ABPsubm, Traffic, CSR For J&J

-
Proposed National Childrens

Hospital Transport Submission
For The Jack and Jill Foundation
Report
October 2015
Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission
Document Control
Contract Name
Proposed National Childrens Hospital

Transport Submission
Contract Number
C099 2015
Document Type
Report
Document Status
Draft
Primary Author(s)
Garret Murphy, Eoin Munn
Other Author(s)
Jelena Simievi
Reviewer(s)
Ciaran McKeon
Document Review
Item
No.
Item Description
Reviewer Initials
Review Date
Draft Report v1.0
CMcK
09/09/2015
Draft Report v1.4
CMcK
16/09/2015
Draft Report v2.0
CMcK/ JS
22/09/2015
Draft Report v2.5
CMcK/ JS
23/09/2015
Draft Report v3.3
CMcK
28/09/2015
Draft Report v3.6
CMcK/ JS
29/09/2015
Final Report v4.0
CMcK
01/10/2015
Distribution
Item
No.
Item Description
Approvers Initials
Date
Draft Report v2.5 to Cunnane

Stratton Reynolds & The Jack and
Jill Foundation
CMcK
23/09/2015
Updated Draft Report v3.8 to

Cunnane Stratton Reynolds & The
Jack and Jill Foundation
CMcK
30/09/2015
Final Report v4.0 to Cunnane

Stratton Reynolds & The Jack and
Jill Foundation
CMcK
01/10/2015
Transport Insights Limited, Ground Floor, 11/ 12 Baggot Court, Dublin 2, Ireland
Email:- info@transportinsights.com
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 10
The Jack and Jill Foundation ..................................................................................................................... 10
About Transport Insights .......................................................................................................................... 11
Submission Structure ............................................................................................................................... 11
2.
Submission Approach ........................................................................................................ 13
2.1. Submission Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 13

2.2. Outline Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3. Supplemental Parking Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 14
3.
On- and Off-Site Observations and Surveys ........................................................................ 16
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 16
On-Site Assessment.................................................................................................................................. 16
Off-Site Assessment the Receiving Environment .................................................................................. 18
St. Jamess Hospital Patient/ Visitor Car Park Occupancy Observations ................................................. 21
St. Jamess Hospital On-Street Car Park Occupancy Survey .................................................................... 22
Luas Park and Ride Occupancy Observations Red Cow and Cheeverstown ......................................... 24
4.
Development Proposal Overview and Key Data ............................................................... 25
4.1. St. Jamess Hospital Campus .................................................................................................................... 25

4.2. National Remit ......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3. Key Data ................................................................................................................................................... 25
5.
Development Transport Strategy Review ........................................................................... 28
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
Proposed Transport Strategy ................................................................................................................... 28

St. Jamess Hospital Campus Draft Site Capacity Study ........................................................................... 28
St. Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme ....................................................................... 31
Strategic Accessibility Analysis ................................................................................................................. 39
Development Transport Strategy Conclusions......................................................................................... 40
6.
Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Review ............................................................... 42
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
6.6.
6.7.
Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Best Practice Guidance....................................................... 42

Operational Phase Trip Generation and Mode Share .............................................................................. 43
Operational Phase Assessment Years, Scenarios, and Time Periods ....................................................... 44
Operational Phase Traffic Distribution and Assignment .......................................................................... 45
Operational Phase Traffic Modelling........................................................................................................ 46
Construction Phase Impact Assessment Review ...................................................................................... 48
Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Review Conclusions ............................................................... 50
7.
Proposed Site Access and Site Plans Review ....................................................................... 53
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
Review Context ........................................................................................................................................ 53

Proposed New Mount Brown Site Access Junction ................................................................................. 53
Proposed Internal Shared Surface Facilities............................................................................................. 54
Taxi and Car Drop-Off and Pick-Up .......................................................................................................... 54
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
7.5. Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review............................................................................................................... 56

7.6. Proposed Site Plan Review Conclusions ................................................................................................... 56
8.
Parking Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 57
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
Parking Accumulation Analysis Review .................................................................................................... 57

Managing Parking Demand ...................................................................................................................... 70
Parking Impact Assessment...................................................................................................................... 73
International Benchmarks ........................................................................................................................ 76
Parking Impact Analysis Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 76
Appendices
Appendix A
St. Jamess Hospital Correspondence
Appendix B
St. Jamess Hospital On-Street Survey Results
Appendix C
Patient/ Family Transport Survey, Our Ladys Childrens Hospital, Crumlin (2006)
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Executive Summary
Overview
This Transport Submission, on behalf of the Jack and Jill Foundation, has been prepared in response to the
recently lodged planning application for development of a new National Childrens Hospital at the St. Jamess
Hospital Campus, Jamess Street, Dublin 8. The application has been supported by an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), Chapter 6 of which sets out the transport strategy and resulting impact appraisal.
The challenges of developing a transport strategy for, and assessing the transport impacts of, a strategic
development with relatively unique attributes such as that currently proposed are acknowledged by
Transport Insights. Notwithstanding these challenges, having reviewed the development proposals, serious
deficiencies in relation to its supporting rationale and the robustness of the transport assessment have been
identified. These can be summarised as follows:
Site Context
Based on information contained within the St. Jamess Hospital Annual Report 2013, the adult hospital
currently has 1,010 beds, and caters for 229,120 outpatients, 97,672 day care patients and 46,714 urgent
car cases per annum.
On the day of a site assessment (Thursday 03 September 2015) occupancy levels within the adult
hospitals staff car parks were observed to be in excess of 100%.
Observations of occupancy levels within the hospitals patient/ visitor car parks (Wednesday 09
September) vary considerably throughout the day, with a moderate occupancy level of 60% at 09:00hrs
increasing significantly to a peak of 97% at 15:00hrs, coinciding with the first of two visiting periods
(14:30hrs 15:30hrs) at the hospital.
The hospital is located in an edge of City Centre location, and extensive peak period queuing and delay
has been observed in the 08:00hrs to 09:00hrs peak. Long queues were observed at the junction of
South Circular Road and Mount Brown, with queues of over 30 vehicles observed on the Mount Brown
Arm of the junction (versus an EIS Traffic and Transport Chapters equivalent queue of 8 vehicles).
Significant levels of queuing observed on the morning of the site assessment will impact on patient
access to the site in the AM peak period. Furthermore, a general lack of bus priority to the west of the
site has implications for reliable and efficient bus operations, and access by emergency vehicles to the
hospital grounds.
The area to the west and south of the site is predominantly residential in nature, and as such represents
a potentially sensitive environment in which to locate a large, strategic, national facility such as a
National Childrens Hospital. The area is particularly sensitive to the impacts of over-spill car parking,
should the proposed level of car parking prove inadequate in meeting the needs of hospital users. Onstreet car parking occupancy surveys undertaken in an area corresponding to an approximate 400m walk
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
distance (or 5 minute walk time) from the proposed hospital indicate that, at present, 69% of all onstreet car parking spaces are occupied during the day-time.
On-street car park occupancy levels in this area during the evening time were observed to be significantly
higher that day-time levels surveyed.
Development Proposal
The new hospital represents a consolidation of existing childrens hospitals at Crumlin, Tallaght and
Temple Street onto a single site within the St. Jamess Hospital Campus.
The principal element of the proposed development is a 473 no. bed (380 in-patient and 93 day care)
new childrens hospital, with a gross floor area of 118,113 sqm. Satellite centres are also proposed at
the Adelaide & Meath/ Tallaght Hospital, and Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, however both of these
proposed developments are outside the scope of this Submission.
Following its delivery, core weekday staff numbers are anticipated to increase from 3,000 at present to
5,000 (an increase of 67%), and daily patient numbers by in excess of 80%.
Despite the substantial increase in staff numbers, it is proposed to reduce on-site staff car parking by
244 spaces, whereas patient/ visitor car parking capacity would increase by 664 spaces, representing a
net increase in 420 car parking spaces (or 26% more than at present).
St. James's Hospital Campus Draft Site Capacity Study

A Site Capacity Study has been submitted by the applicant for consideration by ABP alongside other
planning related files. The rationale for the draft Study status is unclear, however finalising the study
prior to selection of the St. Jamess Hospital for development of a new National Childrens Hospital may
have been anticipated as a means of demonstrating development feasibility.
The level of proposed on-site car parking emerging from the study does not appear to have been
underpinned by an analysis of user needs; i.e. patients, visitors and staff of the expanded site.
The importance placed within the Draft Site Capacity Study on the delivery of schemes such as DART
Underground, Lucan Luas etc. represent an acknowledgement on behalf of the applicant of the
limitations imposed by the existing public transport network in terms of staff and patient/ visitor access.
The identified schemes have however neither funding commitment nor planning consent at present,
and uncertainty and risk surrounding their delivery undermines confidence in a key element of the
transport strategy for the expanded St. Jamess Hospital site. The recent Government announcement
regarding DART Underground reinforces this point.
The Draft Site Capacity Study has placed excessive emphasis on the role and potential of the St Jamess
Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme in achieving the required level of reductions in staff car use
following delivery of the proposed development.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
St. James's Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme

Across the single adult and four childrens hospitals, the Smarter Travel Programme targets a reduction
in car use from approximately 60% at present to 18%. Potential medium-long term on-site development
of the maternity hospital would, according to EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, result in a further 4%
reduction in staff car mode share.
Although a Mobility Management Plan has been prepared for the St Jamess Hospital campus (St
Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme) and is currently being implemented.., no
equivalent Mobility Management Plan exists at present for the three childrens hospitals.
As staff at the existing childrens hospitals choose accommodation that is readily accessible by
convenient modes including walking, cycling and public transport, accessibility to an alternative hospital
location will, for most staff, be diminished, not enhanced by a relocation to the St. Jamess Hospital site.
Staff car dependency would, in such instances, be anticipated to increase, not decrease, however very
limited levels of staff car parking are proposed for the expanded facility.
While it is recognized that distribution of staff based at the three childrens hospitals is likely to change
over time when staff move to the new childrens hospital at St Jamess Hospital campus, the timescales
for achieving such a change has not been considered. Due to personal/ family commitments, a
significant change in staff demographic patterns may take many years to achieve.
Deficiencies in the public transport network have also been identified by the Draft Site Capacity Study,
and on-site cycle parking occupancy observations indicate that external factors presently appear to play
a greater role in hindering enhanced levels of cycle use, rather than on-site infrastructure provision.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient reserve capacity on the public transport
network, and the Luas Red Line in particular, to cater for additional passenger demand generated by the
proposed development. Specifically:
To achieve a 9% staff park and ride mode share, the applicant has designated two park and ride
sites on the Luas Red Line at which free staff car parking would be provided Red Cow and
Cheeverstown. Based on observed occupancies at these sites (537 spaces occupied out of 727 at
Red Cow and 39 out of 321 at Cheeverstown on Tuesday 08 September 2015), and on the
presumption of a similar allocation of demand between sites as presently observed, capacity at the
Red Cow site is insufficient to accommodate the required level of staff use.
In addition to a failure to consider Luas park and ride capacity, the applicant has also failed to assess
the adequacy of public transport service capacity. Consultation with the Railway Procurement
Agency is not considered an appropriate substitute for a public transport network capacity analysis.
Anecdotal evidence of overcrowding on the Luas Red Line in the AM peak period further reinforces the
above concerns in relation to the adequacy of Luas Red Line capacity.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
The timescales for achieving the required change in staff demographics at the three existing childrens
hospitals; for achieving a radical behavioral change response amongst staff at all four hospital; and for
addressing deficiencies in public transport and cycle networks are all medium-long term challenges,
whereas the new hospital is envisaged to become operational by 2020.
To facilitate the needs of shift workers, and in particular staff arriving to the site after 19:00hrs, the
applicant has proposed to grant staff free access to the patient/ visitor car parks. Based on an
underestimation of visitor car parking demand, it appears that night-time staff arriving at the hospital
will be unable to locate a car parking space without spending a considerable time searching for a vacant
space in both staff and visitor car parks.
Behavioural change initiatives will play a more limited role in influencing the travel behaviours of shift
workers, as the feasibility of using non-car transport modes is more limited, due to for example, darkness
and associated safety and security concerns reducing propensity to walk or cycle, and reduced public
transport service frequencies.
Targeted desktop research indicates that the scale of the challenge of achieving the required level of
staff modal shift away from car towards public transport and other modes through pursuit of mobility
management measures appears unprecedented in either Irish or international contexts.
Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment

Having undertaken a detailed review of the transport impact assessment as set out in the EIS Traffic and
Transport Chapter, the approach pursued by the applicant does not claim to follow, or does not appear
to accord with, industry best practice, namely the NRAs TTA Guidelines.
Key stages in the assessment, including trip generation, modal split, assessment years and time periods,
traffic distribution and assignment, and the modelling approach pursued in the analysis of traffic impacts
lack the required level of robustness for a large, strategic and centrally located development proposal.
The transport assessment approach pursued by the applicant is therefore deficient in areas that are of
greatest significance in terms of forecasting the proposed developments traffic impacts.
The cumulative effect of these deficiencies is a substantial underestimation of the proposed
developments traffic impacts, impacting on access to the site by car, by bus and crucially by emergency
vehicles. This is particularly concerning in light of the already significant levels of peak period queuing
and delay experienced on the road network within the sites vicinity.
Deficiencies in the assessment process also undermine the conclusion within the EIS Traffic and
Transport Chapter that the delivery of additional development on campus can be accommodated
without impacting on prevailing traffic conditions on the surrounding road network.
Site Access and Layout Plans

A review of the proposed site access arrangements and site plans has identified:
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
That those accessing/ egressing via the proposed new Mount Brown site access junction location are
likely to both experience and add to existing significant levels of queuing and delay to the west of the
site, including the junction of South Circular Road and Mount Brown. The existing adverse performance
characteristics at this junction do not appear to have been reflected in the applicants traffic assessment.
The suitability of Mount Brown as a major access route to the proposed hospital by patients, visitors and
staff has therefore not been demonstrated.
An apparent failure to provide a swept path analysis for the proposed new Mount Brown junction layout,
gives rise to concerns relating to the efficient and safe future operation of the junction.
The proposed internal shared surface facilities for general traffic and cyclists risks hindering the St.
Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programmes target increases in the staff cycle use.
A lack of clarity relating to taxi and car drop off facilities, and whether they shall meet anticipated high
levels of future patient, visitor and staff demand.
The Road Safety Audits limited scope, having considered only the sites interfaces with the surrounding
road network, and not internal operations. This could have implications for the safe future internal
operations of the site.
Parking Impact Analysis

Following review of the parking accumulation analysis presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter,
and supplemental analysis by our team:
The applicant has significantly underestimated patient/ visitor car parking demand at the hospital. In
particular, no substantiation has been provided in support of the very low levels of visitor car parking
demand, which is assumed to remain at a constant level of 16 parked cars during both visiting periods.
Transport Insights updated parking accumulation analysis, which has applied a revised patient/ visitor
car mode share to reflect national household car ownership levels (Census 2011 results indicating that
82.4% of households own a car), and re-forecasted visitor demand, indicate that even in the most
optimistic scenario, demand for car parking is forecast to exceed capacity (based on a maximum 95%
target occupancy) for 5 hours per day.
In the other two scenarios analysed, demand is likely to exceed capacity for a much longer period of
time 10 hours per day in the pessimistic scenario.
Higher level of patient/ visitor car parking demand in the evening time will constrain the role of the
patient/ visitor car park in accommodating temporary elevated staff car parking demand during the staff
handover period. This would also impact on the availability of car parking spaces for visitors at this time.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Patient/ visitor car parking

charges are estimated to
range from 2.50 per hour in
the optimistic scenarios
(the same as the existing
adults hospital) to between
2.90 and 5.10 per hour in
the pessimistic scenario
(based on the same 95%
maximum target occupancy
level). Higher charges again,
ranging from 3.50 to 7.00 per hour, would be needed in a more robust 90% target occupancy scenario.
Extensive over-spill car parking on streets surrounding the hospital is forecast, ranging from 84-117 cars
in the optimistic scenario to 226-260 cars in the pessimistic scenario.
Deficiencies in the levels of patient/ visitor (and staff) car parking suggests that the development
proposal does not comply with the current Dublin City Development Plans parking standards.
The deficit in on-site car parking provision is supported by reference to levels provided at similar facilities
internationally. At the new National Childrens Hospital, it is proposed to provide 2.1 car parking spaces
per bed, versus a minimum of 4.4 spaces per bed at a range of other childrens hospitals.
Applying this minimum international standard to a new 473 bed childrens hospital in Dublin, would
indicate a requirement for 2,081 car parking spaces (excluding adult hospital requirements). Based on
the maximum patient/ visitor parking accumulation levels within the pessimistic scenario of 858, and
applying a robust maximum target occupancy level within the car park of 90%, would imply an on-site
requirement for 953 patient/ visitor car parking spaces (versus the 664 spaces proposed). The remaining
car parking spaces, or a somewhat lesser quantity depending on accessibility and sustainable transport
policy considerations, would then be available for staff use.
Future Maternity Hospital

The applicants substantial underestimation of the proposed developments traffic impacts and car parking
demand, and related failure to provide sufficient on-site car parking capacity risks compromising the future
delivery on-site of a maternity hospital, as it is likely to intensify traffic impacts on the road network, and add
to already significant forecast levels of over-spill car parking within the sites vicinity.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
1.
Introduction
1.1. Overview
Transport Insights has been commissioned by the Jack and Jill Foundation to prepare a Transport
Submission in relation to the proposed new National Childrens Hospital at the St. Jamess Hospital
Campus, Jamess Street, Dublin 8.
The application was submitted to An Bord Pleanla (ABP) on Monday 10 August 2015 under Section
37E of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The proposed development would represent a
consolidation of existing childrens hospitals at Crumlin, Tallaght and Temple Street onto a single site
within the St. Jamess Hospital Campus, in Dublin 8. In addition, and forming part of the current
application, satellite centres are planned at the Adelaide & Meath Hospital in Tallaght, and Connolly
Hospital in Blanchardstown.
The Submission seeks to provide a critical challenge function in relation to the proposals, and in doing
so, endeavours to ensure that a decision by ABP is based on a thorough consideration of the impacts
of the development proposal from the perspective of users (visitors, patients), staff, road users and
residents living in the vicinity of the site. As such, it includes location specific consideration of traffic,
transport and parking related aspects of the proposed development with a view to better
understanding its likely transport related impacts.
The Transport Submission focuses on the core element of the application, i.e. the proposed
development at the St. Jamess Hospital Campus. Proposed development of satellite centres at
Tallaght and Blanchardstown is therefore outside the scope of this Submission.
In drafting this Submission, Transport Insights has drawn upon the advice of the following medical
experts from the client team:
Dr. Fin Breathnach, MB, BCh, BAO, DObst. RCPI, MRCP (Paeds UK), FRCP Edin:- Consultant
Paediatric Oncologist, Our Ladys Childrens Hospital, Crumlin, Temple St. University Hospital, St.
Lukes Hospital, Rathgar (1981 2008); CEO Barretstown Camp, Ballymore Eustace, Co Kildare.
(2008 2010) retired; and
Dr. Roisin Healy, MB, MRCP (Paeds UK), FRCPI, FRCSI, FFAEM:- Consultant Paediatric Emergency
Medicine, Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin (1988 2007) retired.
1.2. The Jack and Jill Foundation

The Jack and Jill Foundation, is a registered childrens charity. It was founded in 1997, and since then
it has supported over 1,900 children (from birth to 4 years old) with brain damage who suffer severe
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
10
intellectual and physical trauma. The Foundation also provides end of life care for all children who
require it from birth to 4 years of age.
The children cared for by the Jack and Jill Foundation represent some of Irelands sickest children.
These children and their families often spend much of their short lives either in hospital, or attending
regular appointments with specialists in the current national childrens hospitals at Temple Street or
Our Ladys Hospital, Crumlin. Many of these children will be travelling with medical equipment, with
up to 22 items of equipment required by some patients. As a result, travelling to hospital by public
transport to attend an appointment is infeasible and has the potential to impose excessive risk on
patients.
The Jack and Jill Foundation, is therefore uniquely positioned to understand the needs and
requirements of Irelands sickest children, and just as importantly, their families, in terms of any new
proposed hospital.
1.3. About Transport Insights

Transport Insights is an Irish based transport planning consultancy. With a core team of internationally
experienced consultants, we provide innovative, effective and deliverable advice and cost effective,
sustainable solutions. Our client list includes asset managers, banks, developers, transport operators,
local authorities and national government agencies in Ireland and internationally.
Relevant recent Transport Insights experience includes:
University Travel Plan 2015 2020, on behalf of the National University of Ireland Galway (August
2015, ongoing);
Transport Impact Assessment and Mobility Management Plan for a proposed bio-pharmaceutical
development on Cruiserath Road, Dublin 15 on behalf of Montjeu Limited (January to June 2015);
Metro Line Extension Feasibility Study Advice on behalf of the European Investment Bank
(November 2014 to January 2015);
Cork South Ring Road (N40) Demand Management Study Advice to Cork City and County Councils
(March 2014, ongoing); and
Advice to domestic bus operators, and related submissions, in response to a range of central
government policies and initiatives, including bus contracts, capital investment frameworks and
transport studies (September 2013 to August 2015).
1.4. Submission Structure

The remainder of this submission is structured as follows:
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
11
Submission approach (Section 2):- Overview of the Submissions scope and a summary of the
approach pursued in its preparation;
On- and off-site observations and surveys (Section 3):- An overview of the proposed development
site and its receiving environment building upon observations and surveys at the site and its
surrounding road network;
Development proposals overview and key data (Section 4):- Headline transport related data for
the existing St. Jamess Hospital site, and the development proposal;
Development transport strategy review (Section 5):- Identified key deficiencies in the
developments overarching transport strategy, and implications for patients, visitors and staff
access;
Traffic and transport impact assessment review (Section 6):- Concerns relating to the approach
pursued and principal assumptions underpinning the assessment of traffic and transport impacts,
and the robustness of its conclusions;
Proposed site access and site plans review (Section 7):- Observations arising from a review of site
access and layout plans (site access arrangements, junction layouts and internal layouts) and the
accompanying Road Safety Audit; and
Parking impact analysis (Section 8):- Detailing the approach pursued in reviewing and updating
the proposed developments patient/ visitor parking accumulation analysis, and an assessment of
resulting impacts.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
12
2.
Submission Approach
2.1. Submission Scope

This document forms part of a wider submission on behalf of the Jack and Jill Foundation to ABP. The
scope of Transport Insights work in drafting this submission has primarily focussed on Chapter 6 of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) hereafter referred to as the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter,
and transport related site layout plans.
Although the planning application comprises six principal elements, with V and VI relating to proposed
satellite centres at hospitals in Tallaght and Blanchardstown, the Transport Submission focuses on the
core element of the application, i.e. the proposed development at the St. Jamess Hospital Campus.
2.2. Outline Approach

The overall approach pursued in drafting the Submission is set out in Figure 2.1 below.
Figure 2.1
Transport Submission Outline Approach
In undertaking an on-site assessment which has provided an enhanced understanding of the St. Jamess
Hospital site (the findings of which are set out in Section 3.2 of this document), our team was
requested by on-site security staff to desist from taking photographs on the hospital grounds, and
requested to delete any photographic records which had been taken on site up to that point.
In addition to undertaking a detailed review of traffic and transport related documentation submitted
by the applicant, the Submission has also been supported by a comprehensive set of on-street car
parking surveys within the vicinity of the St. Jamess Hospital site. Such survey work has provided an
evidence base in support of a parking impact analysis, an overview of which is provided in Section 2.3
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
13
which follows, to assess the adequacy of proposed patient and visitor car parking provision at the
expanded St. Jamess Hospital Campus, and related impacts arising from the proposals.
To inform the parking accumulation analysis set out within this document, it was also proposed to
undertake a parking survey within the existing patient/ visitor car park at St. Jamess Hospital.
Permission for such a survey was sought from the hospitals management, however it was not
granted. Correspondence between Transport Insights and St. Jamess Hospital management is
included as Appendix A.
In addition to the more detailed parking impact analysis exercise, the Submission has also been
supplemented by high-level:
behavioural change research into the effectiveness of smarter travel workplaces initiatives in
achieving the level of modal shift away from car that is essential to facilitate the development
proposal; and
accessibility analysis to assess levels of car dependency amongst patients and visitors of the
proposed development, the outputs of which have helped validate assumed patient and visitor
car mode shares.
2.3. Supplemental Parking Impact Analysis

The assessment of transport impacts as set out
in the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter is
based on a first principles assessment of
demand from each of the different users (i.e.
staff, families/patients, etc...) of the Hospital.
Furthermore, the EIS Traffic and Transport
chapter
states
that
traffic
generation
associated with staff and visitors has been

based on the number of parking spaces
proposed for the St Jamess Hospital campus.
In light of the limited levels of car parking
proposed within the redeveloped St. Jamess Hospital Campus (as detailed in Section 4.3 of this
document), and deficiencies in the parking accumulation analysis presented in the EIS Traffic and
Transport Chapter (and detailed in Section 8.1 of this document), it is evident that demand for car
parking has been substantially underestimated by the applicant. To the west and south of the St.
Jamess Hospital site, the area is predominantly residential in nature the impacts of such over-spill
parking therefore has potential to adversely impact on residential amenity within the affected areas,
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
14
with residents unable to find a parking space in close proximity to their house and/ or having to search
for a suitable space to be vacated.
Within the analysis presented within this Submission, parking accumulation has been re-estimated to
ascertain user impacts in terms of increased future parking tariffs, levels of over-spill parking onto
predominantly residential streets surrounding the hospital, and increased walking distance/ reduced
user satisfaction levels.
Reflecting uncertainty regarding key assumptions underpinning the analysis set out in the EIS Traffic
and Transport Chapter, and to ensure future patient demand growth is given adequate consideration
by ABP, the updated analysis presents outputs for optimistic, pessimistic and realistic demand
scenarios.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
15
3.
On- and Off-Site Observations and Surveys
3.1. Objectives
An assessment of the St. Jamess Hospital site location, and its receiving environment took place on
the morning of Thursday 03 September 2015. The objective of the assessment was to ascertain key
transport assets at and in the vicinity of the site; and to observe activity levels and performance issues.
The on-site and off-site assessments are summarised in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 respectively which follow.
They have been supplemented by the following surveys/ observations undertaken in early September
2015:
St. Jamess Hospital patient/ visitor car park occupancy observations Wednesday 09 September
(Section 3.4);
St. Jamess Hospital on-street car park occupancy survey Tuesday 08 and Wednesday 09
September 2015 (Section 3.5); and
Luas Red Cow and Cheeverstown park and ride occupancy observations Tuesday 08 September
2015 (Section 3.6).
3.2. On-Site Assessment

Date and Timing
Thursday 03 September 2015, between the hours of 08:00hrs and 12:00hrs (in conjunction with the
off-site assessment summarised in Section 3.3, which follows).
Staff Car Parking

Staff car parking:- two main areas observed:
the first to the north of St. Jamess Hospital Campus Road; and
a second to the southwest of the site.
The capacity of staff parks were not recorded, however occupancy levels were observed to be in
excess of 100%, with full occupancy of designated car parking spaces and limited parking in
undesignated areas elsewhere in the staff car parks.
Patient/ Visitor Car Parking

The operational capacity of the patient/ visitor car park was recorded to be 381 car parking spaces on
the day of the site assessment. This included both normal and disabled car parking spaces in the main
(underground) and surface car parks, however it excluded car parking designated for specific use by
those visiting the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (estimated at 40 spaces for visitors/donors EIS Traffic
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
16
and Transport Chapter, Table 6.19), and an area of the underground car park temporarily closed due
to ongoing construction of the new Mercers Institute for Successful Ageing (estimated at 46 spaces).
Through Traffic Restrictions

Signs at both the existing entrances indicate that the site is closed to through traffic. It was noted
that restrictions on through traffic travelling from the Jamess Street to the Rialto entrance do not
appear to be enforced, with the barriers opening upon approach from inside the hospital grounds.
Although such traffic movements may not be physically restricted in that direction, the presence of
signage and barrier controls would however act as a deterrent to the majority of traffic not having a
legitimate purpose on site, e.g. staff drop-off or pick-up.
Cycle Facilities
The following bicycle facilities were observed:
two areas with covered, secure cycle parking and capacity for approximately 28 bicycles each, and
occupancy in the region of 75%;
a further uncovered bicycle parking area with capacity for approximately 45 spaces, and
occupancy in the region of 30-40% (including bicycles locked to trees and poles in its vicinity); and
the Dublin Bike Scheme, with two hubs within the hospital grounds one beside the St. Jamess
Luas stop and another close to the main reception area.
Public Transport Facilities

Both Luas Red Line and Dublin Bus Route 123 services pass through the St. Jamess Hospital site. Bus
waiting facilities within the hospital site, serving above bus route appeared to be of a higher quality
(with bus shelters) compared to those observed on Mount Brown and Jamess Street serving Routes
40 and 123. Moderate-high levels of alighting passengers were observed at the Jamess Luas stop, in
particular around 08:00hrs in the morning, and coinciding with a period of significant staff arrivals to
the hospital.
Pedestrian Facilities
Footpaths were noted to be present on the St. Jamess Hospital Campus Road, with pedestrian
crossings facilities also present. Signalised pedestrian crossing facilities are provided at the main
Jamess Street entrance, and at the junction of South Circular Road/ Brookfield Road adjacent to the
Rialto entrance.
Taxi and Car Pick Up and Drop off Facilities

Taxi and car drop-off and pick up was observed to primarily take place in a designated area adjacent
to the main hospital reception area, however no formal taxi rank facilities were observed within the
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
17
hospital grounds. An informal waiting area was observed to the west of the main hospital reception
area.
Emergency Access
Access and egress of emergency vehicles to the existing adults hospital was observed at both the main
(St. Jamess) and Rialto entrance to the site.
3.3. Off-Site Assessment the Receiving Environment

Date and Timing
Thursday 03 September 2015, between the hours of 08:00hrs and 12:00hrs (in conjunction with the
on-site assessment summarised in Section 3.2).
General Traffic
On the morning of the site assessment, severe traffic congestion (queuing and delay) on the road
network was observed to the west of the site. For example, and as illustrated in Figure 3.1 overleaf,
long queues were observed on all arms of the junction of South Circular Road/ Old Kilmainham/ Emmet
Road.
Figure 3.1 Observed AM Peak Queuing on Emmet Road at Junction with South Circular
Road (08:34hrs)
The following table presents queue length observations at the junction of South Circular Road/ Mount
Brown on the morning of the site assessment.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
18
Table 3.1
Queuing Obervations Junciton of South Circular Road/ Mount Brown
Junction Arm
Transport Insights Observations (Circa 08:30hrs)
Emmet Road (West)
Queue of ~ 30 vehicles
South Circular Road (North)
Queue extended through South Circular Road/ Kilmainham Lane

junction
Mount Brown (East)
Queue in excess of 30 vehicles
South Circular Road (South)
Queue extended through South Circular Road/ Suir Road junction
As can be seen from the table above, peak period queuing appears extensive, with queues extending
from though a series of junctions along the South Circular Road to the west of the site. The
implications of the observations in Table 3.1 above, by reference to comparable base (or without
development) modelling outputs presented in the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, is detailed within
Section 6.6 of this document.
The Google Traffic View screenshot in Figure 3.2 below reinforces on-site observations of queuing and
delay on the network to the west of the site, and in particular, on the South Circular Road corridor.
The blue circle represents the junction of South Circular Road and Mount Brown.
Figure 3.2 AM Peak Queuing to West of St. Jamess Hospital Site (08:43hrs)
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
19
The following is a description of the colour coding legend adopted in Google Traffic View 1:
Green means there are no traffic delays.
Orange means theres a medium amount of traffic.
Red means there are traffic delays. The more red, the slower the speed of traffic on the road.
Significant levels of queuing observed on the morning of the site assessment will impact on patient
access to the site in the AM peak period. Furthermore, a general lack of bus priority to the west of
the site has implications for reliable and efficient bus operations, and access by emergency vehicles
to the hospital grounds.
Public Transport
As can be seen from the following image (Figure 3.3), bus priority measures in the vicinity of the
hospital are generally absent, with the reliable and efficient operation of Dublin Bus services on Mount
Brown, where Dublin Bus Routes 13 and 40 operate, compromised by traffic congestion noted above.
Opportunities to implement bus priority measures on existing bus routes also appear very limited due
to the restricted road width along Mount Brown, where many buildings front directly onto the footpath
(as per the photograph below).
Bus waiting facilities on Mount Brown and on Jamess Street were observed to be poor, with no shelter
facilities present.
Figure 3.3 Bus Operations on Mount Brown (08:50hrs)
https://support.google.com/maps/answer/3093389?hl=en
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
20
3.4. St. Jamess Hospital Patient/ Visitor Car Park Occupancy Observations
Occupancy Observations
In support of this Submission, it was proposed to undertake a parking accumulation survey at the
existing St. Jamess Hospital. Permission for the survey was sought from the hospitals CEO, however
permission was not granted. Correspondence with the hospitals CEO in relation to the survey request
is included as Appendix A.
As noted in Section 3.2, the operational capacity of the patient/ visitor car park was recorded at 381
spaces on the day of the site assessment, including surface and underground car parks, but excluding
car parking designated for specific use by those visiting the Irish Blood Transfusion Service and lost
capacity due to ongoing construction works within the underground car park. In the absence of a
survey (45 minute parking beat accumulation survey originally intended over a six hour period), levels
of unoccupied car parking spaces were instead observed three times on a single day Wednesday 09
September. The findings of these observations are presented in Table 3.2, below.
Table 3.2
St. Jamess Hospital Patient/ Visitor Car Park Occupancy Observations
Time Period Commencing
Total Capacity
Vacant
Occupied
% Occupancy
09:00hrs
381
151
230
60%
12:00hrs
381
78
303
80%
15:00hrs
381
13
368
97%
As can be seen from the above table, occupancy levels in the patient/ visitor car parks of the adults
hospital varied significantly throughout the day:
with a moderate occupancy level of 60% at 09:00hrs;
increasing significantly to a peak of 97% at 15:00hrs, coinciding with the first of two visiting
periods (14:30hrs 15:30hrs) at the hospital.
Parking Prices and Pricing Structure

The following parking charges structure was observed:
first 10 minutes free;
10 minutes to 1 hour - 2.50;
up to 6 hours:- 2.50 per hour; and
6 hours to 24 hours:- 15.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
21
3.5. St. Jamess Hospital On-Street Car Park Occupancy Survey

EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter Extend the On-Street Controlled Disc Parking Area
The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter recognises the proposed developments potential to increase
parking demand on neighbouring roads and streets. It also recommends the extension of the pay
parking zone and to raise the cost of parking on the surrounding streets from the current rate of 1.00
per hour and investigate the possibility of introducing extended hours of operation.
The streets in which the proposed extension of the on-street controlled disc parking area would be
implemented are presented in Figure 6.57 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter. As on-street
parking controls measures limit the duration of parking stay to 3 hours, the proposed implementation
of on-street parking restrictions would restrict staff car parking in the hospitals vicinity. It would not
however prevent patients and visitors parking in these areas, as 84% of these visits (across the full day)
are less than 3 hours in duration. Although the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter does not conclude
that levels of on-site patient and visitor car parking are inadequate, the proposal to increase the
parking charge from its current 1.00 per hour level reflects an expectation of increased short-term
on-street parking demand arising from the proposed development, i.e. from hospital patients and
visitors.
On-Street Car Parking Occupancy Survey

To assess the proposed impacts of over-spill car parking on surrounding residential street, Transport
Insights undertook on-street car parking occupancy surveys within the vicinity of the hospital site. In
defining the survey area, consideration was given to the proposed future pedestrian access points at
Fatima and Rialto Luas stops in addition to the new pedestrian access at Mount Brown, and a maximum
acceptable walk time of 5 minutes, corresponding to a distance of approximately 400 metres, from the
destination. The survey area is indicated in Figure 3.4, overleaf, and included approximately 50 streets.
The survey was completed over a two day period Tuesday 08 and Wednesday 09 September 2015,
between the hours of 09:00hrs and 16:00hrs. Each street within the area was surveyed once, with the
number of occupied and unoccupied car parking spaces recorded by the surveyor.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
22
Figure 3.4
On-Street Parking Occupancy Survey Area
The following table presents a summary of the survey results. Detailed survey results for individual
streets are presented in Appendix B.
Table 3.3
St. Jamess Hospital On-Street Parking Occupancy Survey Results
Parking Restriction Type
Occupied
Total Capacity
Occupancy %
Current/ Future Pay
305
528
58%
Current Free/ Future Free
250
351
71%
Current Free/ Future Pay
758
1,035
73%
Total
1,313
1,914
69%
From the table above, it can be seen that day-time on-street car parking occupancy levels within an
approximate 400m walk distance (or 5 minute walk time) from the proposed hospital are presently:
58% on streets where existing parking controlled measures are currently in place;
71% on streets where no such restrictions exist or are presently proposed; and
73% on streets it is now proposed to introduce such restrictions.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
23
Parking Pricing
Charges for car parking in areas designated as Pay and Display and Permit Parking were observed to
be 1.00 per hour.
Application of Survey Results

On-street car park survey results form an essential input to the parking impact analysis, the outputs of
which are presented within Section 8 of this document. Through distributing over-spill (or excess
demand from the hospital) to Free and Pay Parking areas within the hospital environs, future on-street
car parking occupancy levels have been estimated, thus allowing for parking impacts in the
predominantly residential area to the south and west of the site to be determined.
3.6. Luas Park and Ride Occupancy Observations Red Cow and Cheeverstown
The St. Jamess Campus Smarter Travel Programme, as summarised within Section 6.1.4.5 the EIS
Traffic and Transport Chapter outlines proposals to designate two park and ride sites, at which free
staff car parking would be offered:
Luas Cheeverstown park and ride:- Located between Citywest and Tallaght, and approximately 3
kilometres from the N7 (via the Kingswood Interchange and R136) and 2 kilometres from the N81
(via the R136), the Cheeverstown Luas stop caters for a predominantly local catchment.
Luas Red Cow park and ride:- Located adjacent to the junction of the M50 and N7 roads, this site
serves a strategic function, intercepting traffic directly from the national primary road network.
Spot car park occupancy observations were undertaken on Tuesday 08 September 2015 at 12:45hrs
and 13:15hrs at the above two Luas park and ride sites respectively. The following table, Table 3.4
presents the findings of the observations.
Table 3.4
Luas Red Cow and Cheeverstown Park and Ride Occupancy Observations
Time Period Commencing
Total Capacity 2
Occupied
% Occupancy
Luas Red Cow Park and Ride Site
727
537
73.9%
Luas Cheeverstown Park & Ride Site
321
39
12.1%
The above occupancy observations reinforce the strategic versus local function of both park and ride
sites, with park and ride demand at Red Cow 13.8 times greater than that at Cheeverstown.
Capacities as per Section 6.1.4.5 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
24
4.
Development Proposal Overview and Key Data
4.1. St. Jamess Hospital Campus

The
new
hospital
consolidation
of
represents
existing
childrens
hospitals at Crumlin, Tallaght and Temple

Street onto a single site within the St.
Jamess Hospital Campus, Jamess Street,
Dublin 8, and consists of:
a 473 no. bed (380 in-patient and 93
day care) new childrens hospital,
with a gross floor area of 118,113 sqm;
a 53 no. bed family accommodation unit, with a gross floor area of 4,354 sqm; and
a childrens research and innovation centre, with a gross floor area of 2,971 sqm.
Satellite centres are also proposed at the Adelaide & Meath/ Tallaght Hospital, and Connolly Hospital,
Blanchardstown.
4.2. National Remit

According to the Planning Report which accompanies the application, the new Childrens Hospital
would provide tertiary / quaternary (highly specialised) services on an all-island basis and secondary
paediatric care (less severe, complicated and more common conditions) to the Greater Dublin Area
(counties Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare and parts of Meath).
4.3. Key Data

Chapter 6 of the EIS the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter presents a 201 page transport strategy
and resulting impact appraisal for the development proposal. Based on a review of this document,
and drawing upon other identified sources of information, key transport related attributes of the
development proposal are summarised below. More detailed observations are contained in Section 5
of this document, which follows.
Staff Numbers
Section 6.1.4.1 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter provides an overview of staff levels at the
hospital, and is summarised in the following table (Table 4.1).
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
25
Table 4.1 St James Campus Existing and Proposed Staff Numbers

Scenario
Overall Staff Numbers
Working Core Weekday Hours
Existing St. Jamess Hospital Campus
4,500
3,000
New National Childrens Hospital
3,000
2,000
Total, with New National Childrens

Hospital
7,500
5,000
Patient Numbers
Based on information provided within Section 6.1.4.1 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, the
following table provides an estimate of daily in-patient, outpatient, day care and urgent care cases at
the proposed new National Childrens Hospital. Also included in this table is a high-level estimate of
daily patient demand at the existing St. James Adults Hospital, derived from the most recent annual
report the St. Jamess Hospital Annual Report (2013).
Table 4.2 St Jamess Hospital Campus Estimated Daily Patient Numbers

Inpatient
Day
Care
Outpatient
St. Jamess Adult Hospital
909 3
407 4
955 5
New National Childrens

Hospital
314
140
864 *
Post-development of
National Childrens Hospital
1,223
547
1,819
NonConsultant
Clinics
Urgent Total
Care
Cases
128 6
2,399
412
237 **
1,967
412
365
4,366
* As per EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, includes 5% uplift to reflect daily demand fluctuations
** As per EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, includes 20% uplift to reflect daily demand fluctuations
As can be seen from the table above, the expanded hospital campus can be expected to accommodate
in excess of 4,000 patients per day.
3
4
St. Jamess Hospital Annual Report, 2013:- 1,010 beds, with a guestimated 90% average occupancy
St. Jamess Hospital Annual Report, 2013:- 97,672 day care patients/ assumed 240 days operational
per annum
St. Jamess Hospital Annual Report, 2013:- 229,120 outpatients/ assumed 240 days operational per
annum
St. Jamess Hospital Annual Report, 2013:- 46,714 attendances/ assumed 365 days operational per
annum
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
26
Car Parking Provision

Existing and proposed levels of on-site car parking are set out within Tables 6.19 and 6.28 of the EIS
Traffic and Transport Chapter. Based on the current proposals, these are summarised in the table
below for the St. Jamess Campus, with changes in levels of on-site car parking capacity from existing
to proposed situations also highlighted.
Table 4.3 St James Campus Existing and Proposed Parking Provision

Scenario
Staff 7
Patient/ Visitors
Total Staff and

Visitors
Existing: Pre-development of
1,261
467
1,728
Proposed: Post-development of
1,017
1,131
2,148
Change, i.e. Proposed Existing
-244
+664
+420
As can be seen from the table above, the current proposals represent a modest increase in overall onsite car parking provision of 420 spaces, however a reduction of 244 staff car parking spaces is
proposed, despite 67% increase in core weekday staff numbers at the site (to approximately 5,000). It
is proposed to increase on-site patient/ visitor car parking capacity by providing a total of 1,131 spaces.
The proposed additional 664 car parking spaces are required to accommodate the needs of patients
and visitors, many of which, in light of the hospitals national remit, will be travelling from outside
Dublin.
Includes the off-campus St. Jamess Steel staff car park with 137 car parking spaces
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
27
5.
Development Transport Strategy Review
5.1. Proposed Transport Strategy

Chapter 6 of the Environmental Impact Statement, the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter sets out the
transport strategy and resulting impact assessment for the proposed National Paediatric Hospital
Project. The proposed developments overall strategy is underpinned by the following key studies/
programmes:
St. Jamess Hospital Campus Draft Site Capacity Study (observations in Section 5.2); and
St. Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme (observations in Section 5.3).
In summary, the strategy proposes to cap on-site car parking capacity at approximately 2,000 spaces,
reallocate a substantial proportion of that capacity from staff to visitors, and to manage the travel
needs of staff of the existing adult and three childrens hospitals through a behavioural change
programme.
In preparing this Submission, the proposed developments transport strategy has been subject to
review. Its robustness has also been supported by high-level accessibility analysis, undertaken in
support of this Submission, the outputs of which are presented in Section 5.4.
5.2. St. Jamess Hospital Campus Draft Site Capacity Study

Study Status
A Site Capacity Study has been submitted by the applicant for consideration by ABP alongside other
planning related files. An overview of the study is included within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter
(Section 6.1.1.14). The rationale for the draft study status is unclear, however given its significance
in informing fundamental aspects of the development proposals (see below), finalising the study prior
to development of the current hospital proposals would have seemed prudent. Indeed finalising the
study prior to selection of the St. Jamess Hospital for development of a new National Childrens
Hospital may also have been anticipated as a means of demonstrating development feasibility.
Study Remit
Although the study does not purport to be a development plan for the campus but rather an indication
of its potential capacity, it appears that key decisions regarding the provision of car parking and
management of staff travel have been made within the context of this study:
The quantum of parking provided on campus will be capped at approximately 2,000 spaces, serving
both staff and visitor/patient parking needs. The majority of the parking spaces will be provided for
visitors/patients to the hospital campus, with staff access to the campus provided mainly via
alternative modes (public transport, cycling, walking), which will be actively promoted through the
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
28
St Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme. The car parking strategy involves the
transfer of parking from staff to visitors/ patients as the hospital continues to expand. The
additional travel needs of staff will be catered for through the Smarter Travel Programme which will
be supported by the Governments continued investment in public transport projects in the Greater
Dublin Area (i.e. Swiftway BRT Network, DART Underground, Lucan Luas, etc..).
The following observations are provided in relation to the above statement:
The level of proposed on-site car parking does not appear to have been underpinned by an
analysis of user needs, in this instance patients, visitors and staff of the expanded site. More
specifically:
No patient/ visitor car parking accumulation analysis appears to have been undertaken,
which would have considered relative levels of accessibility by car versus public transport
at a national level to the hospital, and informed a determination of on-site patient/ visitor
car parking provision. The outputs of a patient/ visitor parking accumulation analysis are
presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, however following review, the
analysis appears to have significantly underestimated on-site parking demand.
The
implications of such deficiencies are considered as part of a parking impact analysis set out
in Section 8 of this document.
As detailed in Section 5.3 which follows, the attractiveness and feasibility of catering for the
travel needs of an expanded hospital, with up to 5,000 core weekday staff, with reduced
levels of on-site car parking does not also appear to have been considered.
As noted in Section 5.3, and further detailed in a revised patient/ visitor parking
accumulation exercise in Section 8.1, it does not appear that sufficient on-site car parking
capacity, across total staff and patient/ visitor car parking stock, exists to cater for elevated
staff car parking demand during staff handover periods.
The draft study places excessive emphasis on the role and potential of the St Jamess Hospital
Campus Smarter Travel Programme in promoting use of more sustainable transport modes. The
Smarter Travel Programme will not however facilitate such use, because in addition to
interventions within the Programme, a wide range of external factors will either facilitate or
hinder sustainable staff travel these include public transport availability and attractiveness, and
the quality of the cycle network throughout the city. This is further expanded upon within Section
5.3 which follows.
The importance placed within the Draft Site Capacity Study on the delivery of schemes such as
DART Underground, Lucan Luas etc. represent an acknowledgement on behalf of the applicant
of the limitations imposed by the existing public transport network in terms of staff and patient/
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
29
visitor access. Such public transport network limitations include capacity constraints and poor
accessibility, i.e. impacting on the ease with which people can access the hospital site from
throughout its staff catchment area.
Staff travel needs are dependent on the potential future delivery of new public transport
projects - the identified schemes however, to the knowledge of Transport Insights, have neither
funding commitment in the form of an accepted Business Case and allocated funds, nor
planning consent at present. As such, uncertainty and risk surrounding the delivery of these
schemes undermines confidence in a key element of the transport strategy for the expanded St.
Jamess Hospital site. The recent Government announcement regarding DART Underground
reinforces this point.
Behavioural change initiatives will play a more limited role in influencing the travel behaviours of
shift workers, as the feasibility of using non-car transport modes is more limited, due to for
example, darkness and associated safety and security concerns reducing propensity to walk or
cycle, and reduced public transport service frequencies.
The Draft Study states that The car parking strategy does not include increasing the overall number of
parking spaces provided on campus following the completion of the new childrens hospital. This will
result in no material increase in traffic during peak periods on the surrounding street network
As noted in Table 4.3 of this Submission, the current development proposals, whereby it is proposed
to increase total staff and patient/ visitor car parking from 1,591 to 2,011 spaces (excluding the offcampus St. Jamess Steel staff car park) represents an increase of 26% in the total on-site car parking
capacity. As such this statement appears factually incorrect, and undermines the statement that
delivery of additional development on campus can be accommodated without impacting on prevailing
traffic conditions on the surrounding road network.
The following table summarises the approach pursued in undertaking the Site Capacity Study, relative
to what might have been expected had its approach followed best practice.
Table 5.1 Draft Site Capacity Study Best Practice Overview

Approach Pursued
Best Practice
Determination of a cap on
on-site car parking to ensure
that it doesnt impact on
prevailing traffic conditions
on the surrounding road
network.
User oriented
analysis of:
Implications
High risk that parking

provision will not
meet user needs
car dependency characteristics
(patients, visitors and
for similar development types;
staff) this is further
and
analysed
within
development specific car parking
Section 8.
requirements by user group.
research
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
and
30
Approach Pursued
Best Practice
Implications
Assumption that travel needs

of staff will be catered for
through the Smarter Travel
Programme.
International
best
practice
research into effectiveness of
smarter travel programmes in
reducing levels of staff car use.
Feasibility
of
relocating staff from
the existing campus
questionable.
Basing the strategy on

potential
future
public
transport projects e.g. DART
Underground, Lucan Luas,
etc.
Basing strategy on committed

schemes, i.e. with allocated funds
and planning consent.
5.3. St. Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme

Background
As noted above, alongside the future delivery of new public transport schemes, the Draft Site Capacity
Study has identified the role of the Smarter Travel Programme as essential to achieving the required
level of reductions in staff car use following delivery of the proposed development.
Policy Context
The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter (Section 6.1.1.3) draws upon the Dublin City Development Plan
2011-2017 and the Dublin City Draft Development Plan 2016-2022 as a basis for the strong emphasis
given to mobility management planning stating that they particularly emphasise the importance of
travel demand management, with each of the planning documents identifying the need to implement
mobility management plans at workplaces, schools and residential areas.
At a national level, the Smarter Travel A Sustainable Transport Future: A New Transport Policy for
Ireland 2009- 2020 policy document, published by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
(Section 6.1.1.9) provides policy justification, as follows:
The new childrens hospital at the St Jamess Hospital campus reflects the overall aims of
Smarter Travel, as it provides intensification of an urban area with good sustainable transport
accessibility, whilst providing a considerable critical mass of commuting journeys to have a real
impact on the targets set out in the smarter travel document.
While Luas is recognised as an important transport asset for the site, no evidence is however provided
by the applicant in support of the assertion that the site has good sustainable transport
accessibility. This might more reasonably be expected to represent the environs of an interchange
between two or more high quality public transport corridors, not a single corridor as per the St. Jamess
Hospital site. As noted in Section 5.2, the importance placed within the Draft Site Capacity Study on
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
31
the delivery of schemes such as DART Underground, Lucan Luas etc. acknowledges the existing public
transport networks accessibility limitations.
Current Staff Travel Patterns and Smarter Travel Programme Targets

The staff travel survey for St. Jamess Hospital and the three existing childrens hospitals provides
information on current levels of staff car and public transport use. These are presented in Table 5.2
below, with the estimated staff numbers at each of the four hospitals included to combined existing
and target car and public transport mode shares for the four hospitals which would be merged as part
of the current development proposal.
Table 5.2 Current Surveyed and Target Future Mode Share Targets
Hospital
Estimated
Staff
Numbers
Car Driver
Public Transport (including

Park & Ride)
Current
Survey Mode
Share
Future Target
Arrival Mode
Share
Current
Survey Mode
Share
Future Target
Arrival Mode
Share
St. Jamess
Hospital
1,261
57%
18%
16%
35%
Tallaght
225
76%
18%
10%
35%
Temple Street
1,200
38%
18%
36%
35%
Crumlin
1,880
77%
18%
6%
35%
Total
4,566
61%
18%
17%
35%
Although the provision of free parking for staff at the Luas Park and Ride facilities is included under
the Measures to Encourage Public Transport Use heading, the target car mode share include a
targeted modal share for the Park and Ride sites of 9%.... In the same way as a commuter who cycles
to the train station to take a train is generally considered a rail user, including park and ride users
within the car driver category is most unusual. It also gives a false impression in relation to extent of
challenge to be overcome in achieving the very substantial reductions in staff car use, as would be
more evident if park and ride users were instead classified according to their arrival mode. As such,
both current mode shares and mode share targets within the above table are presented according
to the generally used arrival mode share.
The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter (Section 6.1.4.5) notes that there may be some
underrepresentation of short distance trips, which may account for some overrepresentation of car
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
32
and public transport use (3% and 1% respectively in the case of St. Jamess Hospital). The analysis does
however highlight the challenge of achieving such a radical change in staff travel behaviours, in
particular in the context of staff relocating from current to new place of work with different (and
generally inferior) accessibility characteristics.
Potential medium-long term on-site development of the maternity hospital, would according to EIS
Traffic and Transport Chapter result in a further 4% reduction in staff car mode share. In light of the
already very restricted levels of on-site car parking forming part of the current proposed development,
and the over-reliance on both mobility management and future delivery of uncommitted public
transport schemes such as DART Underground (as noted in Section 5.2 of this document), the applicant
has not demonstrated how these substantial further reductions in staff car use can be achieved.
St. Jamess Hospital Mobility Management Plan Status

The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter (Section 6.0) states that A Mobility Management Plan has been
prepared for the St Jamess Hospital campus (St Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme)
and is currently being implemented..
While the development and implementation of a Mobility Management Plan for St. Jamess Hospital
Campus appears a welcome development, as noted in the very
high staff car park occupancy observations Section 3.2 of this
Submission, the exact status of the Plans implementation is
unclear. The observed levels of staff car parking indicate that
behavioural change interventions do not appear to have been
effective to date in reducing levels of staff car use to the
hospital. In light of the proposed significant reductions in car
use capacity, reductions in staff car use represent the key
performance indicator (KPI) for the Plan.
A further KPI of the effectiveness of the Plan is levels of staff
cycle use. The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter (Section
6.1.3.4) notes that there are a total 300 spaces (including
secure and covered bike shelters) within the campus.
Observed occupancy levels at a sample of secure bicycle parking facilities on the day of the site
assessment (two areas, approximately 75% occupied) indicates that bicycle parking facilities are not
presently hindering greater levels of staff cycle use. Additionally, the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter
(Section 6.1.3.4) refers to shower and locker facilities for staff in some of the buildings. Existing onsite cycle facilities indicate that other factors, such as inadequate cycle network provision within the
city, are likely to be a greater factor in hindering greater levels of staff cycling to the site. Addressing
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
33
these constraints is however outside the control of the applicant to deliver, and network wide
improvements to the extent set out in the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan, and that are
required to accommodate the large staff catchment area of the four hospitals, will invariably take a
long number of years to deliver.
Status of Existing Childrens Hospitals

The proposed development represents a consolidation of the three existing childrens hospitals at
Crumlin, Tallaght and Temple Street into a single site at the St. Jamess Hospital Campus:
The Mobility Management Plan will also be rolled out at each of the existing three childrens
hospitals to improve mobility awareness and to reduce car dependency among staff before they
relocate to the new childrens hospital on the St Jamess Hospital campus.
No equivalent Mobility Management Plan therefore exists at present for the three childrens
hospitals, despite staffs current residential location being based on proximity to their current place
of work, and more limited opportunities for them to transfer from car to other modes arising from a
transfer to St. Jamess Hospital Campus. Mobility management measures can represent important
demand management/ behavioral change interventions, however their effectiveness is dependent on
attractive alternative transport options. The extent to which realistic alternative travel choices are
available for staff transferring from the existing childrens hospitals is unclear, however from
observations of staff origins as presented in Figures 6.28, 6.32 and 6.36, major challenges in
facilitating future staff travel needs are evident. A mobility management plan will play a relatively
limited role in overcoming such challenges.
Mobility Management Planning Assumptions

The Mobility Management Plan for the expanded St. Jamess Campus is based on the following
overarching assumption:
The existing staff demographics for St Jamess Hospital has been used as the basis for the
appraisal of the Mobility Management Plan as it represents the majority of the staff which will
be employed within the overall St Jamess Hospital campus when the new childrens hospital is
operational. It is also reflective of the fact that the current distribution of staff based at the three
childrens hospitals is likely to change over time when staff move to the new childrens hospital
at St Jamess Hospital campus. Future staff of the new childrens hospital are likely to choose
accommodation that is readily accessible by convenient modes including walking, cycling and
public transport. This change in future staff distributions is best illustrated by the distribution of
staff at the existing childrens hospitals (Ref: Figure 6.28 & Figure 6.32 & Figure 6.36) which
clearly show that the majority of staff live locally to the Hospitals themselves (i.e. Temple Street
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
34
staff have a tendency to live on the north side of City, while staff of Crumlin gravitate towards
the west, and south west of the City).
The following points are noted in relation to this assumption:
The St. Jamess Campus Smarter Travel Programme has set a target staff arrival public transport
mode share of 35% (including 9% by park and ride). At Crumlin, the largest of the three childrens
hospitals, survey data indicates that as little as 6% of staff currently use public transport as a
means of travel to work, with 77% driving.
As staff at the existing childrens hospitals choose accommodation that is readily accessible by
convenient modes including walking, cycling and public transport, accessibility to an alternative
hospital location will, for most staff, be diminished, not enhanced by a relocation to the St.
Jamess Hospital site. Staff car dependency would, in such instances, be anticipated to increase,
not decrease, however very limited levels of staff car parking are proposed for the expanded
facility.
While it is recognized that distribution of staff based at the three childrens hospitals is likely to
change over time when staff move to the new childrens hospital at St Jamess Hospital campus,
the timescales for achieving such a change has not been considered. Due to personal/ family
commitments, a significant change in staff demographic patterns may take many years to
achieve.
The Draft Site Capacity Study has recognized the role of the St. Jamess Campus Smarter Travel
Programme as being primarily promotional in nature:- staff access to the campus provided mainly
via alternative modes (public transport, cycling, walking), which will be actively promoted through
the St Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme. Deficiencies in the public transport
network have also been identified, and on-site cycle parking occupancy observations indicate
that external factors presently appear to play a greater role in hindering enhanced levels of cycle
use, rather than on-site infrastructure provision.
The timescales for achieving the required change in staff demographics at the three existing
childrens hospitals to support more sustainable travel choices; for achieving a radical
behavioral change response amongst staff at all four hospital; and for addressing deficiencies in
public transport and cycle networks are all medium-long term challenges, whereas the new
hospital is envisaged to become operational by 2020.
Mobility Management Plan Network Capacity Considerations

As noted above, the St. Jamess Campus Smarter Travel Programme has set a 9% target for staff arriving
via park and ride facilities on the Luas Red Line, and it is proposed to designate Luas Cheeverstown and
Luas Red Cow as free staff park and ride sites.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
35
Spot car park occupancy observations at these sites are summarised in Table 3.4, and indicate very low
levels of demand for the Cheeverstown site, with high demand for the Red Cow site. Observed
occupancies reinforce the strategic versus local function of the two identified staff park and ride sites,
with the Red Cow site attracting 13.8 times more park and ride users than the Cheeverstown site.
Were the 9% park and ride mode share target achieved for the estimated 5,000 core weekday workers
at the redeveloped site, and were staff demand profiles to follow a similar demand pattern to that
observed at present at the two designated park and ride sites, the following levels of demand at each
site are anticipated:
Luas Cheeverstown park and ride:- 30 cars; and
Luas Red Cow park and ride:- 420 cars.
Current observed weekday reserve capacity at the Red Cow site, at 190 spaces, is insufficient to
accommodate the required level of staff use. This undermines the feasibility of achieving the intended
levels of staff park and ride use. Conversely, were this level of staff park and ride use achieved, existing
users of the Red Cow park and ride facility would be displaced, increasing traffic on the road network.
These issues do not appear to have been considered in the EIS Traffic and Transport Assessment.
In addition to a failure to consider Luas park and ride capacity, the applicant has also failed to assess
the adequacy of public transport service capacity. Illustrating this point, the only apparent Luas Red
Line capacity considerations have been in the form of partial information gained from consultations
with the Railway Procurement Agency (now Transport Infrastructure Ireland), and referenced within
Section 6.1.3.3 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, namely:
Consultations with the Railway Procurement Agency confirmed that, based on 2014 Red Line
patronage surveys, the maximum line flow at Rialto / Fatima occurs between 08:00 and 09:00
inbound during the week. The inbound flows during this hour are approximately 1,800
passengers whereas the capacity of the inbound service at that time is 3,500 passengers.
In the same way as consultations with a local authority is no substitute for analysis of traffic impacts
on the road network, consultation with the Railway Procurement Agency is not considered an
appropriate substitute for a capacity analysis on the public transport network. This is particularly
relevant given the reliance on public transport, and the Luas Red Line in particular as a means of
accommodating staff travel needs.
Notwithstanding the lack of analysis, the scope of consultation with the Railway Procurement Agency
appears to have been deficient, and has apparently failed to consider outbound Luas Red Line capacity,
e.g. capacity to accommodate passengers travelling by heavy rail and interchanging at either Connolly
or Heuston stations, or passengers interchanging from other Luas services at OConnell Street.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
36
In light of the above, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient reserve capacity
on the public transport network, and the Luas Red Line in particular, to cater for additional passenger
demand generated by the proposed development. Anecdotal evidence of overcrowding on the Luas
Red Line in the AM peak period further reinforces this concern.
Shift Workers/ Staff Transition

Car park management proposal set out within the St. Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter travel
Programme (EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, Section 6.1.4.5) state that: All staff will be permitted
to enter any car park (including the visitor car park) for free at night time from 19:00 on weekdays and
all day Saturday and Sunday. This measure will assist with staff change over during the morning peak
period.
The above recommendation represents an acknowledgement on behalf of the applicant of the
greater levels of car dependency amongst hospital shift workers. Parking accumulation analysis
presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter has however significantly underestimated
patient/ visitor car demand during the evening period (as quantified in Section 8.1 of this document),
thus undermining the potential of the patient/ visitor car park to accommodate such temporary
elevated staff car parking. As such, it appears that night-time staff arriving at the hospital will be
unable to locate a car parking space without spending a considerable time searching for a vacant
space in both staff and visitor car parks. This is likely to also impact on visitor car parking activities at
the hospital, increasing their search time for a vacant car parking space.
On-street car parking stock within the residential area to the south and west of the hospital has been
observed to be very highly occupied in the evening time, and therefore has limited potential to
accommodate excess parking demand from the hospital.
Smarter Travel Workplaces/ Mobility Management Planning Research

As noted, the scale of the challenge of achieving such a massive reduction in car use following
implementation of a smarter travel workplaces programme appears significant.
In support of this Submission, Transport Insights has undertaken targeted national and international
desktop research to identify the scale of impact achieved from behavioural change interventions such
as that proposed within the context of the St. Jamess Campus Smarter Travel Programme. The
research has included the following on-line resources:
Smarter Travel Workplaces (www.smartertravelworkplaces.ie):- The Department of Transport
Tourism and Sports public awareness programme working with large employers to implement
voluntary workplace travel plans.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
37
ActTravelWise (http://www.acttravelwise.org/):- the UKs premier membership association for

sustainable travel and behavioural change professionals.
Sustrans (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/:- a leading UK charity enabling people to travel by foot,
bike or public transport for more of the journeys we make every day.
ELTIS (http://www.eltis.org/):- European Union financed online resource which facilitates the
exchange of information, knowledge and experiences in the field of sustainable urban mobility in
Europe.
While the scope of research was non-exhaustive, its findings indicate that the scale of the challenge of
achieving the required level of staff modal shift away from car towards public transport and other
modes through pursuit of mobility management measures appears unprecedented in either Irish or
international contexts.
The large, disperse, complex nature of the four organizations involved, and highly skilled nature of their
workforces (which generally necessitates drawing upon a wide population pool to ensure the best
match between vacancies and skill sets), would appear to add to the scale of the challenge.
The table below presents an overview of the approach pursued in developing the St. Jamess Hospital
Campus Smarter Travel Programme, versus what would be anticipated, in light of its intended role.
Table 5.3 St. Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme Best Practice
Overview
Approach Pursued
Best Practice
Detailed analysis underpinning existing International best practice

travel patterns and staff demographics
research into effectiveness
at existing adult and childrens hospitals,
of
smarter
travel
however:
programmes in reducing
staff travel.
no
evidence
presented
underpinning the targets, i.e. where
similar reductions have been
achieved
in
comparable
organisations; and
no analysis of the feasibility of
extending St. Jamess mode share
targets
to
existing
staff
demographic patterns at the three
childrens hospitals.
Separate origin-destination
analysis of staff at existing
childrens
hospitals
to
determine appropriateness
of St. Jamess mode share
targets, and demonstrate
feasibility of development
proposal.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Implications
Uncertainty
whether Smarter
Travel
Programme can/
will be able to
address
the
needs of staff, in
particular those
relocating from
the three existing
childrens
hospitals.
38
5.4. Strategic Accessibility Analysis

The site of the proposed hospital has been subject to a high-level accessibility analysis, the aim of which
is to demonstrate comparative:
car versus public transport accessibility from identified locations to the site, informing, in turn,
assumptions within the parking impact analysis (presented in Section 8.1 of this document); and
car accessibility to the site, relative to an alternative site location, notionally Connolly Hospital,
Blanchardstown from a number of identified locations in Ireland.
In the absence of an alternative data source, journey time planning data from Google Maps has
provided the data used in undertaking the strategic accessibility analysis. In light of the proposed
hospitals national function, eight locations throughout Ireland were selected (Belfast, Cork, Galway,
Killarney, Letterkenny, Limerick, Sligo, Waterford) these represented many of the largest urban areas
in each corner of Ireland. Although the locations selected are remote to Dublin, they are broadly
representative of all areas outside Dublins M50 motorway.
In each instance, the centre of the town/ city was selected, and an arrival time of 09:00hrs to the site
was set in determining the journey times, as this would reflect a time when a large proportion of
patients (in-patients, day care patients and outpatients) arrive at the hospital.
The results of the comparative car versus public transport accessibility analysis are presented in Table
5.4 below, and indicates that car journey times are an average of 23 minutes faster than by public
transport. For journeys by public transport, this figure is deemed most likely to underestimate typical
journey times, as a significant proportion will originate from other parts of the town/ city or
surrounding rural area, necessitating an onward bus, taxi or car journey, and a further interchange.
This analysis indicates that patients and visitors are likely to have a high degree of car dependency as
a means of accessing the proposed hospital, and challenges the assertion within Section 6.1.4.6 of the
EIS Chapter that the site offers an attractive location with respect to public transport services.,
which is provided as the stated rationale for a 65% mode share assumption for specific patient types.
Table 5.4 Comparative Car versus Public Transport Journey Times to St. Jamess Hospital
Origin Location
Max Estimated Time (Minutes)
Time Difference, Public

Transport Car
(Minutes)
Public Transport
Car
Belfast
182
140
42
Cork
197
180
17
Galway
159
150
Killarney
216 *
230
-14
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
39
Origin Location
Time Difference, Public

Transport Car
(Minutes)
Public Transport
Car
Letterkenny
262
210
52
Limerick
157
150
Sligo
203
160
43
Waterford
159
130
29
* To arrive at the hospital before 09:00hrs, public transport journey would need to be completed the
preceding day.
Accepting the high degree of dependency on car as a means of accessing the hospital, outputs of a
comparative assessment of journey times to the proposed site of the new National Childrens Hospital
at St. Jamess Hospital, relative to an alternative hospital location (notionally Connolly Hospital
Blanchardstown) are presented in Table 5.5 below. This indicates that AM peak journey times are
typically 20 minutes longer to St. Jamess Hospital than an alternative location in the vicinity of Dublins
M50 motorway.
Table 5.5 Comparative Car Journey Times to St. Jamess Hospital verus an Alternative
Hospital Location
Origin Location
Time Difference, St.

James Connolly
(Minutes)
St. James St Hospital
Connolly Hospital
Blanchardstown
Belfast
140
120
20
Cork
180
170
10
Galway
150
140
10
Killarney
230
210
20
Letterkenny
210
190
20
Limerick
150
130
20
Sligo
160
140
20
Waterford
130
110
20
5.5. Development Transport Strategy Conclusions

The approach pursued by the applicant in developing its transport strategy, set out within the St.
Jamess Campus Draft Site Capacity Study, does not accord with evidence based best practice, and
has failed to consider user needs (patients, visitors and staff) in arriving at an arbitrary cap on the level
of proposed on-site car provision. This deficiency is further underlined by the proposed hospitals
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
40
national remit, with a strategic accessibility analysis undertaken in support of this Submission
demonstrating that patients and visitors to the site will be highly car dependent.
A further major failure in the proposed developments transport strategy is its lack of appreciation of
the role and potential of smarter travel programmes/ mobility management plans, which has been
compounded by a failure to consider the travel needs of staff that would relocate from the existing
childrens hospitals in setting its targets.
Deficiencies in the applicants patient/ visitor parking accumulation analysis have resulted in a
significant underestimation of on-site parking capacity at the proposed hospital (see Section 8.1). In
light of the applicants intention to facilitate staff use of patient/ visitor car parks at night-time, this
will negatively impact on the availability of car parking for staff arriving at the site in the evening.
The above deficiencies undermine confidence in the feasibility of transferring staff from the three
existing childrens hospitals to the expanded hospital campus.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
41
6.
Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Review
6.1. Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Best Practice Guidance

The main source of guidance to practitioners in Ireland in undertaking a Traffic and Transport
Assessment is the National Roads Authoritys Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines (May 2014).
The purpose of the Guidelines are to: provide guidance for developers and their agents, planning
authorities and the National Roads Authority (NRA) to assist in:
scoping and conducting studies for traffic and transport assessment in relation to future
development and also development areas particularly areas in proximity to national roads,
defining thresholds at which studies are recommended as part of a planning proposal to minimise
the impact of future proposals on the national roads network,
contributing the provision of sustainable forms of development and better-informed planning

decisions.
The proximity of the proposed development to the national road network is acknowledged in the EIS
Traffic and Transport Chapter (6.1.3.1) as follows: The location of the site to the west of the core City
Centre, means that it is within easy access of the M50 motorway, via the N4 Chapelizod bypass and the
Naas Road from the N7 Red Cow Interchange. The site itself is located approximately 1.1km from the
N4 Chapelizod Bypass and the M50 Red Cow Interchange is located approximately 5.5km to the
southwest.
In the absence of an alternative source of guidance, NRAs Guidelines represent industry best practice
for Traffic and Transport Assessments for developments throughout Ireland, with greatest relevance
in areas where the road network is operating at, or close to capacity, i.e. not just those that are located
in close proximity to a national road.
The approach pursued by the applicant in undertaking the assessment does not appear to, not does
it claim to, have followed the clear guidance set out within the Guidelines, or indeed any other source
of guidance.
In assessing the impacts of a development proposal, the key elements are:
trip generation and modal split;
trip distribution and assignment;
assessment scenarios and years; and
the modelling approach pursued, i.e. the appropriateness of traffic modelling software, and its
application.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
42
The assessment is however deemed deficient in each of the above respects. We expand upon these
deficiencies in the remainder of this section of the Submission. While the primary focus of the review
has been on the operational phase impacts (Sections 6.2-6.5), the implications for assessment of
construction phase impacts are also considered in Section 6.6.
6.2. Operational Phase Trip Generation and Mode Share

Development traffic generation, across the range of hospital related trip types, appears to have been
substantially underestimated, as outlined below.
Over-Spill Parking Impacts

According to the EIS Traffic Chapter (Section 6.1.2.2), traffic generation associated with staff and
visitors has been based on the number of parking spaces proposed for the St Jamess Hospital Campus,
i.e. the assessment of traffic impacts has overlooked potential for over-spill car parking on
surrounding areas. As a substantial proportion of patient/ visitor trips are under 3 hours in duration
(84% across the full day, and 48% during the peak parking accumulation period), and therefore have
the option to park on-street (with or without parking controls in place), this represents a substantial
underestimation in development trip generation. This is further elaborated upon within Section 8
(Parking Impact Assessment) of this document.
Patient Trip Generation

Assumptions underpinning patient trip generation (and parking accumulation), and in particular the
assumed 65% car mode share of outpatient and non-consultant clinics, are unsubstantiated. The
equivalent assumed car mode share for inpatients, day care patients and emergency patients is
100%. No apparent transport rationale exists for assuming different mode shares for different
patient types and visitors, and as these assumptions lack credibility, an 82.4% mode share (based on
Census 2011 national household car ownership rates) is deemed more appropriate level of car use.
This assumed level of car use is supported by a Patient/ Family Transport Survey Report, at Our Ladys
Childrens Hospital, Crumlin (2006, attached as Appendix C), which indicated an 81.4% car arrival mode
share. The implications of these assumptions are further elaborated upon within the Parking Impact
Analysis section (Section 8).
Visitor Trip Generation (and Car Parking Accumulation)

No substantiation has been provided within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter as to how visitor
demand has been estimated, and appears to represent a substantial underestimate of both
development traffic generation, and on-site car parking requirements this is also elaborated upon
in Section 8 of this document.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
43
Through Traffic
Levels of through traffic, which includes all traffic entering via Jamess Street entrance and exiting via
the Rialto Entrance without stopping within the campus have been calculated using St Jamess
Hospital system of Automatic Number Plate Recognition system. Additionally, it is assumed that the
new traffic management system (i.e. a barrier controlled gate) will remove approximately 85% of the
through traffic from within the campus. The 85% reduction relates only to traffic travelling from the
Jamess Street to Rialto entrances, however:
As noted in Section 3.2 of this document, signage is already in place at both the existing entrances
indicate that the site is closed to through traffic. Furthermore barrier controls, which open upon
sensing presence of a vehicle on the approach to the Rialto entrance from inside the hospital
grounds are presently in place at the Rialto entrance. The presence of signage and barrier controls
however act as a deterrent to the majority of traffic not having a legitimate purpose on site, e.g.
staff drop-off or pick-up.
Table 6.56 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter demonstrates that through traffic peaks during
the middle of the day (not in morning or evening peak periods). This further reinforces the
legitimate purpose of this through traffic, and indicates that it is highly unlikely to be removed
by the proposed traffic management restrictions. Instead, they would most likely enter and leave
the site from the same access point.
Other Traffic
As set out in Table 6.57, childrens hospital related traffic appears very low, representing an increase
of approximately 5% over the same traffic types to the existing adults hospital. This low level of
additional traffic relating to the proposed childrens hospital lacks credibility.
Development Trip Generation Growth

Medical experts (see Section 1.1 of this document for details) have advised that HSE Policy requires
that all new hospitals demonstrate provision for 20% future growth in patient demand. This has not
been reflected in development trip generation analysis, and the assessment generally.
6.3. Operational Phase Assessment Years, Scenarios, and Time Periods

Assessment Years and Scenarios
Best practice, as set out in the NRA's TTA Guidelines recommends analysing "junction capacity,
including queue lengths and reserve capacity at base year, year of opening, year of opening plus 5 years
and year of opening plus 15 years." In this instance however, a single assessment year appears to have
been considered, with two scenarios - "Base" and "With New Children's Hospital". As a result, no
growth in background traffic has been assessed, and more critically, the impact of future increases in
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
44
development related traffic has been overlooked, despite HSE Policy requiring that all new hospitals
should be able to accommodate a minimum of 20% future growth (and planned future development
of a maternity hospital on-site).
Time Periods Assessed

Best practice, as set out in the NRA's TTA Guidelines, May 2014 recommends that practitioners
consider the peak hour for development traffic and also the peak hour for the network, and state that
it may be necessary to assess both periods if they are different. Section 6.1.3.2 of the EIS Traffic and
Transport Chapter states that following a scoping exercise with Dublin City Council that the peak
morning period was noted as being between 07:30 and 08:30, the peak afternoon period being between
14:00 and 15:00, and the peak evening period between 16:00 and 17:00. No evidence has been
presented in relation to the selection of these assessment time periods, which do not appear to
coincide with the time periods in which peak network delay is generally acknowledged to be
experienced, i.e. 08:00-09:00hrs and 17:00-18:00hrs. In light of the significant levels of queuing and
delay within the sites vicinity, and underestimation of the proposed developments traffic
generation potential, this represents a major omission within the traffic impact assessment
presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter.
6.4. Operational Phase Traffic Distribution and Assignment

Traffic Distribution
The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter (Section 6.1.2.2) states that "the distribution of traffic on the
surrounding street network has been primarily based on the existing distribution of St Jamess Hospital
generated traffic, however the distribution profiles have been modified slightly to reflect both the
provision of the proposed new entrance onto Mount Brown and the provision of further restrictions to
through traffic within the Hospital." This approach is deemed deficient, as it overlooks the re-allocation
of on-site car parking from staff to visitors, the former category with a predominantly local origindestination pattern, and the later with a larger/ national pattern.
Traffic Assignment
Related to deficiencies in the traffic distribution approach pursued, "the assignment of traffic has been
based on the traffic distribution set out in Table 6.59", yet in the absence of survey data (e.g. Automatic
Number Plate Recognition/ ANPR surveys) in the area surrounding the hospital, or use of a strategic
modelling package, the patterns lack both clarity and credibility.
Traffic Distribution and Assignment Implications

Arising from a failure to reflect major changes in the proposed developments trip distribution patterns
relative to those of the existing development, and to reflect this in the assignment of development
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
45
traffic onto the road network, the distribution and assignment processes are deemed flawed. As a
result, the assessment has underestimated development related traffic to the west of the hospital,
including on South Circular Road, i.e. roads where the greatest levels of traffic congestion are already
experienced. This underestimation of development related traffic also extends to Mount Brown, onto
which a proposed new site access/ egress is proposed. As this part of the network is operating close
to capacity, deficiencies in the traffic distribution and assignment processes will substantially
underestimate the traffic impact of the proposed development on the road network to the west of
the hospital.
6.5. Operational Phase Traffic Modelling

Modelling Software Application
LinSig modelling software appears to have represented the single analytical tool for assessing traffic
impacts. The EIS Traffic Chapter refers to LinSig as "a UK Department of Transport software application
designed to model junctions in an urban area." LinSig is not however a UK DfT software application,
and is instead a tool developed by JCT Consultancy. More critically, LinSig is considered an
inappropriate modelling tool for assessing the traffic impacts of a development of this scale as it
lacks:
highway assignment capabilities, i.e. to understanding routing choices of both development
related traffic, and other traffic on the road network; and
the ability to identify and assess the implications of capacity constraints outside the core model
area which impact on both capacity within the model area (in terms of vehicular throughput at
key junctions), and routing choices.
Guidance on modelling software is provided within the NRA's TTA Guidelines, within which it states
that "SATURN, VISSUM, CUBE and EMME can be used to understand the strategic impacts of a transport
or development proposal." As such, and in accordance with best practice, the strategic traffic impacts
of the development proposal have not been demonstrated by the applicant.
Model Application
Notwithstanding deficiencies in the choice of modelling software utilised within the assessment
process, no evidence is presented to indicate that the models developed have been validated to
observed current traffic conditions (and in particular queuing). As a result, the applicant has not
demonstrated that the traffic model used in the assessment is fit for purpose, undermining
confidence in the robustness of the modelling outputs.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
46
Identified Deficiencies Modelling Outputs

The traffic impact assessment presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter has been based
upon use of an inappropriate analytical tool (LinSig), and significant shortcomings in its application are
apparent. Alongside other aforementioned identified weaknesses in the assessment process, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed developments traffic impacts have been
identified, and where appropriate, mitigated. Indeed, the cumulative impact of deficiencies in the
assessment process appears to represent a substantial underestimate of the proposed
developments traffic impacts.
To illustrate deficiencies in the overall modelling approach pursued, the following table presents queue
length observations from the day of the site assessment (Thursday 03 September) at the junction of
South Circular Road/ Mount Brown alongside equivalent (model outputs) as presented in Table 6.68 of
the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter. This junction is particularly relevant in light of the proposed new
access/ egress to the patient/ visitor car park on Mount Brown. Furthermore, it is also proposed that
Mount Brown would also accommodate the proposed hospitals servicing requirements.
Table 6.1 St. Jamess Hospital Patient/ Visitor Car Park Occupancy Observations
Junction Arm
Table 6.68, EIS Traffic

and Transport Chapter Queue Length
Transport Insights Observations

(Circa 08:30hrs)
Emmet Road (West)
22 vehicles
Queue of ~ 30 vehicles
South Circular
(North)
Mount Brown (East)
South Circular
(South)
Road 21 vehicles
8 vehicles
Road 18 vehicles
Queue extended through South

Circular Road/ Kilmainham Lane
junction
Queue in excess of 30 vehicles
Queue extended through South
Circular Road/ Suir Road junction
As can be seen from the table above, in the AM peak:

Observed levels of queuing were substantially greater than the modelled levels. On Mount Brown,
for example, queues in excess of 30 vehicles were observed, compared to the 8 vehicles modelled.
In addition to differences between a spot queuing observation and average queues over an hour,
other more significant factors which might explain the major differences between observed and
modelled queuing levels include:
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
47
the restricted time period modelled (07:30-08:30hrs), whereas observations took place at
approximately 08:30hrs this reinforces the need to assess a longer time period than has
been considered within the applicants traffic assessment;
a failure to validate the traffic model used, i.e. to demonstrate that it replicates observed
traffic conditions in the base (or without development) scenario, and as such, demonstrate
that it is fit for purpose; and
inappropriate modelling software applications (see below).
Queuing extended through neighbouring junctions along the South Circular Road. While LinSigs
capability to model a network of junctions is appreciated, capacity within the network can often
be determined by constraints outside the model area. This can give a false impression that, due
to, for example, moderate flows through individual junctions (arising from congestion elsewhere
on the network), that sufficient reserve capacity may exist to accommodate growth. Extensive
queuing observed within the modelled area reinforce such concerns, and as a result, the
appropriateness of the modelling approach pursued by the applicant.
6.6. Construction Phase Impact Assessment Review

Construction Programme and Phases
Section 6.1.5.1 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter sets out the construction phase impact
assessment:
A four year period is envisaged for the construction phase, during which it is envisaged that traffic
flows generated by the construction works will be less than those when the hospital is complete.
A key reason provided in support of the above assertion is as follows:
no staff parking for construction workers will be provided within the St Jamess Hospital
campus, with the Contractor required to manage staff movements to and from the site
without impacting on the neighbouring community.
Construction works have been divided into three primary phases:
Phase 1: Initial Phase - Enabling Works;
Phase 2: Initial Phase - Primary Basement Works and Superstructure; and
Phase 3: Main Construction Phase.
Construction Phase Traffic Generation

Within each of the three phases, an estimate is provided of the daily number of vehicle movements,
by vehicle type. While the robustness of specific estimates have not been subject to scrutiny, the
following points are noted in relation to construction staff related traffic generation:
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
48
The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter does not appear to have included an estimate of on-site
construction staff within each of the three phases of construction. Such an estimate is essential
in determining the volumes of construction staff related traffic levels, traffic impacts and car
parking demands/ impacts.
The proposed scope of a Construction Traffic Management Plan are set out within Section 6.1.6.1
of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, and includes:
The Contractor will be required to implement a Mobility Management Plan for its staff and
co-ordinate with the St Jamess Hospital Campus Mobility Manager during the course of the
construction project.
For similar reasons to the proposed developments operational phase, the development of a
Mobility Management Plan cannot be seen as a panacea for staff travel needs. Furthermore, as
a proportion of construction staff will be carrying tools and equipment to the site, travelling to
work by public transport, walking and cycling will often be infeasible.
For each of the three phases it is envisaged that:
staff activity will generate some traffic movements at the construction site related to taxi
arrivals, staff drop-off, possible shuttle bus movements etc..., and it is envisaged that during
the first phase of the project that up to 100 vehicles a day will be generated by construction
staff at the construction site.
The above traffic generation levels appear very low, and is predicated on an (unsupported)
assumption that there will be no over-spill car parking on the surrounding road network. This
could include staff travelling to the site by van, dropping off tools and equipment, before
departing from the site to park on streets within the hospitals vicinity.
Proposals to extend parking control restrictions within the area to south of the hospital site are
set out in Section 6.1.4.5 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, however no timelines for
implementation appear to have been provided. As such, it is unclear if or how the Contractor can
ensure that construction staff related car parking activities can be completed without
impacting on the neighbouring community. Even if the parking control restrictions were
extended prior to construction works commencing, parking demand within remaining free parking
areas within the hospitals vicinity would be expected to substantially increase during the
construction phase.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
49
Davitt Road Construction Compound

The construction strategy for the proposed new hospital includes the development of a construction
compound on the former Unilever Site at Davitt Road It is intended that the construction compound
would be utilised through all construction phases.
The relatively long distance estimated at 1.7km between the proposed construction compound
and the site will increase the extent the road network affected by the estimated 799 daily passenger
car unit (PCU) equivalent trips between both locations.
Construction Phase Traffic Impacts

The traffic impact of construction activities on identified junctions within the sites vicinity are
presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter. For example, Table 6.40 presents the forecast
performance of the (temporary) South Circular Road/ Brookfield Road junction during phase 2 of the
construction works.
Based on deficiencies in the operational phase assessment (and detailed in Sections 6.2-6.6) of this
document, and concerns relating to the underestimation of construction staff related traffic impacts,
the conclusion that the temporary junction has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic
demands during each time period, with the projected level of queues and delays similar to base
conditions at the same junction lacks credibility.
6.7. Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Review Conclusions

Having undertaken a detailed review of the transport impact assessment as set out in the EIS Traffic
and Transport Chapter, the approach pursued by the applicant does not claim to follow, or does not
appear to accord with, industry best practice, namely the NRAs TTA Guidelines. Key stages in the
assessment, including trip generation and modal split, assessment years and time periods, traffic
distribution and assignment, and the modelling approach pursued in the analysis of traffic impacts
lack the required level of robustness for a large, strategic and centrally located development.
The following table (Table 6.2) provides an overview of the modelling approach pursued, against best
practice, and implications for the robustness of the transport assessments findings.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
50
Table 6.2
Transport Impact Assessment Best Practice Overview
Approach Pursued
Best Practice
approach Either use of a trip

generation,
generation database (ideal
but unlikely to have
comparable
development
unsupported
assumption
types), or in its absence a first
that there would be no overprinciples approach with
spill parking on surrounding
supporting evidence base
streets;
(and
transparency)
lack of clarity supporting
underpinning
all
visitor
trip
generation
assumptions.
approach;
Consideration of potential
lack of clarity and/ or
for, and trip generation
evidence supporting key
implications of over-spill car
assumptions patient mode
parking.
split (which varies between
Analytical base underpinning
65% and 100%), duration of
other traffic and through
stay etc.
trips.
unsupported
assumptions
regarding other traffic, and
removal of through traffic.
First
principles
underpinning trip
however:
Trip Generation
Trip distribution and assignment
Existing trip distribution patterns

at the hospital assumed to pertain
to the future situation postdevelopment, however:
re-allocation of car parking
from
staff
(with
predominantly local origins)
to
visitors
(with
predominantly non-Dublin
origins) not considered; and
lack of clarity over network
assignment process.
Existing and future staff and

visitor catchment analysis.
Determination of new
origin-destination matrix
(distribution patterns) for
each, based on car mode
shares by distance bands.
Assignment of trips to
network based on revised
distribution patterns, using
a model with network
assignment
capabilities
(SATURN, VISSUM etc.).
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Implications
High risk that:
development
related
trips
across
patient/
visitor and other
traffic have been
substantially
underestimated;
development
traffic
impacts
have
been
substantially
underestimated;
and
on-site car parking
requirements
have
been
underestimated.
Under-estimation
of development
related
traffic,
and
associated
traffic impacts to
the west of the
proposed
development, e.g.
South
Circular
Road (and Mount
Brown),
where
traffic congestion
is most severe.
51
Modelling Approach
Assessment years, time periods and scenarios
Approach Pursued
Best Practice
Implications
Assessment of Base and

With
New
Children's
Hospital" scenarios only.
As per NRAs TTA Guidelines:
Medium to longer
term
traffic
impacts of the
proposed
development not
established.
Network
peak
period
(maximum delay) apparently
overlooked.
No
consideration
of
background traffic growth.
Future increased hospital trip
demand overlooked.
LinSig modelling approach

pursued, however it lacks
network
re-assignment
capabilities, essential to
assess the strategic traffic
impacts
of
a
major
development proposal.
analyse "junction capacity,

including queue lengths and
reserve capacity at base
year, year of opening, year
of opening plus 5 years and
year of opening plus 15
years" (assessing future
growth in patient demand);
and
Impact of future
increased patient
demand
overlooked.
demonstrate
that
development peak and
network peak time periods
are the same, otherwise
analyse both.
As per the NRA's TTA
Guidelines, "SATURN,
VISSUM, CUBE and EMME
can be used to understand
the strategic impacts of a
transport or development
proposal."
Strategic,
i.e.
network-wide,
implications
of
development
proposal unclear.
The transport assessment approach pursued by the applicant is therefore deficient in areas that are
of greatest significance in terms of forecasting the proposed developments traffic impacts. The
cumulative effect of these deficiencies is a substantial underestimation of the proposed
developments traffic impacts, impacting on access to the site by car, by bus and by emergency
vehicles. This is particularly concerning in light of the already significant levels of peak period queuing
and delay experienced on the road network within the sites vicinity.
Deficiencies in the assessment process also undermine the conclusion within the EIS Traffic and
Transport Chapter that the delivery of additional development on campus can be accommodated
without impacting on prevailing traffic conditions on the surrounding road network.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
52
7.
Proposed Site Access and Site Plans Review
7.1. Review Context

The review of the site plans was undertaken in the context of our understanding of the site and its
receiving environment, in addition to the specific characteristics of the proposed development and its
related impacts. Specifically, it has drawn most heavily upon:
our understanding of the site and local context gained from the on- and off-site assessments (and
summarised in Section 3 of this document); and
the findings of the traffic and transport impact assessment review (set out in Section 6).
Within Table 6.1, significant observed levels of AM peak queuing on the local road network to the west
of the site, and on the South Circular Road in particular, are noted, which are significantly in excess of
those reported within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter. For example, on the Mount Brown arm
of its junction with the South Circular Road, queues in excess of 30 vehicles were observed on the
morning of the site assessment, compared to 8 in the base (or without development) modelled
scenario, as presented in Table 6.68 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter.
Major shortcomings in the applicants analysis of traffic impacts are also detailed in Section 6, with the
assessment itself deemed to lack the required level of robustness for a large, strategic and centrally
located development.
7.2. Proposed New Mount Brown Site Access Junction

Proposed Mount Brown Site Access/ Egress Suitability
It is proposed to provide a new site access/ egress from Mount Brown to the north of the site.
According to Section 6.1.4.4 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, the proposed new Mount Brown
access is designed to accommodate both service vehicles accessing the service yard within the
basement of the new childrens hospital and car traffic accessing the basement car park.
On the morning of the site assessment, significant queuing was observed at the junction of South
Circular Road and Mount Brown, with (as noted in Table 6.1) queues of in excess of 30 vehicles noted
on the Mount Brown arm of the junction. Furthermore, Dublin Bus Routes 13 and 40 operate along
Mount Brown. In light of observed significant peak period queuing and delay on Mount Brown, the
proposal to access the site via this road appears likely to add to observed levels of queuing and delay
at its junction with South Circular Road.
Reinforcing the above concern are identified deficiencies in the transport assessments approach (see
Section 6), including the traffic distribution and assignment processes forming part of the traffic impact
assessment this indicates that forecast traffic impacts on Mount Brown appear to have been
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
53
significantly underestimated. In addition to compromising access to the site by car, it would also
compromise efficient and reliable bus service operations on Mount Brown, and achievement of the
sites Smarter Travel Programme public transport mode share targets.
Engineering members on the Client team have also advised that Mount Brown, including the site
access/ egress on Mount Brown is subject to a significant risk of flooding this represents a further
concern in relation to the suitability of this route in accommodating traffic to/ from the proposed
development.
Proposed Junction Layout - Suitability

In addition to accommodating access to the patient/ visitor car park, the proposed new Mount Brown
access is designed to accommodate both service vehicles accessing the service yard within the
basement of the new childrens hospital. No evidence appears to have been provided within the EIS
Traffic and Transport Chapter, in the form of a swept path analysis of the junction, to demonstrate the
feasibility of concurrent access and egress of various vehicles types, e.g. two delivery vehicles, or a
delivery vehicle and a private car etc. In light of Mount Browns restricted width, and high levels of
traffic that would be expected to use this site access / egress (see Section 6 for details of identified
deficiencies in the traffic impact assessments traffic generation and distribution/ assignment
processes), the suitability of the proposed junction layout represents a concern to efficient and safe
site access/ egress.
7.3. Proposed Internal Shared Surface Facilities

Shared surface facilities within the campus, as per Figure 6.38 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter,
are proposed. In light of the use of the same route to accommodate emergency access (Figure 6.44),
the proposed shared use arrangement on-site appears inconsistent with achieving a major increase
in staff cycle use.
7.4. Taxi and Car Drop-Off and Pick-Up

Section 6.1.5.2 of the EIS Traffic Chapter states that the proposed concourse area in front of the
hospital is expected to be used by taxis and by general traffic picking up and dropping off families with
patients. It also states that:
some smaller courier type deliveries will arrive via the main entrance along staff being dropped
off by family or friends.
and that:
traffic generation associated with the concourse.. has been based on the traffic counts carried
out at the existing St Jamess Hospital concourse and that the number of trips recorded at the
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
54
Adult hospital concourse has been reduced by 30% to reflect the projected lower number of dropoff trips associated with a new childrens hospital.
In light of the very limited levels of staff car parking proposed for the combined hospital facility, basing
future childrens hospital related demand on 70% of the existing hospital demand risks substantially
under-estimating future demand levels. An initial review of the site layout plan (LEVEL 00 AREA PLAN
@ 1:500 - NPH-A-BDP-PL-00-00-1100, an extract from which is reproduced in Figure 7.1 below),
indicates that capacity for <30 cars seemingly accommodating taxi, car and courier uses has been
provided within the concourse area. It is unclear therefore if or how the proposed facilities can
accommodate potentially significant levels of taxi and car drop-off and pick-up demand. Finally, as
set-down areas do not appear to have been provided, it is unclear how taxi and car drop-off activities
will be accommodated further amplifying pressures on the limited number of spaces provided, or
resulting in informal activities (on double yellow lines etc.) within the concourse or on access roads.
Figure 7.1 Proposed Ground Level Site Layout Plan (Extracted from NPH-A-BDP-PL-00-001100)
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
55
7.5. Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review

RSA Scope
The scope includes the revised accesses, however it excludes internal operations. In light of the
concern noted above regarding the interaction of cyclists and emergency vehicles, and the above noted
concerns regarding taxi and car pick-up and drop off, the safe internal operation of the proposed
facility does has not been demonstrated. This is a major omission on behalf of the applicant, which
could have implications for the safe future internal operations of the site.
Relocated Rialto Entrance

Based on a review of the proposed relocated Rialto entrance, visibility splays appear somewhat
compromised. This point is addressed in the Road Safety Audit (4.3.1.1) however it is unclear from the
Proposed Street Layout Rialto Entrance drawing no. NPH-T-ARUP-00-ST-0001-P1-0003 if the remedial
actions provide the required visibility splay to ensure the safe operation of the junction. In addition,
visibility splays for the three new/ revised accesses to the site do not appear to have been provided,
and cannot therefore be checked to ensure consistency with best practice.
7.6. Proposed Site Plan Review Conclusions

The review of the proposed site access arrangements and site plans has identified:
Those accessing/ egressing via the proposed new Mount Brown site access junction location are
likely to both experience and add to existing significant levels of queuing and delay to the west of
the site, including the junction of South Circular Road and Mount Brown. As noted in Table 6.1,
the existing adverse performance characteristics at this junction do not appear to have been
reflected in the applicants traffic assessment. The suitability of Mount Brown as a major access
route to the proposed hospital by patients, visitors and staff has therefore not been
demonstrated.
An apparent failure to provide a swept path analysis for the proposed new Mount Brown junction
layout, gives rise to concerns relating to the efficient and safe future operation of the junction.
The proposed internal shared surface facilities for general traffic and cyclists risks hindering the
St. Jamess Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programmes target increases in the staff cycle use.
A lack of clarity relating to taxi and car drop off facilities, and whether they shall meet anticipated
high levels of future patient, visitor and staff demand.
The Road Safety Audits limited scope, having considered only the sites interfaces with the
surrounding road network, and not internal operations. This could have implications for the safe
future internal operations of the site.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
56
8.
Parking Impact Analysis
8.1. Parking Accumulation Analysis Review

Section 6.1.4.6 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter summarises the approach and outputs of the
proposed developments parking accumulation analysis. The analysis presented within the EIS Traffic
and Transport Chapter is underpinned by a range of assumptions relating to each different patient
category, and visitors. In assessing the approach pursued, key assumptions underpinning the analysis
have been documented and considered by our team, with input as required from medical experts on
the client team (see Section 1.1 of this document for details). Following considerations, targeted
amendments to the parking accumulation analysis approach and its assumptions have been made.
This process has facilitated a comprehensive assessment of the appropriateness of the proposed level
of on-site patient/ visitor car parking provision.
This section presents the parking accumulation analysis and underpinning assumptions contained
within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, amendments made in updating the analysis in each
instance a clear supporting rationale is provided for intervention. The assumptions cover each patient
type and visitors to the hospital, i.e.
inpatients (and visitors);
day care patients;
outpatients;
non-consultant clinics; and
emergency/ urgent care patients.
In-patients
The following table summarises in-patients parking accumulation assumptions presented in EIS Traffic
and Transport Chapter and their appropriateness, assessed with help of medical experts from the client
team (see Section 1.1 of this document for details).
Table 8.1 In-patients Car Parking Accumulation Assumptions

Assumption
Number of beds
Bed occupancy
General
Critical care
Total
General
Critical care
General
EIS Traffic and

Transport Chapter
Assumptions
Appropriateness (Y/
N; if N
Modification)
380
0
380
85%
70%
90%
N, 320
N, 60
Y
Y*
Y*
Y
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
57
Assumption
Percentage of patients who

have a parent/ guardian
with them all the time
Percentage of parents/
guardians coming by car
EIS Traffic and

Transport Chapter
Assumptions
Appropriateness (Y/
N; if N
Modification)
Critical care
90%
General
Critical care
100%
100%
07:00-11:00hrs
(duration: 4 hours)
1/3
60%
11:00-16:00hrs
18:00-21:00hrs
N, 82.4%
N, 82.4%
Y
Period of patients overlapping

(when patients are admitted and discharged)
Turnover of beds per day
Percentage of patients overlapping
1st
Visit hours
2nd
Y
Y
Y
Y
* Retained, however assumption has been challenged by medical experts.

In calculating visitor demand, the following points are noted:
Parent/ guardian demand calculation:- Demand of parents/ guardians who stay with children
during the whole course of their stay at the hospital. It is assumed (within the EIS Traffic and
Transport Chapter) that 90% of children will have parents/ guardians with them all the time; and
that every parent/ guardian arrives by car. These percentages multiplied by the number of inpatients (a product of number of beds and their occupancy, for both types) gives parents/
guardians parking accumulation of 291, and it is taken to be constant throughout the day and
night (see Table 8.3).
Bed occupancy assumptions:- Medical experts on the client team (see Section 1.1 of this
document for details) have challenged the assumed bed occupancies presented in the EIS Traffic
and Transport Chapter.
At Our Ladys Childrens Hospital Crumlin, bed occupancies are
understood to be 90% for general beds and 95% for critical care beds, and it is further understood
that the new hospital will not give rise to any increase in bed capacity compared to the three
existing childrens hospitals. Despite concerns that they could significantly underestimate parking
accumulation demand, bed occupancy levels as set out within the EIS Traffic and Transport have
however formed the basis for the initial demand scenario.
Car arrival mode share assumption:- The critical assumption in this approach is considered to be
parents/ guardians car mode share, and within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter, it appears
that a 100% car mode share has been assumed. According to CSO Census 2011 8 , national
This is Ireland, Highlights from Census 2011, Part 2 (June 2012)
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
58
household car ownership levels, i.e. the percentage of households nationally owning at least one
car, is 82.4%. The Patient/ Family Transport Survey Report, at Our Ladys Childrens Hospital,
Crumlin (2006, attached as Appendix C), indicates an 81.4% car arrival mode share to the hospital.
High-level car versus public transport accessibility analysis presented within this Submission
(Section 5.4) further highlights the attractiveness of car versus public transport as a means of
access to the hospital at a national level. Assuming that only those families which own a car will
drive a child to the hospital (and all of them will), this conservative 82.4% car arrival mode share
has been adopted. As no apparent transport rationale exists for adopting different mode shares
for different patient types and visitors, the same car mode share has also been adopted for all
such trips to the proposed development.
Ratio of general to critical care beds:- Apart from the above, the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter
has calculated demand based on 380 general beds, with critical care beds not considered in the
analysis. The SID Application clearly states however the intention to provide 320 general beds
and 60 critical care beds respectively.
Additional demand due to patients overlapping (admission and discharge):- Additional demand
is calculated as a ratio of:
(1) number of patients (arriving by a car) that overlaps; and
(2) duration (in hours) of overlapping period.
The former is a product of number of occupied beds (both types), daily beds turnover, percent of
patients overlapping and car mode share. The latter implies that overlapping is evenly distributed
through the period and that the duration of overlap is an average of 1 hour. Car parking
accumulation has been calculated to be 16 (Table 8.3).
Apart from the car mode share, and for the reason provided above, the above approach has not been
modified, however:
Visitors demand EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter:- Visitors demand is specific to the allocated
visiting hours at the proposed hospital. The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter has assumed that
visitor demand is the same as for patients overlapping, i.e. 16 (Table 8.3). Additional demand
during visiting hours is not related in any way to overlapping patient demand during the morning
admission and discharge period, and the assumption that the accumulations are the same lacks
any supporting rationale. Furthermore, this assumption is critical in terms of both overall patient/
visitor car parking accumulation, and the levels of on-site car parking provision.
Visitor demand revised approach:- As a robust and transparent means of estimating car parking
demand, an alternative approach (which is consistent with the approach pursued by the applicant
in determining patient demand within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter) has been adopted.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
59
Within the revised approach, visitors car parking accumulation equals number of visitors (arriving
by a car) multiplied by an average duration of visit and divided by number of hours of visits.
Number of visitors arriving by a car is a product of the number of in-patients, number of visitors
per in-patient during a visit period, car mode share and car occupancy. This is to be calculated for
both in-patient types (general and critical care) and for both visit periods during the day.
Supplemental data assumptions inputting to this calculation have been produced, following advice
from medical experts on the client team (see Section 1.1 of this document for details), and are
presented in the following table.
Table 8.2 Visitors Car Parking Accumulation Assumptions

Assumption
Data
Number of visitors per patient during visit hours
General
Critical care
2
1
82.4%
1.5
2
Car mode share

Average car occupancy
Average duration of visit (h)
On the basis of the above, a comparison of parking accumulation for in-patients produced by EIS and
the modified approach is presented in the Table 8.3 below.
Table 8.3 Parking Accumulation In-Patients

Time
EIS9
Overlapping
period
7
10
Visit hours
11
12
13
14
15
16
Visit hours
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
291 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 291 291 307 307 307 291 291 291
Modified10 233 246 246 246 246 362 362 362 362 362 233 233 447 447 447 233 233 233
As can be seen from the table above, compared to the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapters analysis, the
modified analysis indicates:
a lower level of demand at night time (233 versus 291 parked cars, i.e. 58 less); however
9
10
Parking accumulation data as presented within Table 6.22 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter
Modified outputs following updated Transport Insights analysis based on aforementioned approach/
assumptions
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
60
a higher level of demand is forecast during the first visiting period (362 versus 307, i.e. an
additional 55 cars); and
a significantly higher level of demand again (447 versus 307, i.e. an additional 140 cars) during the
evening period.
As the peak activity for other patient types occurs during the day-time (when accumulation in the
adults hospital is also at very high levels), increased parking accumulation during this period is of
greater significance in terms of assessing the suitability of on-site car parking provision. Increased
parking demand in the evening time will have implications for the feasibility of utilising the patient/
visitor car park to accommodate elevated staff parking demand during the staff change period.
Day Beds
Table 8.4 below summarises day beds parking accumulation assumptions given in EIS Traffic and
Transport Chapter and their appropriateness, assessed with help of medical experts (see Section 1.1
of this document for details).
Table 8.4 Day Beds Car Parking Accumulation Assumptions

Assumption
EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter

Assumptions
Appropriateness (Y/ N; if N
Modification)
Number of day
beds
Duration of stay
93 day-care beds
Discharge rate
1.5 patients per bed
Arrival and
departure profiles?
Spread over a number of hours, with

the majority arriving between
07:00hrs and 08:00hrs
100%
Car mode share
Y
Half occupied all day basis; and
Remainder occupied on a half day
basis.
N, 82.4%
Input data presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter appears to be incomplete, and as
such a full understanding of the approach pursued has not been established. In particular, the
distribution of duration of stay is given in a descriptive form and is open to multiple interpretations.
As a result of the limited data provided, it has not been possible to replicate the analytical approach
pursued, and to further analyse the applied approach. However, assumptions that have been
presented in the document have been assessed, and are considered to be appropriate (apart from car
mode share). Additionally, the output (presented in Table 6.23 of the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter)
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
61
appears generally logical and in line with stated assumptions (including distribution of accumulation
during a day, in addition to overlapping).
Therefore, the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapters results have been retained, revising them only in
accordance with modified car mode share (82.4% instead of 100%, as per Table 8.4). The revised
outputs are also presented in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5 Parking Accumulation Day Beds

Time
EIS11
24
80
105 105 103 112 115 111 103 89
61
29
Modified12 20
66
87
50
24
87
10
85
11
92
12
95
13
91
14
85
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
73
As can be seen from Table 8.5 above, the outputs of the modified parking accumulation analysis
indicate a lower level of day bed related parking demand throughout the day (20 lower during the
12:00-13:00hrs period).
Outpatients
Table 8.6 summarises outpatients parking accumulation assumptions given in EIS Traffic and Transport
Chapter, and their appropriateness.
Table 8.6 Outpatients Car Parking Accumulation Assumptions
11
12
Assumption
EIS Traffic and Transport

Chapter Assumptions
Appropriateness (Y/ N; if
N Modification)
Annual number of out-patients to

be treated in NCH
No. of days operational per annum
235,000*84%
240
Out-patient peak demand uplift
5%
Out-patient duration of stay (wait

plus appointment time) profiles
30% of appointments will Y

be an average of 1 hour in
duration;
30% - 2 hours;
35% - 3 hours; and
5% - 4 hours.
Car mode share
65%
N, 82.4%
assumptions
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
62
EIS Traffic Chapter forecasts outpatients car parking accumulation as follows:

Daily outpatient demand:- Daily number of outpatients to be treated at the new childrens
hospital is calculated on the basis of annual outpatients appointment, percent of these
appointments to be treated in this hospital and number of days operational per annum. In order
to depict daily unevenness, a 5% uplift from average has been taken into account in total, leading
to 874 outpatients per day.
Outpatient parking demand:- Out-patients parking volume, i.e. daily number of outpatients
arriving by car, is a product of daily number of out-patients and car mode share.
Arrival distribution pattern:- To translate parking volume into parking accumulations through a
day, distribution of patients arrival has been proposed based on the assumption that share of
patients arriving to the hospital is highest at the beginning of the shift (first hour), then decreased
and constant in the middle, and lowest in the end (last hour).
Duration of stay distribution pattern:- Every patient has been assigned to a duration band, where
distribution of duration of stay includes wait and appointment time (Table 8.6), is assumed to
remain constant throughout a day.
The assumption of very low level of car mode share (65%) in the EIS Traffic Chapter is taken to reflect
the attractive location the Hospital has with respect to public transport services, and in particular the
Luas Red Line. However, parents/ guardians of (childrens) hospital patients with access to a car are
unlikely to use public transport, regardless of its accessibility and quality. This is confirmed by the
Patient/ Family Transport Survey Report from Our Ladys Childrens Hospital in Crumlin (2006), which
shows that only 2.7% of parents/ guardians (out of 81.4% arriving by a car) would consider travelling
by public transport if it was better and more accessible. In light of the above, a car mode share for
this patient type (as well as for others) of 82.4% is deemed more appropriate in practice. High-level
accessibility analysis presented within Section 5.4 of this document confirms the appropriateness of
this assumption, with car representing a faster means of travel to the hospital from a range of locations
throughout Ireland (not to mention more convenient as a means of transporting ill children).
The outpatient parking accumulation approach pursued in the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter is
deemed acceptable, and has been used as a basis for producing revised results on the basis of an
alternative car mode share from 65% to 82.4% (Table 8.7).
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
63
Table 8.7 Parking Accumulation Outpatients

Time
10
11
12
EIS13
112 135 140 123 93
Modified14 0
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22
23
129 129 131 122 65
25
142 170 178 156 118 164 164 165 154 82
32
As can be seen from Table 8.7 above, the outputs of the modified parking accumulation analysis
indicate a higher level of outpatient related parking demand throughout the day (34 higher during the
15:00-16:00hrs period).
Non-Consultant Clinics
EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter assumptions used to derive car parking accumulation for nonconsultant clinics are presented in the table below.
Table 8.8 Non-Consultant Clinics Car Parking Accumulation Assumptions

Assumption
EIS Traffic and Transport

Chapter Assumptions
Appropriateness (Y/ N; if N
Modification)
Annual number of visits
98,800
Daily number of visits
412
Duration of stay profiles
50% of appointments will be Y

an average of 1 hour in
duration; and
50% - 2 hours.
Car mode share
65%*
N, 82.4%
* Though this is not explicitly stated, it is obvious from the results.

In estimation of car parking accumulation for non-consultant clinics the same approach was applied as
for outpatients, based on: (1) daily number of visits, and further (2) daily parking volume, (3)
distribution of patients arrival (which is the same as for outpatients) and (4) distribution of patients
duration of stay.
As for outpatients, the only modification we made relates to car mode share (82.4% instead of 65%).
The results comparison is presented in Table 8.9.
13
14
assumptions
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
64
Table 8.9 Parking Accumulation Non-Consultant Clinics

Time
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EIS15
54
54
40
40
27
47
47
40
40
13
Modified16 0
68
68
51
51
34
60
60
51
51
17
As can be seen from the table above, the outputs of the modified parking accumulation analysis
indicate a higher level of non-consultant clinic related parking demand throughout the day (13 higher
during the 13:00-14:00hrs period).
Emergency Department
Table 8.10 summarizes emergency department related parking accumulation input data presented in
EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter.
Table 8.10 Emergency Department Car Parking Accumulation Assumptions
15
16
Assumption
EIS Traffic Chapter

Assumptions
Appropriateness (Y/ N; if
N Modification)
Annual number of urgent care

cases
No. of days operational per
annum?
Daily number of urgent care cases
122,438*59%
365
237
Peak demand uplift (from

average)?
Arrival profile
20%
00:00-04:00hrs: 5%;
04:00-08:00hrs: 6%;
08:00-12:00hrs: 20%;
12:00-16:00hrs: 25%;
16:00-20:00hrs: 26%; and
20:00-00:00hrs: 18%.
Urgent care patient duration of

stay profiles?
<3 hours: 49%;

>3 & <6 hours: 38%;
>6 & <9 hours: 9%; and
>9 hours: 3%.
Y*
Car mode share
100%
N, 82.4%
assumptions
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
65
* Retained, however assumption has been challenged by medical experts.

Applying the same approach as for outpatients and non-consultant clinics, emergency department
related patient car parking accumulation has been calculated.
Compared to data related to outpatients and non-consultant clinics, arrival profile appears to be more
credible for this type of patient, as it has been based on data from Our Ladys Childrens Hospital
Crumlin. Challenges in interpreting the data were however encountered due to the wide range in
arrival and distribution of stay profiles. Furthermore, medical experts on the client team (see Section
1.1 of this document for details) have challenged the robustness of the assumed duration of stay
profiles, and in particular the assumption that 49% would be less than 3 hours in duration. The EIS
Traffic and Transport Chapters duration of stay profiles have however been retained, and as in
previous two cases, the only correction made for emergency department patients relates to car mode
share (82.4% instead of 100% as per Table 8.10). The results are presented in Table 8.11 below.
Table 8.11 Parking Accumulation Emergency Department

Time
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EIS17
14
14
22
29
33
37
42
46
48
50
51
53
54
54
50
46
44
42
10
11
18
25
29
33
38
41
43
45
47
49
49
50
47
43
41
Modified18 9
As can be seen from Table 8.11 above, the outputs of the modified emergency department parking
accumulation analysis indicate a lower level of parking demand throughout the day (9 lower during the
12:00-13:00hrs period, and 5 lower during the 18:00-20:00hrs period).
Total
Finally, combining the parking accumulations associated with the all departments within the proposed
new childrens hospital, an overall parking accumulation is presented in Table 8.12. Outputs from the
parking accumulation analysis provided in the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter and those emerging
from the modified approach and presented above under each of the individual patient categories are
presented.
17
18
assumptions
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
66
Table 8.12 Parking Accumulation All Departments

Time
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
EIS19
345 421 629 660 655 650 612 672 666 647 593 473 413 383 375 354 351 350
Modified- 262 322 554 589 585 690 642 715 712 694 533 403 535 501 497 280 276 274
Optimistic
Scenario20
Difference -83 -99 -75 -71 -70 40
(ModEIS)
30
43
46
47
-60 -70 122 118 122 -74 -75 -76
As can be seen from Table 8.12 above, the modified parking accumulation demand outputs indicates:
a lower level of demand at night-time (262 versus 345 parked cars, i.e. 83 less); and
a higher level of day-time demand (715 versus 672, i.e. an additional 43 cars).
The above accumulations levels are however deemed to represent an optimistic scenario for the
following reasons:
the robustness of key assumptions underpinning the analysis (including bed occupancies and
duration of emergency department patient stays), which have been questioned by medical
experts on the client team (see Section 1.1 of this document for details); and
the analysis does not account for future patient demand growth, despite HSE policy that all new
hospital facilities should have capacity to accommodate 20% future growth.
To account for the above, the implications of the following levels of increased patient demand over
the optimistic scenario have been assessed:
10% in a realistic or medium-term scenario; and
20% in a pessimistic or long-term scenario.
Parking accumulation demand outputs for both of these scenarios are presented in the following table
(Table 8.13).
19
20
assumptions
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
67
Table 8.13 Parking Accumulation All Departments

Time
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EIS21
345 421 629 660 655 650 612 672 666 647 593 473 413 383 375 354 351 350
Modified- 288 354 609 648 643 759 706 787 783 763 586 443 589 551 547 308 304 301
Realistic
Scenario22
Modified- 314 386 665 707 701 828 770 858 854 833 640 484 642 601 596 336 331 329
Pessimistic
Scenario23
As can be seen from the table above, compared to the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapters analysis, the
modified analysis indicates:
realistic scenario:- a lower level of car parking demand at night-time (288 versus 345, i.e. 57
less); whereas peak day-time demand is estimated at be higher (787 cars versus 675, i.e. an
additional 112 cars); and
pessimistic scenario:- a lower level of car parking demand at night-time (314 versus 345, i.e. 31
less); whereas peak day-time demand is estimated at be higher (858 cars versus 675, i.e. an
additional 183 cars).
These results clearly indicate that peak parking accumulation in the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter
has been substantially underestimated. Taking into account planned increase in number of patient/
visitor car parking capacity upon the hospital construction (664) and assumed targeted parking
occupancy level of 95% (above which ensuring the efficient operation of the car park would not be
possible and/ or parking search time for new patients/ visitors arriving at the hospital would
significantly increase), it can be concluded that parking demand will exceed supply for 5 hours a day in
the optimistic scenario, and 10 hours per day in the pessimistic scenario. This deficit in on-site
parking provision is illustrated in the figure below, in which the patient/ visitor car parks maximum
target occupancy, also referred to its operational capacity, and illustrated by the dashed black line, is
deemed to represent 95% of the increased capacity provided, i.e.
(proposed patient/ visitor car park capacity existing patient/ visitor car park capacity) * 95%;
which equals (1,131 467) * 0.95 = 631.
21
22
23
Optimistic scenario parking accumulation demand (as set out in Table 8.12) * 10%
Optimistic scenario parking accumulation demand (as set out in Table 8.12) * 20%
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
68
Figure 8.1 Car Parking Accumulation Analysis Outputs EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter
versus Revised (Optimistic, Realistic and Pesimistic Demand Scenarios)
The figure above illustrates that, based on a 95% target occupancy within the patient/ visitor car park:
The outputs of the parking accumulation analysis presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport
Chapter indicate that demand is still forecast to exceed the 95% threshed, albeit for one hour per
day (13:00-14:00hrs).
Outputs of Transport Insights modified analysis, indicate that even in the optimistic scenario,
demand will exceed the car parks operational capacity for 5 hours per day, increasing to 10 hours
per day in the pessimistic or long-term scenario.
A significantly greater level of variation in demand throughout the day in Transport Insights
modified analysis outputs, compared to that forecast in the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter.
This much greater variation in hourly parking accumulation is somewhat similar to that experienced
in the patient/ visitor car park within the adult hospital (see Table 3.2 of this document), in which
demand was observed to increase from 60% at 09:00hrs to 97% at 15:00hrs.
Significantly higher levels of patient/ visitor car parking accumulation in the evening time,
compared to that indicated in the EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter. Higher demand at this time is
due to the revised approach adopted in the estimation of visitor related demand. Bearing in mind
the proposal (Section 6.1.4.5) that All staff will be permitted to enter any car park (including the
visitor car park) for free at night time from 19:00 on weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday to
assist with staff change over during the morning peak period, it is unclear if the patient/ visitor
car park can meaningfully support temporary elevated staff car parking demand during this time
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
69
period. This would have implications in turn for the availability of car parking spaces for visitors
to the hospital at this time.
8.2. Managing Parking Demand

As demonstrated in Section 8.1, it is shown that in EISs Traffic and Transport Chapter parking
accumulation at the hospital is underestimated, which would result in parking demand exceeding
supply for up to 10 hours per day in a pessimistic scenario. To ensure the efficient operation of the
car park, and ongoing availability of car parking spaces, excess demand will necessitate the
implementation of on-site parking demand measures, with parking charge being the most common
intervention. In this sense, further analysis has been performed in order to estimate parking price
which will secure the target maximum parking occupancy level (90-95% assumed, however other target
occupancies were also tested), in addition to estimating the impacts on streets within the hospitals
vicinity levels of over-spill car parking and car parking occupancies (see Section 8.3).
Parking Price Estimation Optimistic Scenario

To estimate parking price which will lead to a target parking occupancy level, user (patient/ visitor)
sensitivity to price levels has been relied upon. In transport studies, user sensitivity is typically
expressed by elasticity coefficient, presenting the percentage change in the use of some commodity or
service based on one per cent change in its price. For example, an elasticity coefficient of -0.3 implies
that with each percent of price increase, the demand for the commodity or service decreases by 0.3%.
The negative sign indicates that the price and demand are conversely proportional, i.e., that with an
increase in the price of some commodity or service, the demand for that commodity or service
decreases. Knowing the elasticity coefficient, one can predict the change in demand because of a
change in price. The elasticity coefficient can be calculated in three ways, with mid-point (or linear)
arc elasticity being the most frequently used in predicting road user behaviour (TCRP, 2005):
=
1 + 2 1 + 2
2
2
where:
elasticity coefficient;
P1 first price;
Q1 demand at P1;
P2 second price;
Q2 demand at P2.
Demand at two different prices (and thus elasticity) can be determined either by an interview (relying
on user statement on how they would behave if price changed from P1 to P2) or by before and after
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
70
studies on price implementation or increase. Undertaking such an interview based survey was not
considered appropriate or feasible in the context of this commission; and before and after studies
on parking price change at a comparable facility (a Dublins children hospital) are also unavailable. In
the absence of survey data, elasticities were adopted on the basis of the following experience and
literature:
Kelly and Clinch (2009) explored the effects of parking price increase by 50% in the on-street
parking spaces in the central area of Dublin and obtained a parking price elasticity of demand of
-0.29.
Results of stated preference data from Belgrade show that users who drive to a hospital are about
twice less sensitive to parking price than other users of central area (-0.33 vs -0.70) (Milosavljevi,
Simievi, Maleti and Kaplanovi, 2008).
On the basis of above, elasticity at the National Childrens Hospital is assumed to range between -0.15
and -0.30.
Apart from elasticity coefficient, according to presented equation, other data needed to calculate
parking price P2 which will secure targeted occupancy are as follows:
First price P1 and related demand Q1 (expressed as maximum parking accumulation). Q1
represents demand that would be realised if no restrictive measures (parking charge) were
implemented. Such total demand was calculated using the modified EIS Traffic and Transport
Chapters methodology presented in Section 8.1. It can be seen that in the optimistic scenario
(as in all others), maximum parking accumulation of 715 occurs at 13:00hrs. As a result, further
analysis presented below has been performed for this time section.
Targeted parking demand, which we want to be realised at P2 is calculated on the basis of parking
supply (planned increased number of visitors supply) and targeted occupancy. With regard to
targeted occupancy levels, two values were analysed: 90% and 95%, being the most acceptable
levels for operators of off-street car parking (lower levels imply underused parking while higher
leads to user uncertainty that a vacant parking space can be found).
Parking prices, for various elasticity and targeted occupancy combinations are shown in the following
table. Although elasticities ranging from -0.15 to -0.30 have been tested, the -0.15 elasticity was
deemed to represent a very inert user response to price, and required very high parking charges to
manage demand. In such an instance, parking price is not deemed an effective demand management
tool, and other measures in addition to parking price would be required. As such, elasticities ranging
from -0.20 to -0.30 are presented in the table below.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
71
Table 8.14 Parking Prices:- Optimistic Scenario

90%
Occupancy
Elasticity
Price ( per Hour)
95%
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.5
Depending on revealed elasticity, the parking price which will successfully manage parking demand
ranges from 1.90 - 2.60 per hour for 90% occupancy and 1.50 - 1.90 per hour for 95% occupancy.
Since the National Childrens Hospital is planned to be constructed at the site of St. Jamess adults
hospital, where 2.50 per hour parking charge is applied, the impacts of applying the same price for
patients/ visitors of the new hospital has been analysed, with the results presented in Table 8.15 below.
Although it is acknowledged that signage may be in place to direct users to the appropriate car park,
this analysis assumes that patients/ visitors of the two hospitals would not be separated. In that case,
depending on revealed elasticity, maximum parking occupancy at the campus would range from 82%
to 87%.
Table 8.15 Estimated Occupancy Levels at Hospital Campus for 2.50 per Hour Parking
Price
National Children Hospital
Elasticity
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
Accumulation
602
577
552
Occupancy
91%
87%
83%
St James*
Total
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
290
892
867
842
79%
87%
84%
82%
* Parking accumulation at St. Jamess Hospital was determined by means of observations see Table
3.2 of this document (and excludes disabled car parking).
Parking Price Estimation Realistic and Pessimistic Scenarios

As noted earlier, the optimistic scenario has been based on a number of assumptions which have
been challenged by medical experts on the client team (see Section 1.1 of this document for details).
Furthermore, it does not account for growth in patient demand as required by HSE Policy. As a result,
two further scenarios have been considered, a realistic or medium-term scenario representing 10%
additional patient demand, and a pessimistic scenario representing 20% additional patient demand.
In both scenarios, increased parking demand (detailed in Table 8.13) is forecast, necessitating an
increase in parking prices to ensure that maximum targeted occupancy levels are not exceeded.
Parking prices that would need to be implemented in both scenarios are presented in Tables 8.16 and
8.17, respectively.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
72
Table 8.16 Parking Prices:- Realistic Scenario

Occupancy
Elasticity
Price ( per Hour)
90%
-0.20
4.2
-0.25
3.1
95%
-0.30
2.6
-0.20
3.1
-0.25
2.5
-0.30
2.1
Table 8.17 Parking Prices:- "Pessimistic Scenario

Occupancy
Elasticity
Price ( per Hour)
90%
-0.2
7.0
-0.25
4.5
95%
-0.3
3.5
-0.2
5.1
-0.25
3.6
-0.3
2.9
In the realistic scenario, parking price would need to increase to between 2.60 and 4.20 per hour
(based on a 90% target occupancy) and between 2.10 and 3.10 per hour (based on a 95% target
occupancy); while in the pessimistic scenario much higher prices of 3.50 - 7.00 and 2.90 - 5.10,
respectively would be required.
8.3. Parking Impact Assessment

As demonstrated in the previous section, parking charge introduction will discourage some patients/
visitors to park on-site. The most acceptable alternative for these users will be on-street parking on
adjacent streets. This assumption is supported Patient/ Family Transport Survey Report from Our
Ladys Childrens Hospital in Crumlin (2006), which shows that hospital users are unlikely to shift to
alternative transport modes.
The hospitals area of influence was defined to cover streets within 400 metres of St. Jamess Hospital
(which corresponds to commonly accepted 5 minute walking distance). Parking occupancy levels
within this area were derived from field survey data: on-street car parking capacity and a spot weekday
survey of the number of parked cars. Survey results are presented earlier in this Submission (Section
3.5).
In the area of influence, some spaces are free while others are charged (1.00 per hour) and the
duration of stay limited to 3 hours24. over-spill (or excess demand from the hospital) to Free and Pay
Parking areas has been distributed as follows:
24
Time limitation allows us to assume that there will be no staff parking spill-over to this area.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
73
Based on opted parking occupancy (and thus future demand realised at the campus Q2) and total
demand Q1, number of patients/ visitors who would give up parking at the hospital car park
due to parking charge was calculated.
Out of this number, applying the same methodology as in previous section, it was determined
how many patients/ visitors (who would not accept high parking charges at the hospital campus)
would accept applied charge at surrounding on-street Pay Parking area (1 per hour).
Finally, out of these patients/ visitors who would accept price level at surrounding area, it was
calculated how many of them would fit in applied time limitation (3 hours). Applying the outputs
of the modified EIS Traffic and Transport Chapters parking accumulation approach (detailed in
Section 8.1), the duration of stay of patients/ visitors at the hospital at 13:00hrs was calculated.
Analysis of patient/ visitor duration of stay profiles indicates that 48% of the total present at that
time stay up to 3 hours, i.e. fit into on-street time limitation.
These patients, who accept the on-street parking control restrictions, were proportionally
distributed to Free and Pay Parking areas.
Other users, who do not accept on-street parking restrictions, were assumed to park in Free
Parking areas.
It should be also noted that in situations where the above allocations lead to excess parking within
the Free Parking area (i.e. occupancy higher than 100%), any surplus demand has been allocated
to the Pay Parking area.
The following table presents the forecast level of over-spill car parking on streets surrounding the site
of the proposed hospital, following imposition of the required car parking charges.
Table 8.18 Number of Cars Over-Spilling onto Surrounding Streets

Area
Optimistic Scenario
Realistic Scenario
Pessimistic Scenario
90%
95%
90%
95%
90%
95%
Pay Parking
45
32
70
56
92
79
Free
72
52
119
99
168
147
Total
117
84
189
155
260
226
As can be seen from this table, levels of over-spill car parking with the hospitals environs are
estimated to range from 84-117 cars in the optimistic scenario to 226-260 in the pessimistic
scenario. In the realistic scenario, over-spill parking of between 155 and 189 cars is forecast.
The impacts of this level of over-spill car parking within area of influence is presented at Tables 8.19
(optimistic scenario), 8.20 (realistic scenario) and 8.21 (pessimistic scenario).
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
74
Table 8.19 Parking Over-Spill for Optimistic Scenario

Area
Current State*
Estimated State
Capacity
Accumulation
Occupancy
90% Occupancy
95% Occupancy
1,563
1,063
68%
71%
70%
Free
351
250
71%
92%
86%
Total
1,914
1,313
69%
75%
73%
Pay Parking
* Planned extension of on-street Pay Parking area has been also taken into account.
Table 8.20 Parking Over-Spill for Realistic Scenario

Area
Estimated State
90% Occupancy
95% Occupancy
Pay Parking
76%
76%
Free
100%
100%
Total
80%
81%
Table 8.21 Parking Over-Spill for Pessimistic Scenario

Area
Estimated State
90% Occupancy
95% Occupancy
Pay Parking
81%
81%
Free
100%
100%
Total
84%
85%
When considering the above forecast occupancy levels, it should borne in mind that parking activity
would not be evenly distributed throughout the areas of influence. Instead, streets closer to the
hospital would be expected to have higher occupancy levels. In addition, it should be noted that the
above forecast high occupancy levels could be considerably higher due to staff over-spill to free
parking area (due to the very limited levels of on-site staff car parking at the hospital site).
The results presented in the tables above demonstrate a high impact on parking occupancies in areas
adjacent to the hospital. On-street parking occupancies greater than 85% implies cruising for a vacant
parking space, which adversely affect not only quality of service in parking, but transport system
performance and the environment (increased emissions).
To the west and south of the St. Jamess Hospital site, the area is predominantly residential in nature
the impacts of such over-spill parking is therefore anticipated to have a significant adverse impact
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
75
on residential amenity within the proposed developments zone of influence, with residents unable
to find a parking space in close proximity to their house and/ or having to search for a suitable space
to be vacated.
Such a situation would necessitate implementation of further parking control
interventions in the area surrounding the hospital to cope with additional demand.
proposal does not comply with current (2011 2017) Dublin City Development Plan parking
standards in assessing car parking requirements for hospitals Dublin City Council will have regard to
the numbers of medical staff, administration staff, patients and visitors.
8.4. International Benchmarks

The proposed development comprises a 473 no. bed childrens hospital, of which 380 are in-patient
beds, and 93 day care beds. The EIS Traffic and Transport Chapter states that the new childrens
hospital includes a total of 1,000 parking spaces, of which, as per Table 4.3 of this Submission, 664
represent additional on-site patient/ visitor car parking capacity.
The total level of car parking proposed represents a car parking space to bed ratio of 2.1 (1,000/ 467).
Based on information provided by medical experts on the client team (see Section 1.1 of this document
for details), equivalent car parking spaces to bed ratios at a sample of childrens hospitals
internationally are as follows:
new Alder Hey Childrens hospital in Liverpool:- 4.4 car parking spaces per bed;
Childrens Hospital Melbourne:- 6.0 car parking spaces per bed;
Boston Childrens Hospital:- 8.9 car parking spaces per bed; and
Colorado Childrens Hospital:- 10.0 car parking spaces per bed.
While the above international comparisons do not necessarily represent best practice in terms of car
parking provision in the Irish context, and it is recognised that American car parking standards in
particular are recognised as excessive, the data does support the conservative nature of Transport
Insights analysis, and the deficit in on-site car parking which it forecasts.
8.5. Parking Impact Analysis Conclusions

Following review of the parking accumulation analysis presented within the EIS Traffic and Transport
Chapter, and updated analysis undertaken by our team demonstrates that:
The applicant has significantly underestimated patient/ visitor car parking demand at the hospital.
In particular, no substantiation has been provided in support of the very low levels of visitor car
parking demand, which is assumed to remain at a constant level of 16 parked cars during both
visiting periods.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
76
Transport Insights updated parking accumulation analysis, which has applied a revised patient/
visitor car mode share to reflect national household car ownership levels (Census 2011 results
indicating that 82.4% of households own a car), and re-forecasted visitor demand, indicates that
even in the most optimistic scenario, demand for car parking is forecast to exceed capacity
(based on a maximum 95% target occupancy) for 5 hours per day.
In the other two scenarios analysed, demand is likely to exceed capacity for a much longer period
of time 10 hours per day in the pessimistic scenario.
Higher level of patient/ visitor car parking demand in the evening time will constrain the role of
the patient/ visitor car park in accommodating temporary elevated staff car parking demand
during the evening staff handover period. This would have implications in turn for the availability
of car parking spaces for visitors to the hospital at this time.
Patient/ visitor car parking charges are estimated to range from 2.50 per hour in the optimistic
scenarios (the same as the existing adults hospital) to between 2.90 and 5.10 per hour in the
pessimistic scenario (based on the same 95% maximum target occupancy level). Higher charges
again, ranging from 3.50 to 7.00 per hour, would be needed in a more robust 90% target
occupancy scenario.
Extensive over-spill car parking on streets surrounding the hospital is forecast, ranging from 84117 cars in the optimistic scenario to 226-260 cars in the pessimistic scenario.
proposal does not comply the current (2011 2017) Dublin City Development Plans parking
standards.
The deficit in on-site car parking provision is supported by reference to levels provided at similar
facilities internationally. At the new National Childrens Hospital, it is proposed to provide 2.1 car
parking spaces per bed, versus a minimum of 4.4 spaces per bed at a range of other childrens
hospitals.
Applying this minimum international standard to a new 473 bed childrens hospital in Dublin,
would indicate a requirement for 2,081 car parking spaces (excluding adult hospital
requirements). Based on the maximum patient/ visitor parking accumulation levels within the
pessimistic scenario of 858, and applying a robust maximum target occupancy level within the
car park of 90%, would imply an on-site requirement for 953 patient/ visitor car parking spaces
(versus the 664 spaces proposed). The remaining car parking spaces, or a somewhat lesser
quantity depending on accessibility and sustainable transport policy considerations, would then
be available for staff use.
The applicants underestimation of patient/ visitor car parking demand (in addition to traffic
impacts) at the proposed new childrens hospital, and related failure to provide sufficient on-site
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
77
car parking capacity risks comprising the future delivery on-site of a maternity hospital, as it is
likely to intensify traffic impacts on the road network, and add to already significant forecast levels
of over-spill car parking within the sites vicinity.
| Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
78
Appendix A
St. Jamess Hospital Correspondence
|
Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
|
Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Appendix B
St. Jamess Hospital On-Street Survey

Results
Street Name
Parking
Control Type
Total
Capacity
Occupied
Old Kilmainham Road
Pay
32
15
47%
Shannon Terrace
Free
86%
South Circular Road - NS
Pay
68
44
65%
South Circular Road - SS
Pay
49
39
80%
South Circular Road - SS
Free
13
13
100%
Brookfield Road
Pay
28
21
75%
Brookfield Street
Pay
43
32
Cameron Square
Free
44
36
82%
Rothe Abbey
Free
34
26
76%
Madison Road
Pay
29
Mayfield Road
Pay
26
17
65%
Mountshannon Road
Pay
69
39
57%
Almeida Avenue
Pay
10
10%
New Ireland Road Outer
Free
53
38
12
94%
New Ireland Road Inner
Free
39
27
82%
Portmahon Drive
Free
13
11
92%
Upper Cross Road Outer

Lane
Free
16
11
69%
Upper Cross Road Inner Lane
Free
18
10
56%
Herberton Road
Free
20
11
55%
South Circular Road (from

bridge to roundabout)
Free
13
54%
|
Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Illegal
Parking
Occupancy
%
77%
38%
Street Name
Parking
Control Type
Total
Capacity
Occupied
South Circular Road (from

bridge to roundabout)
Pay
100%
South Circular Road North

Side (roundabout to
Haroldville Ave)
Free
18
44%
South Circular Road North

Side (roundabout to
Haroldville Ave)
Pay
19
14
74%
South Circular Road South

Side (roundabout to
Haroldville Ave)
Free
15
10
67%
South Circular Road South

Side (roundabout to
Haroldville Ave)
Pay
15
53%
Glenmalure Park
Free
11
St James Walk
Free
109
80
73%
Rialto Drive
Free
19
12
63%
Reuben Street (West Side)
Free
30
25
90%
Reuben Street (West Side)
Pay
26
35%
Reuben Street (East Side)
Free
10
10
Reuben Street (East Side)
Pay
40
18
Herberton St
Free
29
28
97%
Clarkes Terrace
Free
31
24
77%
Mallin Ave
Free
31
23%
Herberton Walk
Free
28
19
68%
Reuben Walk
Free
34
24
71%
St. Anthonys Road (West)
Free
29
24%
|
Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Illegal
Parking
Occupancy
%
109%
100%
10
70%
Street Name
Parking
Control Type
Total
Capacity
Occupied
Illegal
Parking
Occupancy
%
St. Anthonys Road (East)
Free
48
24
54%
St. Anthonys Park
Free
17
14
82%
Our Lady of Fatima Close
Free
83%
St. Anthonys Crescent
Free
57%
Reuben Avenue (West NS)
Pay
25
20%
Reuben Avenue (West SS)
Pay
22
41%
Reuben Avenue (East)
Pay
26
11
42%
Church Ave South (West)
Free
21
16
76%
Church Ave South (East)
Free
20
17
85%
Carrick Terrace
Free
22
19
Haroldville Avenue
Free
39
37
95%
Rialto Cottages
Free
213
132
62%
Rialto St. West
Free
32
27
84%
Rialto St. East
Free
29
19
66%
Longs Place North
Free
40
33
83%
Longs Place South
Free
30
23
77%
Brandon Terrace
Free
19
13
68%
Basin View
Free
48
26
54%
Basin St. Lower & Ewington

Road
Free
23
22
Basin St. Lower & Ewington

Road
Free
26
25
96%
Ewington Lane
Free
10
10
100%
Quinn Ave
Free
22
17
77%
Burke Place
Free
15
11
73%
|
Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
91%
104%
Street Name
Parking
Control Type
Total
Capacity
Occupied
Donnellan Ave
Free
35
27
Current Pay/Future Pay
528
291
14
58%
Current Free/ Future Free
351
247
71%
1,035
733
25
73%
1,914
1,271
42
69%
Current Free/ Proposed Pay

Total
|
Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279
Illegal
Parking
Occupancy
%
77%
Appendix C
Patient/ Family Transport Survey, Our

Ladys Childrens Hospital, Crumlin (2006)
See overleaf.
|
Telephone:- + 353 1 685 2279

ABPsubm, Traffic, CSR For J&J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

ABPsubm, Traffic, CSR For J&J

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABPsubm, Traffic, CSR For J&J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-

Proposed National Childrens

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

Proposed National Childrens Hospital

Garret Murphy, Eoin Munn

Draft Report v1.0

Draft Report v1.4

Draft Report v2.0

Draft Report v2.5

Draft Report v3.3

Draft Report v3.6

Final Report v4.0

Draft Report v2.5 to Cunnane

Updated Draft Report v3.8 to

Final Report v4.0 to Cunnane

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

Submission Approach ........................................................................................................ 13

2.1. Submission Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 13

On- and Off-Site Observations and Surveys ........................................................................ 16

Development Proposal Overview and Key Data ............................................................... 25

4.1. St. Jamess Hospital Campus .................................................................................................................... 25

Development Transport Strategy Review ........................................................................... 28

Proposed Transport Strategy ................................................................................................................... 28

Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Review ............................................................... 42

Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment Best Practice Guidance....................................................... 42

Proposed Site Access and Site Plans Review ....................................................................... 53

Review Context ........................................................................................................................................ 53

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

7.5. Road Safety Audit (RSA) Review............................................................................................................... 56

Parking Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 57

Parking Accumulation Analysis Review .................................................................................................... 57

St. Jamess Hospital Correspondence

St. Jamess Hospital On-Street Survey Results

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

St. James's Hospital Campus Draft Site Capacity Study

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

St. James's Hospital Campus Smarter Travel Programme

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment

Site Access and Layout Plans

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

Parking Impact Analysis

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

Patient/ visitor car parking

Future Maternity Hospital

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

1.2. The Jack and Jill Foundation

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

1.3. About Transport Insights

1.4. Submission Structure

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

2.1. Submission Scope

2.2. Outline Approach

Transport Submission Outline Approach

Proposed National Childrens Hospital Transport Submission

2.3. Supplemental Parking Impact Analysis