282

158

72

66

344144

179

122

132

114

2107 1301456

1863

656

404 421

1555

1833

1555

530

454

556

725

196

104

544

356

104

196

430

645

378

259

0

0

506

753

0

0

116

445

445

116

404

656 150

1393

1832

312

186

2134

133

543

1

113

651

130

31

1833

462

35

240

480

312

1833

665

1442

695

1026

214

320

75181

214

46

0

287

310

130

207

315

504

697

367

277

0

3

580

1117

1117

579

92

252

18620

69

72

6672

645

430

351

813

1585

4

1116

579

20

13965

5

677

713

504

651

27

16

139

20

1832

312

0

0

113

1

9

281

133

272

49

15

6

49

15

120

199

226

119

125

226

6

638

774

653

48

687

766

989

634

876

108

389

700

736

963

537

985

231

418

158

282

893

504

684

645

122

179

144

344

211

232

10

25

25 10

5

60

60

5199120

PM 2035 Do-Minimum Demand Flows

178

75

67

122

275

355

11

316198

16

27

232

125

232

206

289

11

286

158

72

67

350142

179

122

133

115

558

239 256

566

592

1156

1156

592

361

454

456

516

181

55

494

472

55260

525

584

487

244

0

79

557

978

1

1

177

411

332

177

239

558 173

488

1155

277

422

1400

105

864

3

117

981

107

449

351

324

400

277

1156

560

976

215

319

75178

215

50

287

266

97

198

316

535

557

355

275

0

3

574

1080

1080

574

97

260

19325

70

72

6772

584

525

380

861

107

981

4

1079

574

21

10766

7

743

573

535

27

16

107

21

1155

277

1

1

117

3

11289

143

222

37

71

6

37

71

112

286

232

119

125

232

6

644

714

598

48

654

605

976

644

808

98

388

711

704

887

483

1069

231

425

158

286

1001

476

614

660

122

179

142

350

206

232

10

24

24 10

5

62

62

5286112

PM 2035 Do-Something Demand Flows

File Note

Page 37 of 41

Appendix D: Pedestrian and Cycle Count Survey Results – Monday 14th of May 2019

File Note

Page 38 of 41

Samuel Beckett Bridge – AM Peak Hour

Samuel Beckett Bridge – PM Peak Hour

File Note

Page 39 of 41

Samuel Beckett Bridge – Total AM and PM Peak Periods

File Note

Page 40 of 41

East Link Toll Bridge – AM Peak Hour

East Link Toll Bridge – PM Peak Hour

File Note

Page 41 of 41

East Link Toll Bridge – Total AM and PM Periods

Documents

File Note - consultation.dublincity.ie · For reference, on Samuel Beckett Bridge, survey of December 2017 recorded 2,841 pedestrians and 823 cyclists, and survey of May 2019 recorded