Chesterfield, Cross Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin

TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND MOBILITY REPORT CHESTERFIELD, CROSS AVENUE, BLACKROCK, CO. DUBLIN

Proposed Residential Development at Chesterfield, Cross Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin

Traffic Assessment and Mobility Report

Barrett Mahony Consulting Engineers

Dr Martin Rogers Transport Planning Professional

October 2018

CONTENTS

1 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY ...... 4

2 SITE LOCATION, EXISTING ROAD NETWORK AND DETAILS OF TRAFFIC SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN ...... 5

3 TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 6

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 3.2 TRIPS GENERATED BY CANDIDATE SITE ...... 6 3.3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ...... 8 3.4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT ...... 8 3.5 GENERAL COMMENT ON TRIP GENERATION FIGURES ...... 9 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON 2 NO. ADJACENT MAJOR JUNCTIONS ...... 9

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 4.2 ANALYSIS OF BOOTERSTOWN AVENUE / CROSS AVENUE / SAN SOUCI PARK SIGNALISED JUNCTION ...... 9 4.2.1 Geometric parameters ...... 9 4.2.2 Signal timings and phasing ...... 10 4.2.3 Analysis of existing AM and PM peak hour flows ...... 11 4.2.4 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows without development in place (Do-nothing scenarios) ...... 13 4.2.5 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows with development in place (Do-something scenarios) ...... 17 4.3 ANALYSIS OF MOUNT MERRION AVENUE / CROSS AVENUE / WOODVIEW SIGNALISED JUNCTION ...... 21 4.3.1 Geometric parameters ...... 21 4.3.2 Signal timings and phasing ...... 21 4.3.3 Analysis of existing AM and PM peak hour flows ...... 22 4.3.4 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows without development in place (Do-nothing scenarios) ...... 25 4.3.5 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows with development in place (Do-something scenarios) ...... 29 4.4 COMMENT ON OVERALL EFFICIENCY OF LOCAL NETWORK AS ANALYSED...... 33 5 COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL ...... 34

6 MOBILITY PLAN - PUBLIC TRANSPORT, WALKING AND CYCLING FACILITIES SERVING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 36

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 36 6.2 DUBLIN BUS ...... 36 6.3 DART ...... 37 6.4 INTERURBAN RAIL ...... 38 6.5 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ROUTES SERVING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 38 6.5.1 Pedestrian facilities ...... 38 6.5.2 Cycle facilities ...... 39 7 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TRANSPORTATION TERMS ...... 39

FIGURES Figure 1: Site plan indicating the proposed development entrance onto Cross Avenue Figure 2: Location of site relative to 2 No. major junctions in its vicinity Figure 4: Existing flows at Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions - PA peak

Figure 4: Existing flows at Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions - PM peak Figure 5: Development flows incident on Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions - AM peak Figure 6: Development flows incident on Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions - PM peak

Figure 7: Core Bus routes map and enlarged image showing 7 and 46a routes Figure 8: Diagrammatic representation of DART line Figure 9: Access from subject site to Blackrock DART Station Figure 10: Intercity rail network serving Dublin Figure 11: Existing cycle facilities in vicinity of candidate site Figure 12: New cycle facilities proposed in vicinity of candidate site under GDA Cycle Network

APPENDIX 1 Details of trip generation analysis for apartment and housing development types

1 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Cairn Homes Properties Limited is seeking permission for the development of a 3.4-hectare site at Chesterfield, Cross Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin. The proposed development consists of 221 No. new homes, of which 7 No. are houses and 214 No. are apartments. Amenity facilities including a crèche, gym, meeting room and cinema room are also proposed, accessed from the landscaped podium.

The proposed development thus consists of the following development types: • 214 No. apartments • 7 No. houses

To the south, the proposal incorporates 211No. apartments contained within 7No. buildings. Parking for these apartments will largely be located at basement level which accommodates 302 no. car parking spaces. To the north,14 No. spaces are located at grade to the front of the proposed 7 No. houses. Chesterfield House will accommodate 3no. apartments. for which 6no. resident parking spaces are provided on the south side of the road leading into the square.

3no. drop-off spaces for the crèche are proposed at surface level, along with a further 3no. crèche staff spaces at basement level. The total car parking provision is therefore 325no. spaces.

Bicycle parking is compliant with DLRCC standards and includes 274 no. spaces for both short and long stay located primarily within the basement.

This report contains a traffic assessment and mobility plan for the proposed development.

A site plan of the proposal is contained within Figure 1.

The traffic assessment will assess the existing, day-of-opening and design year (year-of-opening plus 15) flows at the following two junctions in the vicinity of the proposed development. This is completed in order to assess the impact of the proposed development on the efficient working of these junctions: 1. Cross Avenue / Booterstown Avenue / San Souci Park (signalised junction) 2. Cross Avenue / Mount Merrion Avenue / Woodview (signalised junction)

Section 2 provides details of the site location and the existing local road network.

Section 3 details the traffic predicted to be generated by the proposed development.

Section 4 provides the traffic analysis of the 2 No. junctions under scrutiny.

Section 5 demonstrates the compliance of the proposed development with the parking requirements of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council.

Section 6 details the public transport and soft mode access that would be available to residents and visitors at the proposed development.

Section 7 makes some concluding comments regarding the sustainability of the proposed project in transportation terms.

2 SITE LOCATION, EXISTING ROAD NETWORK AND DETAILS OF TRAFFIC SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN

The site is located south of Cross Avenue, approximately 500 metres west of its junction with Mount Merrion Avenue and approximately 250 metres east of its junction with Booterstown Avenue.

The location of the site relative to these two junctions is detailed within Figure 2.

Given that the proposed development is primarily residential, peak flows will typically occur on weekdays, with peak flows typically occurring between 7am and 9am in the morning and between 4pm and 6pm in the evening.

Accordingly, a traffic survey was carried out on Thursday 14th September 2017 at the 2 No. critical junctions.

The survey was carried out over a 12-hour period between 0700 and 1900 in order to ascertain the peak hour flows for all traffic movements at the 2 No. junctions.

The surveys indicated that the weekday morning peak occurred between 0800 and 0900 with the evening peak occurring between 1600 and 1700 – these were observed to be the timeframes during which the junctions were most heavily loaded. The following analysis is based on these peak periods.

The morning and evening peak hour flows for Thursday 14th September 2017 for both critical junctions are detailed in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.

It is assumed that the proposed development will open in 2021.

The 2017 survey will be factored up by approved NRA growth rates in order to derive both the 2021 day-of-opening network flows and the 2036 design year 2 flows. (The relevant NRA document is the Project Appraisal Guidelines: Unit 5.5, Link- Based Traffic Growth Forecasting)

Future flow predictions for 2021 and 2036 are based on annual traffic growth rates of 0.45% from late 2017 to 2036. This translates into a growth rate of 1.3% for 2017 to 2021, 9% for 2017 to 2036.

These are based on low to medium growth rate projections for Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, and would be considered robust given the medium to long term policy in Dublin city to significantly reduce car usage for the journey to work over the coming years.

The existing total flows at the 2 No. critical junctions in the vicinity of the proposed development are as follows: Morning peak Booterstown Avenues junction - 995 pcu’s Mount Merrion Avenue junction – 1363 pcu’s

Evening peak Booterstown Avenue junction - 966 pcu’s Mount Merrion Avenue junction - 1310 pcu’s

One can see that both nearby junctions are heavily loaded during both peaks.

Figure 3 contains a diagram of the morning peak hour flows at the 2 No. junctions.

Figure 4 contains a diagram of the evening peak hour flows at the 2 No. junctions.

3 TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION The traffic impact of the proposed development is derived by assessing the trips generated by the proposal and, taking the existing, day of opening and design year flows on the network, gauging the extent to which the superimposed flows from the proposed development will affect the efficiency of future network flows.

3.2 TRIPS GENERATED BY CANDIDATE SITE The proposed development consists of the following development types: • 214 No. apartments • 7 No. houses

In order to make the analysis as robust as possible, only surveys from Irish apartments on the TRICS database have been used. An examination of rates derived from Irish sites only and those based on a combination of Irish and UK sites indicated that Irish rates are higher.

TRICS typically gives the following weekday morning and evening peak trip rates for apartments using Irish sites only:

Weekday AM Weekday PM IN OUT IN OUT Apartments Trips/Unit 0.044 0.23 0.21 0.049

Table 3-1: Peak hour trip rates for apartments within development site

The above TRICS trip rates give rise to the following weekday morning and evening peak trip rates for apartments:

Weekday AM Weekday PM Units (No.) IN OUT IN OUT Apartments 214 9 48 44 10 Table 3-2: Peak hour flows generated by proposed apartments within development site TRICS typically gives the following weekday morning and evening peak trip rates for privately owned housing (Both UK and Irish sites were used as there are an insufficient number of Irish housing surveys on the TRICS Database:

Weekday AM Weekday PM IN OUT IN OUT Houses Trips/Unit 0.172 0.383 0.362 0.197

Table 3-3: Peak hour trip rates for private housing within development site

The above TRICS trip rates give rise to the following weekday morning and evening peak trip rates for houses:

Weekday AM Weekday PM Units (No.) IN OUT IN OUT Houses 7 1 3 2 1

Table 3-4: Peak hour flows generated by proposed apartments within development site

The following are the combined flows generated by development types within the candidate site for the evening peak:

Weekday AM Weekday PM IN OUT IN OUT Apartments 9 48 44 10 Private housing 1 3 2 1 Total generated 10 51 46 11 flows Table 3-5: Total flows generated by proposed development within candidate site (excluding petrol filing station)

3.3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION All development flows will enter and exit the development via the junction on Cross Avenue as detailed within Figure 1.

These flows are split 50:50 between the two junctions based on observation of the existing flows along Cross Avenue which indicates a general balance between the two directional flows.

Figure 5 contains a diagram of incident development flows incident on the 2 No. nearby junctions during the morning peak.

Figure 6 contains a diagram of incident development flows incident on the 2 No. nearby junctions during the evening peak.

3.4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT The 2014 Traffic and Transport Guidelines published by the NRA requires that the relevant junctions be analysed for the existing situation, the year of opening (2021) with and without the development in place, the design year 1 (year of opening plus 5) with and without the development in place, and the design year 2 (year of opening plus 15) with and without the development in place.

In the interests of brevity, the year of opening plus 5 has been omitted from this report.

An annual growth rate of 0.5% has been assumed, based on the medium growth estimate for Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council published by the NRA in 2011.

This growth rate is seen as robust given the stated policy for Dublin city to reduce car usage for the journey to work significantly over the medium and long term.

The 2021 Do-Nothing (‘without development’) scenario is derived by factoring the survey results in Figures 3 and 4 up by 2% ((1.005)2 – 1 = 0.01). The 2021 Do-Something (‘with development’) scenario is derived by adding the development flows detailed within Figures 5 and 6 to these factored network flows.

The 2036 Do-Nothing (‘without development’) scenario is derived by factoring the survey results in Figures 3 and 4 up by 8.8% ((1.005)17 – 1 = 0.088). The 2036 Do-Something (‘with development’) scenario is derived by adding the development flows detailed within Figures 5 and 6 to these factored network flows.

3.5 GENERAL COMMENT ON TRIP GENERATION FIGURES One can see that the trips generated by the proposed development are relatively light. Less than 1 vehicle per minute enters / exits the proposed residential development at peak times.

4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON 2 NO. ADJACENT MAJOR JUNCTIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section analyses the impact of the proposed development on the following 2 No. junctions: • Booterstown Avenue / Cross Avenue / San Souci Park signalised junction • Mount Merrion Avenue / Cross Avenue / Woodview signalised junction

In both cases, five scenarios are evaluated: • Existing flows (AM and PM peak) • 2021 flows without development in place (AM and PM peak) • 2021 flows with development in place (AM and PM peak) • 2036 flows without development in place (AM and PM peak) • 2036 flows with development in place (AM and PM peak)

The OSCADY programme was used to model the incident peak- hour flows at both junctions.

4.2 ANALYSIS OF BOOTERSTOWN AVENUE / CROSS AVENUE / SAN SOUCI PARK SIGNALISED JUNCTION 4.2.1 Geometric parameters For the junction in question, the following geometric characteristics apply: Booterstown Avenue Nth (Arm A) 2 No. lanes, inside lane for left-turning traffic only, outside lane for straight-ahead and right-turning, both assumed to be 2.0 metres wide

Cross Avenue (Arm B) 1 No. lane, for straight ahead, right-turning and left-turning traffic assumed to be 3.65 metres wide

Booterstown Avenue South (Arm C) 1 No. lane, for straight ahead, right-turning and left-turning traffic assumed to be 4.0 metres wide San Souci Park (Arm D) 1 No. lane, for straight ahead, right-turning and left-turning traffic assumed to be 3.5 metres wide

The labelling system is shown in Figure 2.

4.2.2 Signal timings and phasing A basic 4-phase signal cycle is in place at the junction, as observed within the September 2017 survey, configured as follows:

Phase 1 All northbound and southbound traffic (Arms A and C) along the Booterstown Avenue approaches have priority (right-turners from Arm C opposed). Cross Avenue traffic stopped along with San Souci. Phase 2 All northbound traffic exiting Booterstown Avenue South (Arm C) has priority (right-turners unopposed). All other approaches are stopped. Phase 3 All traffic exiting Cross Avenue and San Souci Park has priority. Booterstown Avenue is stopped Phase 4 Pedestrian priority phase. All traffic stopped.

Times allocated to each phase will vary. However, in general, based on the observations during the traffic survey in September 2017, the following timings have been used for the morning and evening peaks within this analysis: Morning peak Phase 1: 60 seconds Phase 2: 10 seconds Phase 3: 20 seconds Phase 4: 10 seconds Total cycle time = 120 seconds, with Intergreen Period set at 5 seconds Evening peak Phase 1: 35 seconds Phase 2: 16 seconds Phase 3: 12 seconds Phase 4: 7 seconds Total cycle time = 90 seconds, with Intergreen Period set at 5 seconds

While these two sets of timings would appear upon inspection not to be optimised, with timings allocated to Cross Avenue appearing low, the above timings have been used within this report to mirror the existing reality as closely as possible.

It must be stated that the priority at present at both junctions is to keep the flows along both Booterstown Avenue and Mount

Merrion Avenue moving as smoothly as possible given the heavy loadings on both approaches.

4.2.3 Analysis of existing AM and PM peak hour flows Tables 4-1 and 4-2 immediately below detail the flows, capacities, RFC’s and queue lengths for the existing morning and evening peaks:

Morning peak hour 2017 (existing flows)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.01 11.93 0.17 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 4.59 14.02 0.33 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 4.53 4.16 1.09 16 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.53 16.20 0.40 5 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.40 4.13 0.10 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 3.08 11.93 0.26 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.58 14.01 0.40 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.47 4.13 0.84 10 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 8.47 14.09 0.60 7 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.13 4.18 0.03 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.27 11.93 0.19 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 3.60 14.73 0.24 4 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.87 4.11 0.94 11 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.67 15.96 0.42 5 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.07 4.14 0.02 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.84 11.93 0.15 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 4.83 14.68 0.33 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.27 4.10 0.31 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 2.93 13.80 0.21 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 4.20 0.05 1 Table 4-1: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for existing 2017 flows

Evening peak hour 2017 (existing flows)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.89 9.44 0.20 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 8.31 11.47 0.72 9 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.47 3.44 1.00 10 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.67 10.47 0.54 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 3.58 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.36 9.44 0.25 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.57 11.61 0.57 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 0.87 3.45 0.25 2 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.20 11.30 0.55 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 3.54 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.50 9.44 0.16 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.16 11.56 0.53 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 2.13 3.45 0.62 4 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 4.93 11.78 0.42 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.67 3.57 0.19 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.70 9.44 0.18 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.50 11.62 0.47 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.60 3.37 0.48 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 4.53 12.67 0.36 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.00 3.68 0.00 0 Table 4-2: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for existing 2017 flows

It can be seen that the junction is quite heavily loaded within both the morning and evening peaks, with the Cross Avenue at capacity for one 15-minute period during both peaks.

Queuing on both Cross Avenue and Booterstown Avenue is quite high during both peaks.

4.2.4 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows without development in place (Do-nothing scenarios) Tables 4-3 to 4-6 immediately below detail the flows, capacities, RFC’s and queue lengths for the 2021 and 2036 morning and evening peaks with the development not in place (year of opening and design year without development in place):

Morning peak hour 2021 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.01 11.93 0.17 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 4.66 14.02 0.33 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 4.60 4.16 1.10 17 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.60 16.20 0.40 5 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.41 4.13 0.10 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 3.14 11.93 0.26 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.59 14.01 0.40 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.53 4.13 0.86 11 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 8.53 14.07 0.61 7 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.13 4.18 0.03 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.30 11.93 0.19 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 3.64 14.73 0.25 4 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.87 4.11 0.94 12 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.73 15.91 0.42 5 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.07 4.14 0.02 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.84 11.93 0.15 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 4.90 14.68 0.33 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.27 4.10 0.31 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 3.00 13.80 0.22 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 4.20 0.05 1 Table 4-3: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for 2021 flows without development in place

Evening peak hour 2021 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.93 9.44 0.21 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 8.40 11.47 0.73 9 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.53 3.44 1.02 11 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.73 10.39 0.55 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 3.58 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.39 9.44 0.25 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.61 11.61 0.57 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 0.87 3.45 0.25 2 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.20 11.24 0.55 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 3.54 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.50 9.44 0.16 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.23 11.56 0.54 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 2.13 3.45 0.62 4 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.00 11.76 0.43 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.67 3.57 0.19 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.72 9.44 0.18 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.55 11.62 0.48 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.60 3.37 0.48 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 4.60 12.70 0.36 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.00 3.68 0.00 0 Table 4-4: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2021 flows without development in place

Morning peak hour 2036 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.18 11.93 0.18 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.02 13.93 0.36 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 4.93 4.16 1.18 21 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 7.13 15.89 0.45 6 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.43 4.13 0.11 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 3.37 11.93 0.28 4 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.03 13.91 0.43 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.80 4.13 0.92 17 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 9.20 13.61 0.68 8 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.15 4.19 0.04 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.48 11.93 0.21 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 3.92 14.73 0.27 4 Cross Ave L+S+R 4.20 4.11 1.02 19 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 7.27 15.67 0.46 6 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.07 4.14 0.02 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.03 11.93 0.17 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.24 14.68 0.36 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.40 4.10 0.34 4 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 3.20 13.36 0.24 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.22 4.20 0.05 1 Table 4-5: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for 2036 flows without development in place

Evening peak hour 2036 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.07 9.44 0.22 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 9.06 11.45 0.79 10 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.80 3.44 1.10 13 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.20 10.00 0.62 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.22 3.58 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.58 9.44 0.27 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 7.17 11.61 0.62 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 0.93 3.45 0.27 2 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.73 11.24 0.63 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.22 3.54 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.62 9.44 0.17 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.71 11.55 0.58 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 2.33 3.45 0.68 4 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.40 11.27 0.48 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.67 3.57 0.19 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.84 9.44 0.20 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.96 11.61 0.51 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.73 3.37 0.52 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 4.93 12.22 0.40 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.00 3.68 0.00 0 Table 4-6: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2036 flows without development in place

It can be seen that the 2021 data is virtually identical to the results from the analysis of the existing situation. By 2036, with a growth rate on the network of 9% factored in, it can be seen that the junction remains quite heavily loaded during peaks, with the Cross Avenue over capacity for one 15-minute period during both peaks.

Queuing on all major accesses is quite high during both peaks, increasing marginally by 2036 on Cross Avenue (by a maximum of 5 No. vehicles in the morning peak and by a maximum of 3 No. vehicles in the evening peak relative to the existing situation).

4.2.5 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows with development in place (Do-something scenarios) Tables 4-7 to 4-10 immediately below detail the flows, capacities, RFC’s and queue lengths for the 2021 and 2036 morning and evening peaks with the development in place (year of opening and design year with development in place):

Morning peak hour 2021 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.06 11.93 0.17 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 4.67 14.03 0.33 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 5.00 4.16 1.20 21 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.67 16.02 0.42 5 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.41 4.13 0.10 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 3.13 11.93 0.26 4 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.69 14.02 0.40 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.93 4.13 0.95 22 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 8.60 13.88 0.62 7 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.13 4.19 0.03 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.32 11.93 0.19 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 3.68 14.73 0.25 4 Cross Ave L+S+R 4.33 4.11 1.05 22 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.80 15.77 0.43 6 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.07 4.15 0.02 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.94 11.93 0.16 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 4.86 14.68 0.33 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.73 4.10 0.42 5 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 3.00 13.71 0.22 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 4.20 0.05 1 Table 4-7: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for 2021 flows with development in place

Evening peak hour 2021 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.16 9.44 0.23 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 8.38 11.47 0.73 9 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.60 3.44 1.05 12 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.93 10.19 0.58 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 3.59 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.60 9.44 0.28 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.60 11.56 0.57 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.00 3.45 0.29 2 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.40 11.43 0.58 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.20 3.58 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.69 9.44 0.18 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.24 11.56 0.54 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 2.27 3.45 0.66 4 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.20 11.43 0.46 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.67 3.58 0.19 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.92 9.44 0.20 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.55 11.62 0.48 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.73 3.37 0.52 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 4.80 12.31 0.39 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.00 3.68 0.00 0 Table 4-8: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2021 flows with development in place

Morning peak hour 2036 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.21 11.93 0.19 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.06 13.96 0.36 5 Cross Ave L+S+R 5.40 4.16 1.30 21 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 7.13 15.75 0.45 6 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.43 4.13 0.11 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 3.40 11.93 0.29 4 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.07 13.94 0.44 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 4.20 4.13 1.02 28 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 9.20 13.50 0.68 8 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.15 4.19 0.04 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.48 11.93 0.21 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 3.99 14.73 0.27 4 Cross Ave L+S+R 4.60 4.11 1.11 29 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 7.33 15.50 0.47 6 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.07 4.14 0.02 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.05 11.93 0.17 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.28 14.68 0.36 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.80 4.10 0.44 7 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 3.27 13.22 0.25 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.22 4.20 0.05 1 Table 4-9: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for 2036 flows with development in place

Evening peak hour 2036 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.31 9.44 0.25 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 9.02 11.45 0.79 10 Cross Ave L+S+R 3.87 3.44 1.12 13 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.40 9.81 0.65 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.22 3.59 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.80 9.44 0.30 3 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 7.13 11.61 0.61 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.07 3.45 0.31 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 6.93 10.61 0.65 5 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.22 3.56 0.06 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 1.81 9.44 0.19 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 6.72 11.55 0.58 7 Cross Ave L+S+R 2.40 3.45 0.70 4 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.60 11.02 0.51 4 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.67 3.58 0.19 1

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Booterstown Ave Nth L 2.06 9.44 0.22 2 Booterstown Ave Nth S+R 5.94 11.61 0.51 6 Cross Ave L+S+R 1.87 3.37 0.55 3 Booterstown Ave Sth L+S+R 5.13 11.92 0.43 3 San Souci Pk L+S+R 0.00 3.68 0.00 0 Table 4-10: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2036 flows with development in place

It can be seen that, with the development in place on the day of opening in 2021, the maximum ratio of capacity will have risen to 1.2 for the morning peak and 1.05 for the evening peak on Cross Avenue, increasing from values of 1.1 and 1.02 for 2021 without the development in place. All other approaches remain within capacity during both peaks.

Queuing along Cross Avenue increases from a maximum of 17 No. vehicles for the morning peak and 11 No. vehicles for the evening peak, without the development in place in 2021, to 22 No. and 12 No. for 2021 with the development operational.

By 2036, 15 years after opening, with the development in place, the maximum ratio of capacity will have risen to 1.3 for the morning peak and 1.12 for the evening peak on Cross Avenue, increasing from values of 1.18 and 1.10 without the development in place. All other approaches remain within capacity during both peaks.

By 2036, queuing along Cross Avenue was predicted to increase from a maximum of 21 No. vehicles without the

development in place for the morning peak to 29 No. with the development operational. For the evening peak, with the development operational maximum queuing remains at 13 No. vehicles.

It should be noted that the development will result in a 2-way flow of 1 vehicle every 2 minutes at the Cross Avenue/ Booterstown Avenue junction.

The queuing along Cross Avenue is the result of this arm of the junction having relatively little green time – approximately 16 to 17% during both peaks. A relatively small increase in green time along this link will significantly reduce queuing.

4.3 ANALYSIS OF MOUNT MERRION AVENUE / CROSS AVENUE / WOODVIEW SIGNALISED JUNCTION 4.3.1 Geometric parameters For the junction in question, the following geometric characteristics apply: Cross Avenue (Arm A) 2 No. lanes, inside lane for left-turning traffic only, outside lane for straight-ahead and right-turning, both assumed to be 3.0 metres wide Mount Merrion Nth (Arm B) 2 No. lanes, inside lane for left-turning and straight-ahead traffic, outside lane for right-turning only, both assumed to be 3.0 metres wide Woodview (Arm C) 1 No. lane, for straight ahead, right-turning and left-turning traffic assumed to be 3.5 metres wide Mount Merrion Sth (Arm D) 2 No. lanes, inside lane for left-turning traffic only, outside lane for straight-ahead and right-turning, both assumed to be 3.0 metres wide

The labelling system is shown in Figure 2.

4.3.2 Signal timings and phasing A basic 5-phase signal cycle is in place at the junction, as observed within the September 2017 survey, configured as follows:

Phase 1 All northbound and southbound traffic (Arms B and D) along the Mount Merrion Avenue approaches have priority (right- turners from both arms opposed). Cross Avenue traffic stopped along with Woodview. Phase 2 All southbound traffic exiting Mount Merrion Avenue North (Arm B) has priority (right-turners unopposed). All other approaches are stopped. Phase 3 All traffic exiting Cross Avenue has priority. All other traffic is stopped Phase 4

All traffic exiting Woodview has priority. All other traffic is stopped Phase 5 Pedestrian priority phase. All traffic stopped.

Times allocated to each phase will vary. However, in general, based on the observations during the traffic survey in September 2017, the following timings have been used for the morning and evening peaks within this analysis: Morning peak Phase 1: 55 seconds Phase 2: 20 seconds Phase 3: 15 seconds Phase 4: 5 seconds Phase 5: 10 seconds Total cycle time = 130 seconds, with Intergreen Period set at 5 seconds Evening peak Phase 1: 40 seconds Phase 2: 15 seconds Phase 3: 15 seconds Phase 4: 5 seconds Phase 5: 5 seconds Total cycle time = 105 seconds, with Intergreen Period set at 5 seconds

While these two sets of timings would appear upon inspection again not to be optimised, with timings allocated to Cross Avenue appearing low, the above timings have been used within this report to mirror the existing reality as closely as possible.

4.3.3 Analysis of existing AM and PM peak hour flows Tables 4-11 and 4-12 immediately below detail the flows, capacities, RFC’s and queue lengths for the existing morning and evening peaks:

Morning peak hour 2017 (existing flows)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.48 3.12 0.80 7 Cross Ave S+R 3.39 3.35 1.01 12 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.23 19.94 0.16 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 4.44 4.36 1.01 14 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.40 0.10 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 6.74 10.67 0.63 9 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 3.66 13.10 0.28 5

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.22 3.12 0.71 6 Cross Ave S+R 2.65 3.34 0.79 8 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.55 20.01 0.18 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 3.65 4.36 0.84 11 Woodview L+S+R 0.20 1.37 0.15 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 7.01 10.67 0.66 10 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.72 13.22 0.43 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.19 3.12 0.70 6 Cross Ave S+R 2.94 3.34 0.88 9 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.41 20.01 0.27 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.79 4.36 0.64 6 Woodview L+S+R 0.27 1.33 0.20 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 3.88 10.67 0.36 5 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.59 13.22 0.42 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 2.18 3.12 0.70 6 Cross Ave S+R 2.56 3.35 0.76 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.67 19.96 0.28 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 0.79 4.36 0.18 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.07 1.28 0.05 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.07 10.67 0.10 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.60 13.07 0.51 9 Table 4-11: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for existing 2017 flows

Evening peak hour 2017 (existing flows)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.08 5.03 0.61 7 Cross Ave S+R 3.52 5.41 0.65 8 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.99 15.58 0.45 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.21 4.14 0.54 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.61 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 2.10 7.37 0.29 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.90 8.77 0.67 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.65 5.03 0.73 5 Cross Ave S+R 5.42 5.41 1.03 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.55 15.62 0.48 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.05 4.14 0.25 4 Woodview L+S+R 0.20 1.59 0.13 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.13 7.37 0.15 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.53 8.90 0.62 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 1.40 5.03 0.28 2 Cross Ave S+R 2.93 5.40 0.54 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.83 15.63 0.44 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 0.91 4.14 0.22 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.59 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.75 7.37 0.24 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.38 8.88 0.72 9

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 1.77 5.03 0.35 3 Cross Ave S+R 2.43 5.43 0.45 4 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.46 15.54 0.42 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.28 4.14 0.31 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.60 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.38 7.37 0.19 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.22 8.56 0.61 7 Table 4-12: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for existing 2017 flows

It can be seen that the junction is quite heavily loaded within both the morning and evening peaks, with the Cross Avenue over capacity for one 15-minute period during both peaks.

Queuing on all major accesses is quite high during both peaks.

4.3.4 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows without development in place (Do-nothing scenarios) Tables 4-13 to 4-66 immediately below detail the flows, capacities, RFC’s and queue lengths for the 2021 and 2036 morning and evening peaks with the development not in place (year of opening and design year without development in place):

Morning peak hour 2021 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.48 3.12 0.80 7 Cross Ave S+R 3.39 3.35 1.01 12 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.20 19.94 0.16 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 4.40 4.36 1.01 15 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.40 0.10 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 6.71 10.67 0.63 9 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 3.63 13.10 0.28 5

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 1.82 3.12 0.58 4 Cross Ave S+R 3.12 3.34 0.93 11 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.66 20.01 0.18 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 3.60 4.36 0.83 10 Woodview L+S+R 0.20 1.38 0.15 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 8.09 10.67 0.76 12 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 4.78 13.22 0.36 6

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.22 3.12 0.71 6 Cross Ave S+R 2.98 3.34 0.89 12 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.50 20.01 0.28 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.83 4.36 0.65 6 Woodview L+S+R 0.27 1.33 0.20 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 3.90 10.67 0.37 5 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.63 13.22 0.43 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 2.19 3.12 0.70 6 Cross Ave S+R 2.61 3.35 0.78 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.69 19.96 0.29 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 0.78 4.36 0.18 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.07 1.28 0.05 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.08 10.67 0.10 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.65 13.07 0.51 9 Table 4-13: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for 2021 flows without development in place

Evening peak hour 2021 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.08 3.86 0.80 7 Cross Ave S+R 3.52 4.15 0.85 8 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.02 18.61 0.38 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.24 6.84 0.33 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.62 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 2.13 9.70 0.22 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.94 11.66 0.51 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.65 3.86 0.95 10 Cross Ave S+R 5.48 4.15 1.32 29 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.62 18.66 0.41 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.04 7.09 0.15 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.20 1.59 0.13 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.14 9.70 0.12 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.59 11.79 0.47 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 1.40 3.86 0.36 3 Cross Ave S+R 2.93 4.15 0.71 13 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.89 18.66 0.37 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 0.91 6.46 0.14 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.59 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.75 9.70 0.18 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.45 11.78 0.55 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 1.80 3.86 0.47 3 Cross Ave S+R 2.47 4.16 0.59 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.52 18.55 0.35 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.28 7.48 0.17 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.60 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.38 9.70 0.14 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.29 11.43 0.46 6 Table 4-14: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2021 flows without development in place

Morning peak hour 2036 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.67 3.12 0.86 8 Cross Ave S+R 3.66 3.35 1.09 14 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.49 19.94 0.18 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 4.78 4.36 1.10 18 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.40 0.10 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 7.26 10.67 0.68 10 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 3.94 13.09 0.30 5

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.40 3.12 0.77 6 Cross Ave S+R 2.87 3.34 0.86 11 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.91 20.01 0.20 4 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 3.96 4.36 0.91 15 Woodview L+S+R 0.22 1.37 0.16 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 7.61 10.67 0.71 11 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.26 13.22 0.47 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.37 3.12 0.76 7 Cross Ave S+R 3.23 3.34 0.97 12 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.91 20.01 0.30 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 3.02 4.36 0.69 7 Woodview L+S+R 0.29 1.33 0.22 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 4.25 10.67 0.39 6 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.08 13.22 0.46 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 2.36 3.12 0.76 6 Cross Ave S+R 2.77 3.35 0.83 9 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.15 19.96 0.31 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 0.85 4.36 0.20 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.07 1.28 0.06 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.15 10.67 0.11 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 7.18 13.04 0.55 10 Table 4-15: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for 2036 flows without development in place

Evening peak hour 2036 (without development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.33 3.86 0.86 8 Cross Ave S+R 3.80 4.15 0.92 9 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.58 18.61 0.41 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.42 6.52 0.37 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.62 0.09 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 2.29 9.70 0.24 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.38 11.60 0.55 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.95 3.86 1.02 13 Cross Ave S+R 5.91 4.15 1.42 35 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 8.19 18.66 0.43 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.14 6.74 0.17 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.22 1.59 0.14 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.24 9.70 0.13 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.02 11.76 0.51 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 1.52 3.86 0.39 4 Cross Ave S+R 3.15 4.15 0.76 23 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.40 18.66 0.40 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.00 6.13 0.16 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.59 0.09 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.92 9.70 0.20 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.94 11.74 0.59 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 1.94 3.86 0.50 4 Cross Ave S+R 2.66 4.16 0.64 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.99 18.55 0.38 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.41 7.13 0.20 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.60 0.09 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.52 9.70 0.16 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.68 11.36 0.50 7 Table 4-16: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2036 flows without development in place

It can be seen that the 2021 ‘Do-nothing’ data indicates significant queuing on the Cross Avenue, Mount Merrion Avenue North and Mount Merrion Avenue South approaches during both the morning and evening peaks. By 2036, with a growth rate on the network of 9% factored in but the development not in place, queuing at these locations is predicted to increase marginally on 2021 ‘Do-nothing’ levels.

4.3.5 Analysis of 2021 and 2036 AM and PM peak hour flows with development in place (Do-something scenarios) Tables 4-17 to 4-20 immediately below detail the flows, capacities, RFC’s and queue lengths for the 2021 and 2036 morning and evening peaks with the development in place (year of opening and design year with development in place):

Morning peak hour 2021 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.68 3.12 0.86 8 Cross Ave S+R 3.65 3.35 1.09 14 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.25 19.94 0.16 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 4.48 4.36 1.03 15 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.40 0.10 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 6.79 10.67 0.64 9 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 3.67 13.10 0.28 5

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.44 3.12 0.78 7 Cross Ave S+R 2.89 3.34 0.87 11 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.59 20.01 0.18 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 3.74 4.36 0.83 12 Woodview L+S+R 0.20 1.38 0.15 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 7.15 10.67 0.67 10 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.79 13.22 0.44 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.40 3.12 0.77 7 Cross Ave S+R 3.20 3.34 0.96 12 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.45 20.01 0.27 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.88 4.36 0.66 6 Woodview L+S+R 0.27 1.33 0.20 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 3.97 10.67 0.37 5 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.63 13.22 0.43 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 2.41 3.12 0.77 7 Cross Ave S+R 2.79 3.35 0.83 9 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.69 19.96 0.29 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 0.85 4.36 0.20 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.07 1.28 0.05 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.14 10.67 0.11 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.60 13.07 0.51 9 Table 4-17: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for existing 2021 flows with development in place

Evening peak hour 2021 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.15 3.86 0.81 7 Cross Ave S+R 3.59 4.15 0.86 8 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.02 18.61 0.38 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.24 6.84 0.36 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.62 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 2.32 9.70 0.24 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.94 11.66 0.51 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.72 3.86 0.97 11 Cross Ave S+R 5.54 4.15 1.34 31 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.63 18.66 0.41 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.24 7.09 0.18 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.20 1.59 0.13 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.34 9.70 0.14 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.59 11.79 0.47 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 1.49 3.86 0.39 3 Cross Ave S+R 2.98 4.15 0.72 15 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.92 18.66 0.37 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.08 6.46 0.17 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.59 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.98 9.70 0.20 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.42 11.78 0.55 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 1.83 3.86 0.48 3 Cross Ave S+R 2.50 4.16 0.60 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.53 18.55 0.35 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.47 7.48 0.20 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.13 1.60 0.08 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.58 9.70 0.16 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.29 11.43 0.46 6 Table 4-18: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2021 flows with development in place

Morning peak hour 2036 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0800-0815 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.89 3.12 0.93 9 Cross Ave S+R 3.91 3.35 1.17 18 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.48 19.94 0.18 3 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 4.85 4.36 1.11 19 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.40 0.10 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 7.32 10.67 0.68 10 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 3.95 13.09 0.30 5

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0815-0830 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.63 3.12 0.84 8 Cross Ave S+R 3.11 3.34 0.93 17 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 3.89 20.01 0.19 4 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 4.04 4.36 0.93 18 Woodview L+S+R 0.22 1.37 0.16 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 7.68 10.67 0.72 11 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.26 13.22 0.47 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0830-0845 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 2.62 3.12 0.84 8 Cross Ave S+R 3.38 3.34 1.01 18 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 5.91 20.01 0.30 5 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 3.10 4.36 0.71 7 Woodview L+S+R 0.29 1.33 0.22 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 4.18 10.67 0.39 6 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.15 13.22 0.47 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 0845-0900 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 2.59 3.12 0.83 8 Cross Ave S+R 3.01 3.35 0.90 15 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 6.15 19.96 0.31 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 0.91 4.36 0.21 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.07 1.28 0.06 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.22 10.67 0.11 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 7.12 13.04 0.55 10 Table 4-19: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday morning peak hour for existing 2036 flows with development in place

Evening peak hour 2036 (with development in place)

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1600-1615 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 3.40 3.86 0.88 8 Cross Ave S+R 3.87 4.16 0.93 10 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.57 18.61 0.41 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 2.63 6.52 0.40 3 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.62 0.09 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 2.48 9.70 0.26 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.38 11.60 0.55 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1615-1630 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 4.02 3.86 1.04 14 Cross Ave S+R 5.98 4.15 1.44 38 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 8.20 18.66 0.44 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.34 6.74 0.20 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.22 1.59 0.14 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.44 9.70 0.15 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.02 11.76 0.51 7

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1630-1645 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave L 1.60 3.86 0.41 4 Cross Ave S+R 3.20 4.15 0.77 25 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.43 18.66 0.40 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.17 6.15 0.19 1 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.59 0.09 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 2.15 9.70 0.22 3 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 6.92 11.74 0.59 8

Flow Cap. RFC Max queue 1645-1700 (veh/min) (veh/min) (-) (veh/lane) Cross Ave S+R 1.97 3.86 0.51 4 Cross Ave S+R 2.69 4.16 0.65 7 Mount Merrion Ave Nth S+L 7.00 18.55 0.38 6 Mount Merrion Ave Nth R 1.60 7.13 0.22 2 Woodview L+S+R 0.15 1.60 0.09 1 Mount Merrion Ave Sth L 1.71 9.70 0.18 2 Mount Merrion Ave Sth S+R 5.68 11.36 0.50 7 Table 4-20: Ratios of flow to capacity and queue lengths for each 15-minute interval during the weekday evening peak hour for 2036 flows with development in place

It can be seen that the 2021 ‘Do-something’ data indicates significant queuing on the Cross Avenue, Mount Merrion Avenue North and Mount Merrion Avenue South approaches during both the morning and evening peaks, but with only marginal increases on the ‘Do-nothing’ scenario in both cases. By 2036, with the development in place, queuing at these locations is predicted to increase marginally on 2021 ‘Do- something’ levels.

4.4 COMMENT ON OVERALL EFFICIENCY OF LOCAL NETWORK AS ANALYSED The analysis of the existing situation confirms that, during both morning and evening peaks, the Cross Avenue approach to both signalised junctions is close to or at capacity, with resulting queuing sometimes in excess of 10 vehicles during its red time when other approaches have priority.

This results largely from the relatively limited green time per cycle allocated to Cross Avenue approach at both junctions. One assumes this is being done in order to maximise flows along the Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue approaches.

This report has used existing timings and has not attempted to re-allocate green times in order to effect reductions in queuing along Cross Avenue, as this will inevitably increase queuing elsewhere as both junctions are heavily loaded, with approximately 1000 pcu’s incident on the Booterstown Avenue junction and 1350 pcu’s incident on the Mount Merrion Avenue junction.

The proposed development will have a very limited effect on the workings of both junctions, increasing incident flows during both peaks by 6% at the Booterstown Avenue junction and 4% at the Mount Merrion Avenue – barely at levels where a TTA would be required under Transport Infrastructure Ireland Regulations (5% in congested areas).

It should also be noted that the assumed growth rate over the next 17 years of 0.5% is extremely robust, given the stated policy for Dublin city of a reduction in the modal split for the car from its existing level of 33% the coming years.

In Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, the current modal split for cars is 39%, with the planning authority stating in its 2016-2022 Development Plan that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council recognises that the current trends in transportation, in particular the domination of the private car as the preferred mode choice are unsustainable. As a result, future transportation plans for the area involve enhancement of public transport, cycling and walking networks to actively achieve increase modal splits for these methods of travel. In this context, therefore, using a growth rate of zero percent could have been well justified.

5 COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL

Table 5-1 below details the maximum car and bicycle parking standards for Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council based on the rates contained within their 2016 – 2022 Development Plan Written Statement:

Development Area / DLRCC Car parking Parking required type units standards

Apartments 1-bed 29 No. 1.0 per unit 29

Apartments 2-bed 105 No. 1.5 per unit 158

Apartments 3-bed 80 No. 2.0 per unit 160

Houses 3-bed 7 No. 2.0 per unit 14

TOTAL 221 361

DLRCC Bike parking Parking required standards

Apartments 214 No. 1 No. short stay 257 space per 5 units plus 1 No. long stay space per 1 unit

Houses 7 No. 1 No. short stay 9 space per 5 units plus 1 No. long stay space per 1 unit

Total 266

Table 5-1: Parking required under Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan Standards Total car parking provision: 325 No. spaces (302 No. basement plus 23 No. surface)

This provision amounts to 1.47 spaces per unit, 90% of the Development Plan provision and is seen as being completely sustainable given the central urban location of the proposed development, and its proximity to both the Stillorgan Road QBC and to the DART line. The guidance contained in the recently published Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments (March 2018) is also noted, in that where a development is located in close proximity to public transport in urban settings, parking numbers should be minimised, substantially reduced or wholly eliminated in certain circumstances.

The Design Standards for New Apartments (March 2018) also outline: “For all types of location, where it is sought to eliminate or reduce car parking provision, it is necessary to ensure... provision is also to be made for alternative mobility solutions including facilities for car sharing club vehicles.” The Applicant has approached a car club operator GoCar with regard to provision of shared car club vehicles within the

development. GoCar have provided a letter of support indicating they are willing to provide 2no. shared car club vehicles within the development, to be located at basement level.

A total of 14no. disabled parking spaces will be provided within the overall total of 325no. spaces which equates to a rate of 4.3% and is compliant therefore with the DLRCC County Development Plan standard of 4% provision.

A total of 9no. motorcycle parking spaces are included at basement level for residents. The DLRCC County Development Plan standard requires a minimum of 4 spaces per 100 car spaces which equates to a total requirement of 13no. spaces. The motorcycle parking provision is therefore 70% of the overall motorcycle parking standards. However it is acknowledged that additional parking may be provided for motorcycles where demand arises, through conversion of some parking associated with 3-bed apartments.

To encourage the use of Electric Vehicles, in line with Council and National Policy, the DLRCC County Development Plan requires a minimum of 1no. car parking space per 10no. residential units to be equipped with fully functional electrical vehicle car charging equipment (i.e. 23no. spaces required). The total electric car charging space provision proposed at basement level is 29no. spaces which equates to 126% of the DLRCC requirements.

Total cycle parking provision: 274 No. parking units, amounting to 1.24 units per dwelling, amounting to 103% of DLRCC Development Plan requirements. The guidance contained in the recently published Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments (March 2018) is also noted, where it is required that at a minimum 1 cycle space per bedroom is provided, with 1 cycle space per 2 residential dwellings provided for visitor cycle parking. This equates to 479no. spaces plus 111no. visitor parking spaces (i.e. 590 spaces in total to serve the apartments). While compliant with the DLRCC Development Plan requirements, the cycle parking provision amounts to 46% of the requirements outlined in the Design Standards for New Apartments (March 2018).

It is considered that given the site’s location in close proximity to a range of high-quality, frequent, public transport options that the proposed 274No. cycle parking spaces is adequate and indeed exceeds DLRCCs standards. The proposed development will operate under a Management Company and they will undertake regular audits to ensure that the cycle parking provision is meeting the demand following occupation of the scheme.

6 MOBILITY PLAN - PUBLIC TRANSPORT, WALKING AND CYCLING FACILITIES SERVING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION A Mobility Management Plan (MMP) consists of a package of measures put in place by an applicant in order to encourage and support more sustainable travel patterns among both residents and visitors at the proposed development.

The package usually includes measures to promote and improve attractiveness of using public transport, cycling, walking, car-sharing / car clubs. It should be considered a dynamic process where a package of measures are identified, piloted and monitored on an ongoing basis.

A MMP prepared at planning stage, before the development is built and occupied, can only highlight potential issues to be included in a subsequent MMP to be prepared once the development has obtained a grant and is built and occupied.

The environmental and congestion impacts of car-based transport has resulted in policy changes where the priority of more sustainable forms of travel has increased. The MMP helps to encourage use of modes of travel other than the private car.

MMP’s are intended to bring the following benefits: • Greater accessibility of the site • Encouraging of safe and viable alternatives for accessing the site • Pragmatic initiatives based on appraisal of residents’ and visitors travel patterns • Reduced overall vehicle mileage and trip volumes

The following sections of the MMP will address the public transport, cycling and pedestrian facilities available to residents and visitors at the proposed development.

These are the central elements of a MMP at the planning stage of a proposal. This process can be built on by the residents once the site is built and occupied.

6.2 DUBLIN BUS All Quality Bus Corridors radiate from the city centre outwards. The existing bus core network is detailed within Figure 7.

Figure 7 provides details of the main bus routes from the city centre to Dun Laoghaire – routes 7 and 46a.

Both these routes pass along the Stillorgan Road, within 1 km of the subject site.

The 46a and 145 are high frequency bus routes, travelling from Dun Laoghaire to the Phoenix Park via the city centre and from Kilternan to Heuston Station respectively.

The 7 route is less frequent, both connecting Dun Laoghaire to the city centre at Mountjoy Square.

The 47, 118 and 145 routes also pass along the Stillorgan Road, as does the 17 route which then turns up Mount Merrion Avenue, stopping within 500 metres of the subject site.

The origin, destination and frequency of these 7 No. routes at peak times are detailed below within Table 6-1:

Route Origin Destination Frequency at AM Peak 46a Dun Laoghaire Phoenix Park 6 per hour

7 Dun Laoghaire Mountjoy Square 2 per hour 17 Blackrock Rialto 3 per hour

47 Poolbeg Belarmine 1 per hour

118 Kilternan D’Olier Street 2 per hour 145 Bray Main St. Heuston Station 6 per hour

TOTAL 20 per hour

Table 6-1: Major Bus routes serving the candidate site and their frequency during the morning peak hour

Figure 7 also contains the new Bus Connects Proposal published by the NTA In June 2018. Uninterrupted bus lanes proposed will significantly decrease journey times during peak the hours of demand, and the re-designed network will increase frequencies along key routes into the city centre. Spines A to G will deliver high frequency services, all converging on the city centre, with travel within the city centre becoming easier as the proposed network provides the extreme frequency that these short trips require. The system offers many new links within the city centre area.

6.3 DART The DART extends along the coastline of the South Dublin area, extending from the centre of town to Ballsbridge, Sandymount, Merrion, Booterstown, Blackrock, Monkstown, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey, Ballybrack, Shankhill, Bray and Greystones, and along the coastline of the north Dublin area extending from the town centre to Clontarf, Sutton, Howth and Malahide.

The Booterstown DART Station is within 900 metres (11 minutes walk) of the subject site, with Blackrock DART Station within 1.3 Km (16 minutes’ walk).

The DART operates a service to the city centre every 12 to 15 minutes during the morning peak time.

Figure 8 contains diagrammatic representations of the DART system serving the site.

Figure 9 details the route from the subject site to the Blackrock DART Station.

6.4 INTERURBAN RAIL The DART service connects the Salthill / Monkstown and Connolly Stations.

The following interurban lines are accessible via Connolly Station: • Intercity from Derry and Belfast: 1 train arriving every 2 hours approximately • Intercity from Sligo Town in County Sligo: 1 train arriving every 2 hours approximately • Intercity from Rosslare County Wexford: 1 train arriving during morning peak

Figure 10 contains a diagrammatic representation of all intercity rail services including the six lines detailed above.

6.5 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ROUTES SERVING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6.5.1 Pedestrian facilities At present, there are well-established footpaths linking Cross Avenue both with the centre of Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Donnybrook and with other major centres in the general area.

Pedestrians making the journey to the site will generally be comfortable doing so provided the journey time does not exceed 30 minutes (approximate distance 3 km). Walking becomes highly desirable if the journey time does not exceed 15 minutes (approximate distance 1.5 km).

All public transport links are available within 15 minutes’ walk of the candidate site.

The proposed layout also provides 2No. pedestrian access points, one to the north of the site, connecting with Clonfadda residential estate and the other to the east to provide a connection to Cherbury. These connections will facilitate access for existing residents and future residents within the subject site allowing increased permeability between Cross Avenue, Mount Merrion Avenue and Booterstown Avenue. It should be noted that the proposed connection points are to private estates and the Applicant has discussed the proposals with the respective management companies. To date both companies have resisted proposals for any connections.

6.5.2 Cycle facilities Figure 11 details the existing cycle network within the vicinity of the candidate site.

At present, the cycle network is quite well developed within the vicinity of the subject site, with Mount Merrion Avenue linking directly into the cycle track along Stillorgan Road and the cycle lane within the bus lane on Rock Road.

Figures 12 details the proximity of the candidate site to primary cycle routes 12 and 13running along the Stillorgan Road and Rock Road respectively within the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network.

The secondary route S04 is also planned for Mount Merrion Avenue.

The development of these routes will further increase the connectivity of the subject site to the other major centres of employment and population both within South Dublin and within the south city area.

7 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TRANSPORTATION TERMS

The traffic assessment within this report confirms that the two major junctions in the vicinity of the proposed junction are both heavily loaded at peak times, with queuing along Cross Avenue during both morning and evening peak hours. Signal timings at both the Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions have not been optimised (existing timings have been used throughout this report), and very robust growth estimates have been assumed for the network.

However, it has been demonstrated that the traffic generated by the proposed development will be relatively low, resulting in flow increases at the two critical junctions averaging 5% of total incident flows at the two junctions over both peak times.

As a result, the additional queuing resulting from the generated flows from the proposed development is predicted to be at low levels, as the additional 2-way flow at each of the critical junctions resulting from the proposed residential units will be in the order to 1 No. vehicle every 2 minutes.

It must be noted also that stated transport policy for the Greater Dublin Area will result in significant reductions in car usage of the medium term, with the promotion of sustainable transport priorities resulting in greater numbers of commuters travelling to work by public transport, cycling or walking rather than via the private car.

This planned modal shift should result in an easing of the congestion issues at major suburban junctions such as the two analysed within this report.

The car and bike parking provisions on site are at a high level and the high rate of provision of electric vehicle charging points is seen as wholly sustainable.

The mobility plan within the report demonstrates that high quality public transport links will be available to both residents and visitors at the site. Also, very good cycling and pedestrian facilities will provide robust linkage to the south city and city centre areas.

In overall terms, the proposed development is sustainable in transportation terms. The trip resulting generation volumes are low and there are excellent non-car-based alternative modes available to residents and visitors at the subject site.

Figure 1: Site plan indicating the proposed development entrance onto Cross Avenue

A D

A B

Figure 2: Location of site relative to 2 No. major junctions in its vicinity

274

1 265 142 175 134 10 1 131 Cross Avenue 5 7 0 4 3 175 4 62 Chesterfield 2 279 6 68 2 295 321

Figure 3: Existing flows at Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions - AM Peak

390

1 413 119 79 145 7 0 41 Cross Avenue 3 5 7 3 1 210 11 77 Chesterfield 5 98 7 91 0 222 342

Figure 4: Existing flows at Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions – PM peak

0 0 3 3 13 0 0 13 Cross Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 Chesterfield 0 3 6 3 0 0 0

Figure 5: Development flows incident on Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions – AM peak

0 0 12 12 3 0 0 3 Cross Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Chesterfield 0 12 0 12 0 0 0

Figure 6: Development flows incident on Booterstown Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue junctions – PM peak

Figure 7a): Core Bus routes map showing 7 and 46a routes

Figure 7b): Proposed Bus Connects network

Figure 8: Diagrammatic representation of DART line

Figure 9: Access from subject site to Booterstown and Blackrock DART Stations

Figure 10: Intercity rail network serving Dublin

Figure 11: Existing cycle facilities in vicinity of candidate site

Figure 12: New cycle facilities proposed in vicinity of candidate site under GDA Cycle Network