New roads, new bridge, car parks, railways, Royal Canal.

Sketch Development Plan of Dublin (1941)

1. Communications

New Roads and Major Widenings, Central.

roadsdiagram.gif (95559 bytes)A glance at the road map of the central city area will show that only the Eastern Area with O’Connell Street-Westmoreland Street as its backbone has been properly developed. We find in this area a sufficiency of radial roads feeding the centre and a network of wide roads to provide for the principal internal needs. The position is different in the central and western areas. There the radial roads are as inadequate as are the internal communications with the result that valuable central situations are in a derelict or semi-derelict condition. *

Traffic.*

One of the principal traffic problems is how to ease the centralised traffic stream converging on O’Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge. To deal with this, it is proposed to provide alternative through routes from East to West. On the East the new Cardiff Lane route will divert through North-bound traffic from the Dun Laoghaire direction and provide an easier alternative for Dock traffic. It will be seen that this bridge will form the natural link between the existing North and South Circular routes.

A small stretch of new road connecting Macken Street with Herbert Place will complete the ring.

The existing bridge congestion will be further eased by the rebuilding of the “Metal” Bridge and connecting’ it with Dominick Street and Sth. Gt. George’s Street. Further considerations in regard to the new bridges will be discussed later in this report. *

Ring Roads.*

A ring does not come into existence through imposing a geometrical form upon a confused street plan, but it is built up as a result of a series of requirements which gradually work themselves into a pattern. The inner rings of Dublin are roughly in the form of a spiral, having its origin at the City Hall.

The formation of a central internal ring system - Capel Street - Church Street - Bridge Street - Lord Edward Street - can be carried out almost entirely by widening roads at present of inadequate width and broken frontage. This will bring into fruitful use large areas at present hardly accessible.

St. Stephen’s Green, North, should be continued via South King Street, to link the South with the central artery system.

It is an essential feature of our proposals that an alternative route, South of and parallel to the quays, should be formed as a continuation of Misery Hill (near the new bridge) on the East and running, via Fleet Street and Cook Street, to join James’s Street in the West. There appears to be no likelihood of the disappearance of horse traffic in the near future and this route could be adopted to deal with this slow form of traffic running East-West through the city, thus freeing Dame Street and the quays from the slowest form of traffic.

We suggest an important East-West link road immediately to the North of the central city area which would link with Parnell Street to the East and debouch, via North King Street and Arbour Hill, at the point of Phoenix Park to the West. *

Radial Roads.*

The principal new radial approaches would be via Crumlin Road, and so to an opened-up Christ Church Place. It may be found that a widening of Cork Street would give adequate connection along that stretch. A possible future canal bank road is indicated which would connect with the Naas-Rathcoole Road, serving the North side of the great new Crumlin housing area. A new North-West radial would connect Cabra with the centre, either via Manor Street or if it is decided eventually to remove the Grangegorman Mental Hospital, via the hospital site as shown.

The widening and straightening of Phibsboro’ Road would complete the necessary work on radial roads to serve the City centre. *

New Bridge East of Butt Bridge.*

Having given careful consideration to possible situations for a new bridge East of Butt Bridge, we have come to the conclusion that there are only two practicable proposals:

(i) to place the bridge approximately in line with Cardiff Lane to connect on the North side with Guild Street lying alongside and West of Royal Canal Docks;

(ii) to place it immediately to the East of the Grand Canal Dock, as a continuation of Thorncastle Street, joining on the North side with the quay West of Alexandra Basin.

In regard to (ii): the bridge, being of an opening type, would require opening approximately twice as many times as on site (i); each opening taking some nine minutes would, in our view, cause too much traffic interruption to allow the bridge to be used at all adequately.

From the point of view of long-distance traffic, the site (ii) would necessitate too great a diversion towards the East. Also, this site would necessitate three bridges, two additional to the main bridge, one to continue the quay and the other across the Dodder to connect with the South Circular Road. In these circumstances, we do not consider site (ii) to be suitable.

Site (i) has the following advantages

It will be far enough to the East to alleviate the congestion at Butt Bridge, whereas a bridge any nearer to Butt Bridge would bring the new bridge too near to the Westland Row route.

A glance at the map will show that the approaches exist, together with connections to the North and South Circular Roads.

Some slight adjustments would provide *(a) *adequate connection between the Docks and industrial areas on either bank of the river, and *(b) *for through traffic which will use this new route to bypass the centre of the city. This would relieve the Westland Row-Pearse Street congestion. The problem is complicated on the North bank by the roller bridge over the entrance to the Royal Canal Docks. We believe that this can be partly relieved by the limiting of a portion of the quay to one-way traffic and by inducing the traffic from the Oil Refinery site and adjacent area and North Quay extension to use Sheriff Street, with a bridge or sub-way where the level crossing occurs. The approach for the Sheriff Street and Seville Place traffic to the bridge would be along Guild Street adjacent to the Royal Canal Docks. This road should be widened along the Newfoundland Road Housing site and also along the British and Irish yard and Byrne’s Hotel. This approach road must be wide enough to admit of queuing up for the opening of the bridge. We understand that the British and Irish berthage and gantries have been arranged for the formation of this bridge as contemplated under the Dublin Port and Docks Board (Bridges) Act, 1929, and also that arrangements have been made for a removal of a length of the sheds along the quays.

In regard to the possibility of achieving continuity of traffic by means of a tunnel, we are of opinion that the length of the approaches necessary to give a proper gradient would be so great that the tunnel would fail to divert the bulk of traffic from the Butt Bridge route, and so defeat the principal object in constructing it. We would point out that the problem here is to lure traffic into a more suitable route and that a tunnel under the Liffey bears no comparison with the Mersey Tunnel where no alternative route exists. Our opinion as to its unsuitability is, therefore, arrived at independently of considerations of its enormous cost.

We, therefore, recommend that site (i) should be selected for the new bridge. We understand that a rise and fall bridge similar to that recently erected over the Tees at Middlesborough is in contemplation. If such a type of bridge is decided upon, we suggest that improvements could, on architectural advice, be made on the Tees type of design. The appearance of this very large structure which will form vast entrance gates to the city, would be of the greatest importance. We, therefore, consider that an architect should be associated with the engineer. *

New Bridge West of O’Connell Bridge.*

The position of this new road bridge is of the utmost importance to the planning of the whole city and we have given the matter the most prolonged and careful attention.

The map will show that the eight central Dublin bridges are virtually evenly spaced along the quays. Among these eight is the “Metal” footbridge, situated midway between O’Connell Bridge and Grattan Bridge. The Corporation’s earlier intention of converting the “Metal” Bridge into a roadway is shown by the fact that Liffey Street on the North has already been widened in anticipation of the rebuilding of the bridge.

In deciding whether the site of the “Metal Bridge is, or is not, the best for a road connection, one of the dominating considerations in our minds has been the easing of the traffic congestion in College Green and over O’Connell Bridge. This College Green congestion is largely due to the traffic from Lord Edward Street and George’s Street which is making for the North-East area of the city. To obviate this, it is necessary to provide the easiest alternative route. The map will show that no bridge West of the ” Metal” Bridge would serve this purpose as efficiently as the rebuilding of the “Metal” Bridge on its present site. Liffey Street would then provide connections with O’Connell Street via Abbey Street and Henry Street and a fine and direct connection with the North-East area would be available via Parnell Street. At the North end, Liffey Street would be linked directly with Dominick Street - a very wide street at present but little used but which could be made to form part of the inner ring traffic system. This would also provide direct communication with the North via Phibsboro’ Road.

We propose, therefore, that the existing footbridge known as the “Metal” Bridge be rebuilt to the width of the widened Lower Liffey Street produced across the river, thus giving connection between Dominick Street on the North and George’s Street on the South.

To connect with this bridge on the South side, George’s Street would be continued axially by taking in the block of buildings between Eustace Street and Temple Lane. The new frontage would line with the existing frontage of Temple Lane straightened, but the Eustace Street frontage would be brought forward to balance the Temple Lane frontage, about the central axis of George’s Street produced. In order to give adequate and properly planned access from this continuation of George’s Street to the new bridge, the block of buildings bounded by a line some 40 yards beyond the East line of the new bridge produced, Temple Bar to the South, the new street to the West, and Wellington Quay on the North, should be demolished and the area opened up into an elongated traffic circus with an ornamental garden in the centre.

The only line of cross traffic would be where the small volume of West bound traffic from Fleet Street would cross the new George’s Street. Traffic lights would be required at this point. We are aware that this proposal does not produce a perfect diagram on paper. Such a diagram would easily be produced by connecting the existing George’s Street with the new “Metal ” Bridge by a new diagonal or a crescent street. Our reasons for not recommending this are twofold. First, we are satisfied that the cost of acquiring the property and settling with all the interests in forming a diagonal street, or a connecting crescent would be far too great, and this is not a matter to be indefinitely postponed. Secondly, the cheaper and more practicable proposal which we put forward would enable George’s Street and its new continuation to command a vista of the principal feature of the Cathedral. This magnificent effect should not readily be sacrificed. Thus practical economy and aesthetic considerations pull, in this case, in the same direction.

In reference to the dilapidated area bounded on the East by Moore Street and on the West by the Liffey Street Continuation, we suggest that, after allowing for frontages, the central portion should be occupied as a public market. Provision would be made for some lock-up accommodation in connexion with the open stands. The Moore Street frontage would contain shops with flats over. *

Central Omnibus Station.*

The present custom whereby long distance omnibuses stand on the quays is a temporarily enforced expedient and adequate accommodation for a central station must form an integral part of our planning proposals. There is considerable difficulty in reconciling the present day demands with those which will be created when the new roads suggested in this Report are available.

Confining ourselves for the moment to present-day requirements: the Garda Authorities are in agreement with the principle that the long distance omnibus station should be centrally situated and easy of access to a focal point in the local city transport services. To meet these existing demands, it is proposed that the central omnibus station should be situated behind the frontage of Aston’s Quay, between Bedford Row and Aston’s Place. The continuity of building along the quay frontage would be preserved and separate “in” and “out” access would be provided; also there would be provision for subsidiary access from Fleet Street. This proposed station would allow of standing for 18 omnibuses and would be served by waiting rooms and the requisite offices housed in the building on the quay.

The new road plan indicates that the needs of the future may be different and that a central station might be more convenient if situated nearer to the geometrical centre of the City. It is, therefore, proposed that a site for a future omnibus station should be reserved on Wood Quay, extending from Winetavern Street approximately to Fishamble Street. The road parallel to the quay - Fleet Street - East Essex Street - Cook Street - would bound the new omnibus station on the South. The area between the new station and Christ Church Cathedral would be left free of further building with the object of forming public gardens and giving a view of the Cathedral from Wood Quay on the South bank, and Upper Ormond Quay on the North bank of the river.

The steep slope below Christ Church Cathedral would provide an opportunity for terraced treatment with, possibly, a shelter on quay level cut into the slope under the garden.

The site for the future omnibus station would gradually be cleared and it would be left as an open space, or used for some suitable temporary purpose, until the road plan and the demands of traffic were sufficiently advanced as to justify its use as a central omnibus station. In the event of the railway company deciding to abandon the Aston’s Quay site, this existing site could be used for some other purpose. *

Car Parks.*

The central city area is very badly equipped with parking facilities; the absence of such facilities helps to accentuate traffic congestion and hampers business in the city.

One of the worst areas is that to the East and West of O’Connell Street, South of the Pillar.

To meet this on the East, we propose that a public car park be formed off Marlborough Street, including the interior area round Marlborough Place and Potter’s Alley, access being left from Marlborough Street and Talbot Street. This would take 120 cars and it would be situated 160 yards from the Sackville Place entrance to O’Connell Street.

The above would, in itself, be inadequate for the local parking requirements unless another park of at least similar size were formed in the O’Connell Street area. We propose, therefore, a somewhat larger park near Cathal Brugha Street.

It is proposed that new public car parks should be formed on convenient sites at present derelict or decayed, that they should be situated in the centres of greatest need, and that they should not hold more than 800 cars, to avoid congestion in access roads. They would be officially supervised and a charge made for their use. It is our opinion that they could, in this way, be made self-supporting. We have indicated sites which appear to be suitable, marking with a diamond those whose exact situation cannot yet be defined.

In regard to the St. Stephen’s Green neighbourhood, we would draw attention to the inadequate use made of the facilities which already exist. Herringbone parking would allow the present accommodation to be doubled and this is prevented only by the retention of useless granite posts. There would be no need to touch the trees.

principalroads.gif (80995 bytes)The existing accommodation in College Street would likewise be doubled by the adoption of herringbone parking, which would be perfectly feasible, especially when the tramway lines are out of use.

. *

New Roads - External.

These may conveniently be divided into: *

(a) *Outer rings, North and South;

*(b) *New radials towards Dublin;

*(c) *New roads to serve Dun Laoghaire. *

(a) Northerly Ring Roads.*

Griffith Avenue and its continuation connecting Fairview with the Phoenix Park at a radius of 2¼ miles from the final city centre in front of Christ Church.
Collins Avenue and its continuation, connecting Killester and Ashtown, via Finglas, at a 3 mile radius.
Outer ring connecting Dollymount Avenue and Finglas North at a 3½ mile radius.

Southerly Ring Roads.*

Connecting Nutley Avenue with Chapelizod via Rathfarnham at a 3 mile radius.
Connecting Mount Merrion (Foster Avenue) via Dundrum and Templeogue to the Naas Road at Fox and Geese.
Outer ring. Scenic route in green belt connecting Stradbrook via Stillorgan, Marley, Ballyboden to Tallaght Road.

(b) Northern Radials.*

Connecting Griffith Avenue, at Glasnevin, with outer ring midway between Ballymun and the Ashbourne Road. *

Southerly Radial.*

Route along canal from Marrowbone Lane to Naas Road at Blackhorse Bridge.

2*. *A small run from Newtown Little to Churchtown Road. *

The existing coastal road towards Dun Laoghaire passes through a bottleneck at Blackrock and there exists no alternative road further inland which would link with the Stillorgan Road. We propose that a “protected” road be formed approximately along the line illustrated to connect with the Stillorgan Road at the Mount Merrion Estate and leading to the Western end of Monkstown Avenue. Such a road would open up a very large area for development although access to the road itself would be limited to specified points. This road, taken in conjunction with improvements at Mounttown Road, would provide a quicker and better means of communication between Dublin and Dun Laoghaire.
Access from the South-East coast to Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey is at present restricted to tortuous but highly picturesque narrow roads running through Killiney and Ballybrack. We consider that the character of the district would best be preserved, and better access provided, by the formation of the following new roads:

(a) *A protected road from the “Big Tree” at Loughlinstown to connect with Rochestown Avenue near Beechwood; *

(b) *Roads connecting with the above at Beeehwood and continuing to meet the South end of Albert Road, and also to meet the Sallynoggin-Glenageary cross roads.

It is not proposed that the roads need necessarily be in straight lines, as shown diagramatically on the plan, but that suitable through connections be established between the points indicated. This would be carried out gradually by appropriate land reservation incorporated in approved layouts. The road making, on the part of those developing the land, being of course limited to that required by law for the scheme in connection with which the roads are required.

For new radial routes and the Dublin-Dun Laoghaire road specified under *(c) *1., we propose the adoption of a standard width of 120-feet overall This to include a central, or dual, carriageway, flanked on either side by grass margins, with five-foot paths outside the grass margins, *(i.e., *110-feet apart). This would allow of 16-foot service roads adjacent to the paths which could either be built first or inserted later.

For new ring roads we propose the same layout but the margins would be reduced sufficiently to bring the total width to 90-feet.

The Town Planning Committee comments as follows:- *

The principal feature of the Sketch Development Road Plan is the opening up of two main arterial roads-one from the North-West connecting the Cabra area, which is at present being extensively developed as a Corporation housing area and by private owners, with the central city road scheme. A corresponding route is projected on the South-West linking the Crumlin housing area with Christchurch. This latter route, while giving a direct connection, would go through the site of the proposed Donore Avenue fiat dwelling scheme, and also through portion of the existing Tenters’ Fields Scheme. The City Engineer suggested an alternative route along a widened Cork Street to Ardee Street, whence it would cut through an area of decaying property to the junction of Patrick Street and New Street. While this route would not constitute a direct radial connection, as does that of the Consultants, it would be much more easily constructed, in suitable stages, and at less cost. For these reasons the Town Planning Committee considers it should be preferred to the direct radial suggested.

The Town Planning Committee also recommends that the East-West road suggested by the Consultants to run from Misery Hill via Townsend Street, Fleet Street, and Cook Street to James’s Street should be continued to Watling Street. The Town Planning Committee recommends that the suggested external road in the County area from Mount Merrion via Dundrum, Wilbrook, and Templeogue to the Naas Road be extended to link up with the Lucan Road. It also thinks it unnecessary to include the proposed radial road in the County area at Johnstown, North, between the outer ring roads proposed, as it would not connect up with any existing County Road. The proposal of the Consultants in regard to the long-distance omnibus station at Aston’s Quay has, in fact, been disposed of by the adoption by the City Council of a proposal that a temporary ‘bus station be placed in Smithfield.

In regard to car parks the Town Planning Committee recommend that in the various sites in the central city suggested by the Consaltants for this purpose, the Housing Section should acquire under their powers the existing houses on these sites before detenanting and then leave the sites for use as car-parks. The Town Planning Committee recommend that the proposed site for a car-park at Jervis Street should be reconsidered as it is too near the hospital. The suggested site for a car-park at Church Street, rere St. Michan’s house, might interfere with the completion of the Corporation housing scheme in that area. These suggested car-parks might also have underground accommodation, which could be used in times of emergency as air raid shelters. The Town Planning Committee further consider that it would be better policy to deal with the provision of car-parks under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, *1933, rather than under the Town Planning Acts. If the General Purposes Committee approve of the suggested sites for car-parks, then subsequent action could be taken under the Road Traffic Act and these proposals omitted from the draft planning scheme. (Town Planning Committee).

RAILWAYS

The railways in this country have been largely replaced by the roads, mainly because the road can provide door to door service, whereas the railway postulates only centres of distribution It is obvious that the wear and tear and damage inflicted in carrying heavy goods along roads is excessively great when compared with that of carrying the goods by rail, but the other side of the question is no so generally recognised.

The wear and tear on a railway due to increasing traffic is much less than that on a road. The difference can be seen in the fact that the main line to Cork has a rail life of some 50 years and a sleeper life of some 35 years as compared with a rail life of 10 years and a sleeper life of 20 years for the very much busier English railways. The excess of traffic in England is far greater than the relative difference in cost of upkeep. The result is that few railway lines in this country are run to anything like their full capacity and yet the cost of upkeep such as the replacement of sleepers remains virtually the same as if we had a dozen trains for every train we actually run. The result will, in our view, be the gradual closing down of many of the smaller branch lines in the country as and when the lines become unfit for use and heavy expenditure on repairs falls due.

We base our plan for Dublin upon a hoped for increase in population and prosperity during the next 50 or 100 years. If this were to increase rail traffic proportionately the railways might again come into their own, but we are convinced that the tendency will rather be the other way - in the direction of an increasing insistence upon door to door service.

We view the future, therefore, as one holding possibilities mainly in high speed railways connecting relatively distant large towns, or at least distributing centres for heavy goods and cattle. The absence of iron and the paucity of coal mines in Ireland put the railways in quite a different position from those in England since coal and iron form the backbone of England’s goods traffic.

We are confirmed in this belief as regards passenger traffic on account of the greatly extended air facilities which we envisage. It is our view that, a generation ahead, Dublin and Cork for example will be so well provided with air services, doing the journey in under the hour that even a very fast railway journey of three hours will be unable to compete with the air for professional and business purposes. For these purposes flying is already the normal means of transport on the Continent and increasing technical efficiency will make for higher air speed and lower cost as time goes on. We believe, therefore, that the future of the railways will be to act as main arteries for heavy goods and cattle traffic linking up the large towns and distributing centres but that future passenger traffic will be of modest dimensions while for short distance goods traffic the use of the railway will virtually disappear. It has in fact almost disappeared already.

Even the long distance goods traffic will be in danger from road competition unless the rails succeed in keeping the costs down to a favourable figure. The railways should be capable of competing successfully in this direction more especially on account of the heavy rates necessitated by wear and tear of heavy traffic along the roads.

Short distance passenger traffic will not suffer from air rivalry because air termini will, of necessity, be too far removed from the city centre. Even if aircraft were produced capable of landing nearly vertically and thus reducing the size of landing grounds we believe that the same will apply.

For long journeys the private car cannot compete with the air nor with express trains for speed and comfort, but in suburban traffic it has already ousted all forms of public transport to a very large degree. Unless Dublin is to grow quite excessively there should be no reason why private cars should not give adequate access to the city even if they were ultimately excluded from the actual centre. The provision of proper public parking facilities should, however, obviate this restriction. We see, therefore, no reason to assume a reversal of public use from the private car back to the railway or omnibus.

In considering suburban traffic we, therefore, compare the railway with the omnibus omitting for the moment the effect of the private car. We assume the elimination of the tramway which may or may not be partly replaced by the trolley bus.

Short distance passenger traffic by rail will depend upon how far it can compete with “door to door” requirements in so far as these can be met by the omnibus. Only those people who live within walking range of the station will use the railway for daily journeys. But while the railway station is fixed the omnibus can provide ever increasing facilities by road to meet the growing needs of developing areas. We conclude, therefore, that the passenger “catchment area” is a small one which tends to decrease as development takes place and this is only partly compensated by cheapening of fares.

So much for the outer end of the daily journey in and out of town. When we come to the city end we find again that the railway is badly placed as compared with the omnibus. We must remember that nobody will use the railway if this means changing into an omnibus if he can without much greater inconvenience get an omnibus which will take him the whole way. In order to give the railways the best chance it is, of course, imperative that they be adequately linked with the centre by omnibus traffic and if we consider the existing termini and compare their rigidly fixed positions with the routes taken by the omnibus we find not only that the omnibus brings passengers ultimately to the O’Connell Bridge centre but that it allows people to alight anywhere along the route. The only stations which, from this point of view, are placed in comparatively suitable positions are Westland Row and Tara Street. Amiens Street is not so good for it generally necessitates a change into an omnibus for the completion of the journey. Kingsbridge and Harcourt Street also usually necessitate a change.

Here we would mention another factor, not perhaps obvious at once, but of the highest importance. It may be largely psychological, but the average person has a dislike to having to mount large flights of stairs such as exist at each of our termini (except Kingsbridge) and at Tara Street.

The existing central stations are well spaced as regards the distribution of passenger traffic, but all the railways are elevated and as such they are injurious to the amenity of the city centre besides occupying valuable space. They cannot be carried further in. To take them any further out on the other hand would obviously place the railways still further at a disadvantage in relation to the roads not only for local passenger traffic but more especially for what we regard** **as the true function of the railway of the future - the collection and distribution of heavy goods and cattle and also for express passenger traffic.

We have referred to the probability of the discontinuance of certain local lines, but the only one actually affecting our problem is that running from Harcourt Street to Bray. It has been suggested that this might be turned into a motor highway. In this connection we would point out that the railway runs largely along high embankments and for long stretches is cut into the granite, thus any widening would be prohibitive in cost. It is a double line track and is therefore only 28 feet in normal width, as over bridges, which would be inadequate since it would give less than three lines of traffic with no room for footways or margins in cuttings and over bridges or embankments. We see no reasonable possibility of such a proposal ever taking effect.

On the other hand the line is definitely of value and might he used as a light electrified railway, the electricity being, of course, stored in the train. This is now taking place.

This brings us to the possibility of eliminating or reducing the unpleasantness of the exceedingly wide tunnel-like bridge leading to Harcourt Street Station which spans Adelaide Road. It might be suggested that the terminus could be moved further South and the bridge eliminated altogether. This is open to many objections. It would reduce the value of the station from the passenger carrying point of view if only because it would remove it further from the passenger’s destination. It would also cause a very undesirable cross-traffic in Adelaide Road which at present is obviated by the bridge. These considerations are sufficient to indicate that the Harcourt Street Terminus should remain where it is, although the possibility of reducing the width of the bridge and in fact building a more seemly bridge sufficient only to take a light railway could be explored. The difficulty is that the bridge is covered with sidings and loading banks where the trains are cleaned. A simple method of dealing with the bridge, perhaps hardly coming under the head of a Town Planning proposal, would be to form a gap in the centre to let light and air into Adelaide Road underneath.

Harcourt Street station takes a high place among the architecturally noble buildings in Dublin although its setting is open to improvement. It is not our view that this station could be used for any other purpose.

The possibilities we have explored do not suggest any modification of our plan as outlined, because we have already ruled out all reasonable possibility )f carrying the railways further into the city than they penetrate at present.

If it were possible to centralise the railway traffic we do not consider that it would be wise to do so the effect would be to accentuate traffic difficulties by concentrating them at one point instead of distributing them at several points.

Turning to the Westland Row-Amiens Street route we are faced with what everyone admits was a mistake in the form of the loop line bridge. We have investigated every means whereby this could be eliminated, either by tunnelling or by forming a bridge elsewhere, and we have come to the conclusion that its elimination is not possible by any means which could be regarded as feasible from the point of view of cost. That it ruins the view of the Customs House from O’Connell Bridge is obvious, but its rebuilding the other side of the Customs House at fabulous cost and with considerable loss of berthage would merely ruin the view from the other side and it would still be unsightly in close juxtaposition to the Customs House. We do not consider that there would be any ultimate possibility of a fixed railway bridge at Guild Street with the docks removed into newly reclaimed areas. A fixed road bridge would work in with our road plan but if it were made also into a railway bridge it would throw the stations at Westland Row, Tara Street and Amiens Street out of use. Our view of the probable future of Irish railways does not justify any belief that such a proposal could form part of a preconceived plan.

An interesting suggestion has been thrown out to the effect that a combined Amiens Street and Westland Row terminus could be made by spanning the Liffey and using the Loop Line to run trains over the river in the O’Connell Bridge direction. This central terminus would be very conveniently placed in the heart of the city and Westland Row would sink to the importance of Tara Street. This new station being at high level would leave space for car parks and omnibuses underneath. We cannot visualise a time when the railways would be in a position to undertake so grandiose a scheme and even if a time came when this was no longer true there is nothing in our scheme which would hinder its adoption or which would be contrary to its efficient use.

Kingsbridge, like Harcourt Street, is a building of architectural interest adding to the dignity of the river at that point. The same reasoning as was used concerning Harcourt Street as regards extending the line towards the city or building another terminus further out applies.

We, therefore, conclude that the planning of the city for the next 50 years cannot take into account any extensions of railways nor any change in the location of the termini.

We have not so far dealt with the finances of the railways but their probable future, as it appears to us, does not suggest that at any time will they be in a position to spend millions on alterations. Any such costs would presumably fall on the Corporation (with possible State assistance) and we do not recommend that the Corporation should embark upon any such expenditure which would compete with the very full programme of expenditure in other directions which we outline in our scheme. *

The Town Planning Committee cannot regard with any complaisance the continued existence of the Loop Line railway bridge. Aesthetically it is a blot on the city and we examined with the Consultants, and the City Architect, alternative means of providing a cross river connection with the railway Systems. In the Sketch Development Plan, the Consultants propose a lift bridge for road traffic between Guild Street and Cardiff Lane approximately. The City Architect’s suggestion for superimposing a railway bridge on the lift bridge to take the place of the Loop Line Bridge, was submitted to the Port and Docks Board and the Railway Companies. The former body stated the proposed bridge would be a serious interference to the navigation of the river. The Great Northern Railway Company pointed out that the headway necessary to allow shipping to pass through would have to be about 100-feet from high water level. This would involve such steep gradients for the lines on the North and South sides of the river as to be unworkable in ordinary railway practice for a line of this kind. In view of the adverse opinion by these two Authorities, on the practicability of the proposals, the Town Planning Committee did not pursue it further. (Town Planning Committee).*

THE ROYAL CANAL

In order to appreciate the position as regards this canal it is necessary to have an idea of the extent of the system and the use to which it is at present being put.

The Royal Canal came under railway control through the Act of 1845 which authorised the construction of the late Midland Great Western Railway Company. A provision under this Act brought about the purchase of the canal by the railway.

The canal debouches into the Liffey at Spencer Dock and runs as far as Cloondara, Co. Longford, with a five mile branch from Killashee to Longford. Its total length is 91 miles. In passing through Dublin it rises steeply through 12 locks in the first six miles. It is the obligation of the railway company to keep this canal system in proper repair, and it is obvious that the system must be treated as a whole. We cannot consider the Dublin portion by itself. At the present time the railway company obtains in receipts about three-eighths of the cost of maintenance. The railway Reports show the following average figures for the past four years: Expenditure, £8,242; Receipts, £2,918.

Any interference with the Dublin end would, however, leave the maintenance of the top 90 miles to be faced, but would eliminate the receipts altogether since the receipts are naturally due to its Dublin connection. We cannot, therefore, imagine that the railway company would agree to any disturbance of the present position where the canal passes through Dublin, unless the whole canal were taken over.

It would furthermore be virtually impossible to fill any part of the Dublin end because the canal collects surface water all along its length of 90 miles and there would be nowhere for this water to go to. Large supplies of water are taken from the canal in and near Dublin, not only by the G.S.R., but by the L.M.S., G.N.R., Corporation, Messrs. Jameson and Messrs. J. Power. A large number of private individuals also, we understand, take water for a variety of purposes, including farming.

The figures show that the use at present made of the Royal Canal is not very great, but, if experience in England is any guide, we may expect a considerable revival in canal traffic, for the English Railways have spent millions on canals within the last few years. In the event of war, petrol may rise to such a price that horse-drawn transport on canals may come back into its own on that account. Neither should we forget that the Royal Canal serves some of the richest turf producing areas in Ireland, and turf is ideally suited to transport by canal.

agricultural.gif (75979 bytes)The position is, therefore, that we have a large scale canal system in perfect order, the key to whose future lies in Dublin. We have no planning proposals which would suggest interfering with it, and we, therefore, recommend that the Royal Canal should continue to function on its present lines.

Section 2. Index Home.