TRAFFIC IN FAIRVIEW
FAIRVIEW & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
September 1995
Traffic in Fairview
Contents
For further information:
Please contact:
Pádraig de Burca, 19 Bóthar Inbhear Nois, Fionnradharc, BÁC 3.
Over the last number of years traffic in the Fairview area has increased to the point where many residents expressed their concern. Much of this is caused by the recent developments of housing estates to the immediate north of the area, development of infill sites in the area and also the way in which traffic is, in effect, encouraged to use Philipsburgh Avenue by traffic calming measures in other areas. In responding to representations, the Fairview & District Residents' Association has drawn up this report.
The main concerns of the Committee were:
A presentation of the Committee's recommendations was made at the most recent Annual General Meeting and this report contains the proposals unanimously agreed at that meeting.
Fairview is a very old residential area (and is zoned accordingly in the Dublin City Development Plan) with a very mixed population. It has an unusually high proportion of elderly people and has recently seen an influx of young families with pre-school and school going children. Much of the housing stock itself dates from the turn of the century and therefore predates the use of the car as a means of private transport, which explains the absence of off-street parking facilities.
The residential nature of the area is amply demonstrated by the fact that it consists solely of houses, shops, schools, churches etc. with no commercial or industrial development. The road network, reflecting the residential nature and age of the area, is very narrow.
The Committee agreed on the following general objectives:
In general we felt that residents should be able to:
While researching this report we encountered difficulties in obtaining accident statistics: the Gardaí sent us to the Corporation who sent us to Eolas who sent us to the Dept. of the Environment who sent us back to the Gardaí.
A survey was carried out by Dublin Corporation at our request in 1993 to see if a pedestrian crossing could be erected on the avenue. We were informed that the traffic / pedestrian combination did not meet the necessary criteria for such a facility. As we found this difficult to understand, we attempted to find out the exact criteria used - we have received no details to date.
Urgent requirements for Fairview
1. What should residents do?
2. What should the roads and traffic authorities do?
3. What should the public transport authorities do?
DART station in Fairview: there has been a crying need for a long time to build a DART station in Fairview. The nearest stations at the moment are Connolly and Killester. This is particularly frustrating for residents as we regularly see the DART travelling through Fairview Park - where they are washed. A station in Fairview was recommended by the Dublin Transport Initiative (DTI).
We also believe that such a station would be of major benefit to much of the Northside in general if a car park was provided so that a `Park & Ride' system could be introduced.
Bus service: While in general we are very happy with the local bus service - especially the new 123 Imp route - we feel that improvements can be made:
4. What should
the Garda do?
The above measures will be of no benefit if they are ignored. We want the
Garda to be more vigilant when it comes to dangerous driving and dangerous
parking in the area. More patrols are needed, especially on foot to enforce
these measures.
This is especially important:
Fairview residents feel strongly that our area is in danger of becoming someplace to travel through rather than to live. The Committee puts a lot of effort into trying to ensure that Fairview continues with its long-standing stable, owner-occupied population. The through-traffic situation is rapidly becoming unbearable.
We believe that the above package of measures, if enacted in a timely manner, do a lot to allay our concerns and calm traffic in the area. However if they do not work or are not put into place rapidly enough then more radical steps may become necessary. These could include:
We hope we will not have to look for these measures - but we will if necessary.
Recommendations for Dublin - what Dublin should not do
The Residents Association, at its 1994 AGM, reiterated its long-standing opposition to the proposed Eastern Bypass / Port Access Relief Route / Northern Port Access Route from Whitehall to Dublin Port. Our opposition is based on the following premisses:
It is undemocratic.
This road, or those very similar to it, has been rejected on many occasions by both Dublin Corporation and the Dept. of the Environment. Over the years, local opposition in many areas has been vigorous and consistent. It is not the road proposed by the DTI who, although they were an unelected body, at least looked at the full picture of Dublin's transport problems and consulted the public. It is very similar to roads proposed and rejected again and again in Dublin City Development plans: the main differences being tunnelling and cost.
Most of all, everyone involved in opposing this road in the past thought that the fight was over. No consultation with interested parties took place. Instead the decision to build the NPAR was presented as a fait accompli and as the northside of Dublin's equivalent of the southside's two light-rail links.
It will only increase traffic
All over the world, from San Francisco to Birmingham, it has been shown time and time again that building more roads leads to more traffic with all its attendant disadvantages (parking problems, increased air and noise pollution, traffic jams in city centres where the new roads all meet, increased frustration, lack of investment in public transport etc.). The tendency for this road to become a "fast-track" for non-port traffic has already been demonstrated by calls to scrap the planned tolling of car traffic.
Southern leg inevitable
The long-running campaign to surround Dublin with a motorway, to change the planned "C-ring" into a "D-ring", will not go away when half of the remaining leg has been built. It is inevitable that the roads lobby will press for a "Southern Port Access Relief Route" to complement its northside twin. This will involve further expenditure on a massive scale in order to tunnel underneath the Liffey and Sandymount Strand. Relief of heavy traffic travelling through Sandymount -lorries bound for the RORO terminals in the Port in particular, perhaps on their way from Wexford - will again be used as an excuse. This second phase will, of course, be in addition to the inevitable overrun on budgeted costs for a project of this size and duration.
Environmental considerations
The Marino / Fairview area is mostly built on land reclaimed from the sea. Tunnelling through this area has the potential to cause major subsidence - particularly given the age of the housing stock.
Fairview Park, the single major local public amenity, would suffer long-term disruption as the tunnelling in this area is due to be of the `cut & cover' rather than `bored' variety. This disruption would come only shortly after the park has recovered from the major (but small in comparison to the Eastern Bypass) work necessitated by the maintenance of the North Dublin Drainage scheme.
There would be a large increase in the traffic in the East Wall area - a residential area with major traffic difficulties already. In addition the inevitable increase in traffic (see above) in Dublin as a whole will lead to an increase in noise and air pollution.
Money better used for other projects
The key argument must come down to how best to spend scarce resources. Is the proposed Whitehall to the port route - the "Northern Port Access Route" (NPAR) - the best and most cost effective way to solve Dublin Port's and Dublin City's traffic problems? It has been reported that the government has allocated £104 million to the NPAR, £27 million more than the DTI's proposed two-lane highway which is acknowledged by all concerned to be sufficient to cater for port-related heavy goods traffic. The full Ove Arup proposed "Port Access & Eastern Relief Route ", the PAERR, has been estimated to cost £304 million. And yet most port-related traffic comes from the west and, upon completion of the "C-ring", future easy access to a western port relief route for southern and northern traffic will be made considerably simpler. Of course it should also be borne in mind that private finance is available for a western port relief route (the Liffey Tunnel). Some of the statistics arguing in favour of an eastern bypass in some shape or form rather than this west-east link are simply nonsensical (eg. that five times more traffic cross the Liffey Bridges as there is going along the quays: this is an invalid comparison as it is impossible for traffic to reach the port by travelling the length of the quays without crossing at least one bridge and it does not count the traffic travelling on the roads parallel with the quays but does count all traffic on every bridge on a 1.5 mile stretch crossing the Liffey.)
Viable alternatives exist
We are strongly of the opinion that the question which needs to be asked is: how best can we allocate available resources to solve Dublin's transport problems, rather than any narrower question. Asking the right question will yield sensible solutions.
Issues involved in Dublin's transport problems includes, but is not limited to, access to Dublin Port. The alternative, apparently more cost effective, route - the Liffey Tunnel - must be given more serious consideration. Other options for solving transport - not merely traffic - problems have been outlined above and are detailed in the DTI's report. However it does seem simply wrong to replace the proposed light-rail route to Ballymun with the NPAR.
Recommendations for Dublin - what Dublin should do
The NPAR is been presented as the transport solution for Dublin's northside: the southside is due to get two light rail routes while there will be no light-rail north of the Liffey. We are strongly of the opinion that, in general, Dublin's transport problems can only be solved by increased investment in public transport. Not only is light-rail required, so is a DART station in Fairview with park-and-ride facilities (see above), cross-city radial and circumferential bus routes, traffic calming measures, improved facilities for disabled and elderly people and so on. The DTI's philosophy was that these measures must be implemented as a package as various elements interlink and support one another - this seems eminently sensible and it would be nothing less than ridiculous to implement one expensive option and leave no money to implement a range of cheaper, more effective options.
A small sample of these options include:
. . 