This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The overall Aviva Stadium ('Aviva') project was to redevelop Lansdowne Road Stadium ('Lansdowne'). Lansdowne opened in 1872 as a result of Henry Wallace Doveton Dunlop, an athlete who wanted to build a sporting venue. Lansdowne was built as a multipurpose sporting ground that catered for athletics, cricket, football and tennis among other sports. The first rugby game was held in Lansdowne in 1876 between Munster and Leinster. While the venue was built as a multipurpose sporting area it was mainly associated with rugby and the IRFU (who took the lease of it in the early 1900s). It also hosted many concerts for some major artists including Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra. Lansdowne could seat 25,000 spectators and with additional people standing it accommodated 49,250.
In its old format Lansdowne was the oldest sports stadium in Europe and was in need of modernization. In 2004 the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism announced the redevelopment of Lansdowne. A company called the Lansdowne Road Stadium Development Company ('LRSDC') was set up by the IRFU and FAI and it was responsible for the management and redevelopment.
The stadium was to have a capacity of 50,000 people and it was to be all seated. It was to provide world class facilities for international sporting events but also had to accommodate the other stakeholder needs including club facilities and a training pitch. The redevelopment of the stadium cost â‚¬410 million of which â‚¬219 million was provided by the FAI and IRFU and the remaining â‚¬191 million coming from the Irish Government. The stadium employed over 6,000 people over three years of the redevelopment which equaled approximately 4 million man hours. The redevelopment was completed on time and on budget by April 2010. Aviva stadium can hold a number of events such as concerts, exhibitions, conferences, sporting events and award ceremonies. Aviva stadium has met the strict criteria enabling it to be graded as a UEFA Category 4 stadium, (the highest rank a stadium can be awarded by UEFA), and as a result it will host the 2011 UEFA Europa League Final. To be awarded this status a stadium has to meet UEFA criteria relating to areas such as pitch dimensions, dressing room requirements, pitch turf quality, media facilities etc. Aviva stadium is the first stadium in Ireland to have received this status.
There are numerous aspects to the construction of a new stadium. The group chose to conduct the audit specifically on the area of access and egress. Following discussions with a senior engineer from William Cox on the different areas involved in the demolition of Lansdowne and the construction of Aviva stadium, the group chose to audit the area of access and egress. We also chose this aspect as it was something that the group had an interest in after hearing comments from people that attended events at Aviva stadium. The group was advised that a lot of work was put into the area of access and egress at the initial design phase. With regard to access and egress fitting into the overall redevelopment we were advised that it was considered essential that this was resolved in the design phase and not something that could be ongoing during the construction phase. Part of the reason that it had to be resolved at the early phases was that it had to be incorporated into the appropriate drawings. It was something that affected the overall design of Aviva stadium and as such was a crucial element.
Our audit is a post project audit to evaluate the access and egress to Aviva stadium for the public attending events. Our audit is to determine if the project was completed in line with the originally defined success metrics i.e. the objectives. It is an independent and unbiased audit which had three stages:
Stage One: Initiating. The first step of our project was to set out the scope of project i.e. to audit the access and egress of Aviva stadium. This involved meeting an engineer that worked on the design of Aviva stadium to discuss all the different aspects in the redevelopment and hence decide on an area that interested the team. This stage also involved gathering background information on Lansdowne and Aviva stadium and general researching on the internet. We also developed our interview questions for the lead architects on the redevelopment, Populous.
Stage Two: Enquiry. This stage involved us meeting with an architect from Populous to discuss the area that we intended to audit and following up with an email based interview. This stage involved reviewing the information and reports that we gathered and ensuring that we had all the necessary information to audit the access and egress.
Stage Three: Reporting. This stage involved the group drafting a presentation on our audit and findings and also preparing this report.
As set out above we used both primary and secondary data. The primary data we used was that gathered from our contact with Populous and speaking to people that attended events at The Aviva stadium. The secondary data used was various reports (detailed in our Bibliography), online forums, relevant websites and an Bord Pleanála rulings.
As the audit is post project, it is a reflective type of assessment of the project which may show both positive and negative lessons learned. Lessons learned can assist project managers and those involved on the project when conducting, and managing, further future projects. It is essential that lessons that were learned for all teams involved in the project were noted and kept in an easily accessed and retrievable repository so that they will be reviewed before a similar project begins in the future. The lessons learnt should not have any sort of blaming involved.
The Aviva stadium was built on an existing site, which immediately posed design constraints that placed limitations on what could be done to the surrounding area in terms of access and egress. The site constraints limited the architects to a crowd of 50,000 as this was the maximum number of people that could exit at once from the site. The location of the Lansdowne site is a densely populated, urban, residential area which posed quite a few significant challenges, which were compounded by the presence of both a river on the east side of the stadium and a railway track on the west side. The North side had housing issues and the south side had an existing roadway.
In order to gain an understanding of what issues could have been in sight for Aviva stadium, we researched what the issues surrounding Lansdowne were with regard to access and egress. In relation to access we found that the approach route of Lansdowne Road experienced between 50% and 60% of pedestrian traffic attending an event. Studies showed that with such crowds walking along Lansdowne Road, when the DART barriers were lowered it created a huge impediment to crowd movement. We also found that up to 21% of spectators turned up to Lansdowne in the peak ten minutes before an event. It was evident that the number of turnstiles in place was inadequate to cope effectively with such numbers arriving within a short period of time.
In relation to the egress at Lansdowne we found there were severe congestion problems both within the site and outside on Lansdowne Road. Again the repeated lowering of the DART barriers caused crowds to back up on the road which also caused further delays for people trying to leave the stadium. We found that there were a limited number of exit routes and the pattern seemed to be that the majority of people used the Lansdowne Road exit. This resulted in the other egress routes being underutilized. Studies showed that it could take up to forty five minutes for the surrounding streets to clear of the heavy crowds after an event.
In order to carry out an audit we needed to know the objectives for the new stadium and we found that these were to:
avoid such crowd congestion (as mentioned above)
meet the best practices for safe access & egress
improve DART operation.
The objectives had to fit into the overall budget and timeframes of the redevelopment. The plan and final finish date included input from each contractor and certain deadlines were stipulated in tenders to ensure that the overall plan was met.
A firm called Steer Davies Gleave were hired to review crowd movement at Lansdowne and to devise a crowd movement strategy for Aviva stadium. Steer Davies Gleave are considered world leaders in operational research and crowd movement strategies. They utilize computer simulation models of people movement at stadiums in various situations to help gather data and come up with new strategies. Its report influenced what was required in order to meet the objectives for access and egress and to ensure the design of Aviva stadium could facilitate fast entry and exit of the stadium. The final design expected this to be achieved by:
a repositioning of the stadium,
an encouraged use of public transport,
a colour coding ticketing system,
a new underpass system,
an improvement to Lansdowne Road DART station,
new access routes and
a new podium.
Lansdowne pitch was located in a different position from that of Aviva stadium as can be seen in Appendix A. The picture shows Lansdowne in red and the outline for the design of Aviva stadium. The existing site and maintaining the back training pitch meant Populous had to orientate the Aviva stadium pitch in a north-south direction and because of 'lights rights' for locals the north stand was kept low and transparent so as not to overshadow the houses.
The demolition of the old stadium began in late May 2007 and was completed within two months. The majority of the structure was crushed on the Lansdowne site and a lot of the rubble was used as fill on the Aviva stadium site.
The underpass (Appendix B) at Lansdowne Road was created to allow the DART barriers remain closed at peak periods. It was expected that, as a result of this, the time it would take major crowds on Lansdowne Road to dissipate after an event would reduce dramatically. From our research we found that it was decided that the operation of the DART would be best improved by keeping the barriers down at peak periods and also by diverting people away from the DART crossings.
A podium (Appendix C) was created above the DART tracks on the west side of the stadium. This was built with the intention of stopping people exiting towards Lansdowne Road and instead to send people in the direction of Shelbourne Road. Research shows that the main users of the podium are those with premium level tickets.
Codes of Practice for Access & Egress:
The 2 main regulatory codes of practice that need to be adhered to in Ireland are:
The Blue Code : Irish Code of Practice for Safety at Sports Grounds
The Green Code : British Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds
Both codes define the maximum capacity of an exit route as:
Capacity = Effective width of exit x 109 people per minute (per metre width) x 8 minutes
The exit requirement under the COP is that all spectators can exit the stadium view point and pass into a free flowing exit route system within 8 minutes or less.
To facilitate this, two new access routes were added; Swan Lane, in the northwest of the site, and the Dodder Walkway in the northeast.
Swan Lane is a pedestrian route from Shelbourne road which leads to the "Podium" entrance. The Swan Lane route was widened by the demolition of an existing house, number 70 Shelbourne Road. Removal of trees along the bank of the River Dodder facilitated the access route there, resulting in a widened walkway, set at a width of 8 metres specifically to provide more capacity. A new wider bridge at Herbert Road was also built to increase the capacity on this route. The DART underpass, being the most heavily used route, has the widest capacity at 12.5 metres.
The number of turnstiles in a stadium dictates the rate of admission for spectators. The Blue Code stipulates that sufficient turnstiles be provided to each section to enable all spectators to enter and be seated within the space of 1 hour. This is extendable to a 2 hour period for concerts where the arrival profiles are of more staggered nature.
Whilst this 1 hour target would be easily achievable if the crowd arrival was spread evenly across the hour, the arrival profile of stadium crowds tends to build to a peak, so this was also a factor to be taken into consideration by Steer Davies Gleave. Analysis of crowd arrival profiles at the old Lansdowne station indicated that 16-21% of the crowd arrived in the peak 10 minute period, which runs from 15 minutes before match kick off, to 5 minutes before.
To cope efficiently with this, sufficient turnstiles were provided at Aviva stadium (117 in total) to cater for up to 25% of spectators arriving in the 10 minute peak period. This helps minimise queuing and congestion on approach routes. Green and Blue codes also decree that a maximum of 600 and 660 people respectively should pass through a stadium turnstile in an hour. This results in 2 constraints in terms of turnstile allocation:
to not exceed the safety guidelines as per code,
yet to be able to cope with peak demand of the 10 minute period.
Mathematically, division of the total number of spectators ("NOS") in the 4 stands (North, East, South & West) by 600 indicated the minimum number of turnstiles required to meet Code Of Practice for Safety at Sports Grounds ('COPSSG'); (ie NOS/600, rounded up to next whole number ) . (Yields A).
Division of number of spectators by 4, then again by an estimate of 133 people per turnstile in that 10 minutes, indicated the number of turnstiles required to meet the peak 10 minute demand; (i.e. ((NOS/4)/133)) , rounded up to next whole number. (Yields B).
The higher figure between A and B dictated how many turnstiles were provided per section of each stand. As turnstiles are manufactured in blocks as pairs, where A or B was an odd number, this was increased to an even number, thus allowing an over provision of turnstiles than was actually required.
One of the fundamental recommendations from the COPSSG is:
"Entrances to each part of the ground should be designed and located so as to allow for the even distribution of spectators and to prevent local pressure building up outside the ground. They should be sited so that the flow of people from them is evenly distributed to the viewing accommodation".
This was certainly not the case with the old Lansdowne stadium, as major congestion on Lansdowne Road itself was consistently a feature of event days. The addition of the 2 new access routes referred to above, meant that there were now 5 access points enabling the desired more even crowd distribution. This balanced access distribution is enforced by the adopting of a colour coded strategy.
Colour Coding Strategy
Different seating areas within the stadium are defined as different colour zones. Each colour corresponds to one of the 5 access routes to the stadium (Appendix D). At the ticket cordon check on the approach to the stadium, only spectators with the appropriately coloured event ticket are permitted to use the approach route. Information regarding the correct access route to use, is carried on event tickets, as is the FIFA and COPSSG recommendation. It is also contained on match programmes, IRFU and FAI websites and the official stadium Transport guide.
Promoting Use of Public Transport
Part of the crowd management strategy utilised is to attempt to influence how people travel to the stadium. With this in mind, a comprehensive "Stadium Transport Guide" was produced, which encourages spectators to use public transport to travel to the Aviva stadium. All forms of public transport available are covered, with an emphasis on using the DART as the easiest way to travel directly to the ground. Driving to the stadium, whilst not explicitly discouraged is given minimal coverage.
After conducting analysis of the crowd flows from the old stadium, Steer Davies Gleave anticipated that 25% of spectators will use the DART to travel to the Aviva stadium. Of this 25%, historically, 77% use Lansdowne Road Dart station with 23% using other stations in the vicinity (Grand Canal Dock/ Sandymount).
A new forecourt at Lansdowne Dart station was added, making it possible to funnel 1,100 people onto a single train. This assists with alleviating post event queues, which took approximately 1.5 hours to clear after events at the old stadium. They are now estimated to take 25- 50 minutes to clear.
The stakeholders of the stadium in terms of provision of access and egress were as follows:
Users (Event patrons, stadium staff)
Emergency Services (An Garda Síochána, Fire Service, Ambulance crews)
Licensing Authority & Regulatory Body (Bord Pleanála)
Local Authority (Dublin City Council )
Operators (IRFU, FAI)
Transport Providers (Irish Rail , Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, private operators)
Neighbours ( Local Residents, Local Businesses )
Patrons of the stadium, although largest in number, would have a passive input into access and egress design, although they are represented by the duty of care the project team is bound by in the COPSSG . An Garda Síochána had a significant influence in demanding that Grand Canal Dock station remain closed for 2 hours post events. Bord Pleanála initially refused planning permission, but then reversed their decision subject to 22 conditions being met. The local residents were mostly in opposition to the stadium getting the go ahead resulting in many objections lodged with Bord Pleanála.
Collectively the requirements and expectations of the above listed stakeholders in terms of access and egress were:
to meet best practice in terms of safe access to and from the stadium;
the improvement of existing public access points to the Stadium;
to avoid the chronic congestion that occurred with the previous stadium particularly on Lansdowne road itself;
the design to be sympathetic and considerate of the surrounding area and communities;
the provision of improved facilities for people with disabilities; and
the enhancement of public safety, particularly with regard to the adjacent rail crossing.
One of the conditions that planning was granted by Bord Pleanála was that a Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) be set up. This would represent local residents interests and act as an interface between them and stadium management from the demolition of the old stadium, and onwards for the lifetime of the stadium. It is to be the forum for discussing and agreeing issues relating to the local community.
Spectators with disabilities are accommodated at all levels throughout the stadium. There is access to all levels by lifts. In the majority of wheelchair user positions, the viewing point is raised, to enable continued viewing even if spectators in front are standing. Entry for wheelchair users is via stewarded gates adjacent to each turnstile block. All access routes are a minimum of 1800mm wide in order to allow easy access for wheelchairs. Evacuation lifts facilitate emergency exit for people with disabilities. Also, 100 of the 200 car parking spaces at the stadium are disabled spaces.
We decided to review how Aviva stadium's access and egress actually works for people now that it is in operation and not just part of a design project. We reviewed online forums and spoke to people that attended events in order to gain this information. We found that people seem to have had generally bad experiences with the egress of Lansdowne. The underpass seems to be the number one complaint as people considered it to feel very narrow and the height very low. These factors combined have caused people to feel claustrophobic while waiting in the tunnel to leave the stadium. There were reports that people were 'stuck' in the underpass waiting for the crowds to move for up to forty minutes. Aviva stadium management has reviewed the CCTV relating to this issue and the claim was unsubstantiated.
Crowd issues reported at the first Munster vs. Leinster Magners League rugby game on 2nd Oct 2010 received widespread negative media coverage. Severe congestion at Lansdowne Road near the underpass was experienced. This was then rectified by the erection of barriers along Lansdowne road, to channel fans adequately from the Shelbourne Road direction trying to access the DART station. Subsequently no issues were reported following the Ireland vs. Russia soccer international the following week on 8th Oct 2010.
Aswell, in the instance of the aforementioned Munster/Leinster game (which has been attributed as the most problematic event held at the stadium), the stadium bars were closed once the game ended, which was not the normal protocol. Management have conceded that due to a misunderstanding the bars were closed, when in fact they should have remained open, and this exacerbated the post game congestion, instead of contributing towards a staggered outflow.
Reviews showed us that people also appear to be frustrated that Grand Canal Dock DART station is closed after events.
We found that access to Aviva stadium does not seem to be a problem. However, we found that people think that there is not enough information on tickets regarding which entrances they should use.
There appear to be gaps in communication regarding the stadium transport plan, between Aviva stadium management itself and Irish Rail. Irish Rail has been promoting the use of various Dart stations depending on ticket colour, whereas the official stadium transport guide, promotes solely the use of Lansdowne Road station. This indicates that Irish Rail is deviating from the official transport guide, resulting in mixed messages regarding transport being sent to the general public. Part of the Steer Davies Gleave transport plan is based on a premise that spectators tend to leave a stadium in the same way they entered. The closure of Grand Canal Dock after matches for a 2 hour period for safety reasons, (as it is deemed that it cannot cope with crowds) removes this as an option in which spectators can both arrive and leave via Grand Canal Dock. Hence even its use is not promoted in the official transport plan or its close proximity to the stadium highlighted (It is shown on the diagram, but receives no specific mention).
There is evidence of An Garda Síochána not being in attendance at the PMC meeting after the stadium went live. They attended meetings in the run up to the launch, but then failed to attend the one after the launch, which would have been a most significant meeting to discuss issues and receive feedback.
We considered the triple constraints of project management and found that each constraint was developed and managed effectively by project managers. The below matrix details how each PM stage was handled and the lessons learned at each stage.
Aviva Access/Egress PM Stages
Project Integration Management
Access and egress planned in initial design phase to ensure fit into the overall redevelopment (e.g. drawings) as could not be ongoing during the construction phase. Good change management: e.g. Post planning request to remove access via Havelock Square. Completely unforeseen. Did not delay project or construction. Changes were managed by design teams and a fee appropriated charged.
Project Scope Management
Scope achieved: Old Lansdowne Road redeveloped and replaced with new 50,000 seated capacity stadium. E.g. Lansdowne had some over-congested entrances and other underutilized, used to take 1.5hrs to clear after events. Aviva: 25- 50 minutes to clear (although fast entry and exit is still an ongoing matter) - following improvements introduced in redevelopment.
â€¢ repositioning of the stadium
â€¢ encouraged use of public transport (Stadium Transport Guide),
â€¢ colour coding ticketing system,
â€¢ clear signage,
â€¢ new underpass system,
â€¢ aimprovement to Lansdowne Road DART station (new forecourt added alleviating post event queues)
â€¢ new access routes (including a number of new turnistles in each section to enable all spectators to enter and be seated within 1 hour)
â€¢ new podium (above the DART tracks on the west side of the stadium to stop people exiting towards Lansdowne Road)
Project Time Management
Time management was considered effective as the redevelopment of Lansdowne was delivered on time by April 2010.
Project Cost Management
Delivered under budget - cost â‚¬410 million (from FAI, IRFU and Irish Government).
Project Quality Management
Graded UEFA Category 4 stadium (1st in Ireland) = best UEFA category a stadium can be awarded and as a result it will host the 2011 Europa League Final. Landsdowne was the oldest stadium in Europe and hence not meeting regulations - Aviva meets at least 2 main regulatory Safety codes of practice The Blue Code (Irish) and The Green Code (UK). Technical decisions were made using experts in that field. Nevertheless, egress problems when stadium went live. (e.g. Underpass narrow and claustrophobic - people claiming to be stuck in for 40 minutes) However, these were somewhat outside of the scope of the project. Also see Scope above.
Project HR Management
The stadium employed over 6,000 people over 3 years of the redevelopment = approx. 4m man hours - yet triple constraints managed well. Each team allocated the correct expertise to the job and allocated recourses based on fees and budget. Individual teams manage HR issues and only major issues came to the management team. Management were supportive of decisions.
Project Communication Management
The following stakeholders of the stadium in terms of provision of access and egress have been conslulted:
- Users (Event patrons, stadium staff)
Although largest group in number, have a passive input into design. Also represented by the duty of care the project team is bound by in the COPSSG
- Emergency Services (An Garda Síochána, Fire Service, Ambulance crews)
Garda not in attendance at the PMC meetings after the stadium went live (although they attended meetings in the run up to the launch), which would have been most significant meetings to discuss issues and receive feedback. Garda had a significant influence in demanding that Grand Canal Dock station remain closed for 2 hours post events.
- Local Authority (Dublin City Council )
- Promoters (MCD)
- Operators (IRFU, FAI)
- Transport Providers (Irish Rail , Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, private operators)
There appear to be gaps in communication regarding the stadium transport plan, between Aviva management itself and Irish Rail. (i.e. somewhat ouside of project scope) Irish Rail is deviating from the official transport guide, resulting in mixed messages regarding transport being sent to the general public.
- Licensing Authority &Regulatory Body (Bord Pleanála)
- Neighbours (Local Residents, Local Businesses)
Bord Pleanála initially refused planning permission, but then reversed their decision subject to 22 conditions being met.
One of the conditions was that a Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) be set up.
Represents local residents interests, act as an interface between them and stadium management for the lifetime of the stadium.
The local residents were mostly in opposition to the stadium.
Project Risk Management
Site location densely populated, urban, residential area - posed significant challenges. Design team mitigate against risk and appease the planning authority. Only if major issues come to the forefront the management team will address.
Project Procurement Management
Each team allocated recourses based on fees and management within the confines of budget.
The culmination of each project stage being successfully handled yielded the following results in the context of the triple constraints :
We questioned how risk was managed and were advised that there were risks for all teams that worked on access and egress for the stadium. Each design team and appointed contractors were responsible for maintaining their own commitments under their contracts and therefore had to mitigate against the risks that arose for themselves. We found that only when major issues arose the management team became involved.
Communications and Resources Management
Populous, as the lead architects managed all the teams below them in the hierarchy in place. This included structural and mechanical engineers, Steer Davies Gleave, landscape designers, fire consultants, pitch consultants etc. Populous reported with or through the project managers to the LRSDC. As with risk management, communications and resources were the responsibility for each sub consultants and they had to ensure they each delivered on time. Each separate team allocated the correct expertise to the required job and allocated resources based on fees and management.
One significant change to plans arose that had to be managed at the post - planning stage of the design. The issue that arose was access to the stadium via Havelock Square and O'Connell Gardens had to be removed. This was as a result of An Bord Pleanála ruling in favour of residents' objections. The ruling set out that these access points could only be used in emergencies. This was totally unforeseen as these access points had been used previously however, it did not delay the project or construction as there was a contingency in place for expanding other access points. When changes occurred, the hours were allocated and additional work carried out and a fee appropriated to it.
We found that technical decisions were made using the expertise in the relevant area. Populous communicated its design to the relevant people and decisions were made based on time, budget and design aesthetics. We found that top management were considered as supportive of design decisions as they were made in line with industry practice and were based on professional opinions.
The closure of Grand Canal Dock station as a safety requirement for 2 hours immediately after an event, increases pressure on Lansdowne Road Dart station. Anyone who did arrive via Grand Canal Dock now has to use Lansdowne Road station if they wish to travel by DART. We recommend that this station should be upgraded, in terms of platforms being widened and step gradients lessened. Irish Rail state they have rejected moves to have the station opened after games on An Garda Síochána advice that the steps to the station are too steep. Steep steps are also in effect at Drumcondra train station near Croke Park, which has catered for large crowds comfortably after GAA, International rugby & soccer matches for a number of years, so it could be argued that this logic is not being applied universally.
We deem the construction of the stadium as a success from an access/egress point of view in that it meets all the International guidelines for a stadium of this type and capacity. It is hard to compare this stadium to others because it was built under a lot of constraints as laid out previously however the design and construction did use crowd behavior models that are internationally accepted. Given there have been well publicized complaints from the public complaining on egress from the stadium, our conclusion this is down to poor communication among the stakeholders, in particular An Garda Síochána not attending the PMC meetings after the first event. This is where the issues that arose with egress were discussed and An Garda Síochána input would have been of benefit to the PMC.
The actual construction of the stadium should work for safe egress if managed correctly by the relevant groups, however compared to stadiums constructed in large open areas it is critical that all aspects of the egress is managed correctly.
As stated An Garda Síochána do not appear to be managing the pedestrian traffic outside the stadium causing a back up inside the underpass and under sections of the stadium. It is a reality however that there may be queues coming out of any stadium, even the newly constructed Wembley stadium has a similar issue. At Wembley stadium people have to stop outside the stadium, however it is well managed by the police who have a huge presence and use load speakers in an effort to keep everyone calm. It appears to work well at Wembley stadium and we suggest that An Garda Síochána should employ a similar method of crowd control at The Aviva stadium.
The egress issues are exacerbated by the fact that while people are only permitted to enter the stadium by the colour of their ticket they are allowed to leave whatever way they want. This leads to huge amounts of people trying to exit via Landsdowne road, if they are guided out by stewards the way they come in it would reduce a lot of the queues. As set out in the report, the design of The Aviva stadium was based upon the concept of people exiting by the same route that the entered the stadium.
We conclude that the design and construction of The Aviva stadium is good for access and egress, however we are of the opinion that there has been a breakdown of communication between key stakeholders (An Garda Síochána, Stadium management and Irish Rail). Proper crowd dispersal is essential in egress of a stadium built under design constraints and management of stakeholders should have been part of the initial planning. As set out in the report, it appears that the issues are being ironed out as each event passes and we are conscious that there will usually be teething problems with a project of this size.