Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
DART+ (DART Expansion)
Options
Comments
-
People do need to be careful for what they wish for - every extra station adds 3 minutes to the overall schedule which means slower journeys overal, and impacts negatively on fleet requirements.0
-
lucernarian wrote: »The lack of extra platforms or sidings in Balbriggan is a clear issue. In fact it has even less than what Malahide currently has and that's not saying much. Meanwhile Drogheda *already* has a maintenance and driver depot, on top of space to stable Dart trains.
The loadings are terrible north of Balbriggan due to Irish Rail's fare structure and ticket costs are frankly uncompetitive with cheap bus services.
Clearly turnback facilities would have to be added at Balbriggan. There’s not much point in judging such a proposal based solely on the current infrastructure.
As for the fares they are set by the NTA, not IE. The fares within the short hop zone are more heavily subsidised than Intercity fares, reflecting the high levels of commuting. Realistically there has to be a point where the more highly subsidised fares within the Dublin suburban area stop. Currently they extend 35km around Dublin. How much further should they go? I really don’t think extending the short hop zone beyond that distance is realistic.0 -
Clearly turnback facilities would have to be added at Balbriggan. There’s not much point in judging such a proposal based solely on the current infrastructure.
As for the fares they are set by the NTA, not IE. The fares within the short hop zone are more heavily subsidised than Intercity fares, reflecting the high levels of commuting. Realistically there has to be a point where the more highly subsidised fares within the Dublin suburban area stop. Currently they extend 35km around Dublin. How much further should they go? I really don’t think extending the short hop zone beyond that distance is realistic.
A sad fact is you hit the the M1 at dundalk n3 at cavan n4 at mullingar the roads are full at 630 with traffic going one way. So you could easily drop the fares in the areas that have rail lines. The only problem is people would use it more and then you would see really capacity issues. I recently got the train from longford by the time we left mullingar people where standing with 3/4 stops to go!0 -
roadmaster wrote: »A sad fact is you hit the the M1 at dundalk n3 at cavan n4 at mullingar the roads are full at 630 with traffic going one way. So you could easily drop the fares in the areas that have rail lines. The only problem is people would use it more and then you would see really capacity issues. I recently got the train from longford by the time we left mullingar people where standing with 3/4 stops to go!
Do you seriously think that beyond 35km around the city is reasonable for more heavily subsidised city fares?
I can’t think of anywhere that such a situation applies?
I can’t see the government being prepared to increase subsidy to fund that fare structure beyond that point.
That’s even before you deal with the fact that there’s no rolling stock available to increase capacity.0 -
I am not sure but do you not think commuters in Mullingar Tullamore and portlaiose should have something done when comes to fares? The Train is not what you would call cheap form of transport . Back to the topic I also think if you are expanding the dart to maynooth it should go to kilcock considering its only a few Kms extra and to take in to account the current house building there0
-
Advertisement
-
roadmaster wrote: »I am not sure but do you not think commuters in Mullingar Tullamore and portlaiose should have something done when comes to fares? The Train is not what you would call cheap form of transport . Back to the topic I also think if you are expanding the dart to maynooth it should go to kilcock considering its only a few Kms extra and to take in to account the current house building there
I’m saying that there has to be a cut off point beyond which the more heavily subsidised fare structure doesn’t apply - you can’t simply keep expanding the city fares. I happen to think that 35km is a more than reasonable distance from the city centre within which to offer those fares.
It’s unfortunate, but that’s life when you live that far away from the city.
Do you seriously think a government is going to increase subsidies dramatically to fund that?
Extending DART to Kilkock would require major works, as the line would have to be redoubled - that’s not going to be cheap.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19060
Extending DART to Kilkock would require major works, as the line would have to be redoubled - that’s not going to be cheap.
The line from Bray to Greystones is Dart but single track. So no problem if it is only 5 km as Greystones is 7 km. Service is more limited to Greystones, but still not too bad - normally every 30 mins. Being single track should make it cheaper, I would have thought.0 -
Do you seriously think that beyond 35km around the city is reasonable for more heavily subsidised city fares?
I can’t think of anywhere that such a situation applies?
Los Angeles does it, albeit with Metro rather than rail, but then there it would only cost $1.75 to travel about 80km.
The problem is that Dublin is experiencing relatively comparable levels of sprawl to a city like LA, so it's hard to compare with so many more compact cities.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »The line from Bray to Greystones is Dart but single track. So no problem if it is only 5 km as Greystones is 7 km. Service is more limited to Greystones, but still not too bad - normally every 30 mins. Being single track should make it cheaper, I would have thought.
The lack of double track on that section between Bray and Greystones is exceptionally limiting from an operational perspective, and is the cause of a significant amount of the delays that DART experiences.
The last thing you want to have is another section of single track on the inner suburban railway network.0 -
Los Angeles does it, albeit with Metro rather than rail, but then there it would only cost $1.75 to travel about 80km.
The problem is that Dublin is experiencing relatively comparable levels of sprawl to a city like LA, so it's hard to compare with so many more compact cities.
Well I'm sure if people want to pay more taxes to fund the greater subsidies then the government would be delighted to do it, but that approach doesn't seem to find much favour among the general population of late.0 -
Advertisement
-
Extending DART to Kilkock would require major works, as the line would have to be redoubled - that’s not going to be cheap.
Compared to the total cost of electrifing Dublin to Maynooth, would the extra cost of doubling Maynooth to Kilkock (or even Enfield) add much (as a percentage) to the total budget?0 -
GerardKeating wrote: »Compared to the total cost of electrifing Dublin to Maynooth, would the extra cost of doubling Maynooth to Kilkock (or even Enfield) add much (as a percentage) to the total budget?
Well it's more signalling changes, additional points (which aren't cheap), a second platform at Kilcock (and possibly a footbridge which must be accessible) and if extended to Enfield, a new platform and accessible footbridge.
That's not going to be cheap.
Right now, the highest priority item for DART has to be the final phase of the city centre resignalling project (resignalling Connolly station itself).0 -
I’m saying that there has to be a cut off point beyond which the more heavily subsidised fare structure doesn’t apply - you can’t simply keep expanding the city fares. I happen to think that 35km is a more than reasonable distance from the city centre within which to offer those fares.
It’s unfortunate, but that’s life when you live that far away from the city.
Do you seriously think a government is going to increase subsidies dramatically to fund that?
Extending DART to Kilkock would require major works, as the line would have to be redoubled - that’s not going to be cheap.
Perhaps in a normally functioning city I would agree with you, but the situation we are currently in is that many roads are at capacity throughout rush hour and the housing situation is only going from bad to worse, decisions like extending the short hop zone are relatively straight forward ways to alleviate the situation in the short term until larger infrastructure projects can be completed.Well it's more signalling changes, additional points (which aren't cheap), a second platform at Kilcock (and possibly a footbridge which must be accessible) and if extended to Enfield, a new platform and accessible footbridge.
That's not going to be cheap.
Right now, the highest priority item for DART has to be the final phase of the city centre resignalling project (resignalling Connolly station itself).
Still a lot cheaper than double tracking the line to Greystones and given the future growth for towns like Kilcock, may not be such a bad investment.
Just out of curiosity, what is the current state of the city centre resignalling project you mentioned above, its hard to find any recent news articles/timelines on it.0 -
Expecting any increase in the size of the Short Hop Zone beyond the current boundary points is pie in the sky. I don’t see it happening.
City Centre Resignalling - The final phase (Connolly Station) remains outstanding - I’ve not seen any indication of when funding will be provided.
After that the Maynooth Line will need resignalling, with shorter block sections.
There’s still a lot of work outstanding to bring the rail infrastructure in the city up to an acceptable level.0 -
Los Angeles does it, albeit with Metro rather than rail, but then there it would only cost $1.75 to travel about 80km.
The problem is that Dublin is experiencing relatively comparable levels of sprawl to a city like LA, so it's hard to compare with so many more compact cities.
Sprawl is caused by ‘predict and provide’ applied to road schemes, while PT infrastructure has a far higher bar to meet, and is subject to more widespread interference from vested interests.0 -
The pricing should reflect the fact that everywhere up to Drogheda is effectively a commuting distance from Dublin, especially given that it's served by a substantial number of suburban rail services.0
-
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,348 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14044
The pricing should reflect the fact that everywhere up to Drogheda is effectively a commuting distance from Dublin, especially given that it's served by a substantial number of suburban rail services.
And the M1. The volume of traffic on the M1 at peak times is ridiculous and needs reducing by any means necessary. You can tell in the morning as well that primary M50 congestion is simply an extension of the M1 congestion, with M1 commuters trying to the business parks south of the Liffey0 -
The pricing should reflect the fact that everywhere up to Drogheda is effectively a commuting distance from Dublin, especially given that it's served by a substantial number of suburban rail services.
Again it boils back to funding. That would require a significant increase in subsidies specifically for that - I’ve not seen any indication that such an increase is likely.
No matter where the cut-off point is, there will always be people who think that they should be included as well. 35km for a relatively cheap fare is good value. I can’t see them going beyond that point.0 -
The problem is that Dublin is experiencing relatively comparable levels of sprawl to a city like LA, so it's hard to compare with so many more compact cities.
When you say “more compact cities”, what cities had you in mind?
What’s your definition of sprawl?
And, finally, how do you think that Dublin is comparable to LA County, effectively a city with 10 million people across 10,570 km2, including 88 incorporated cities?
Maybe most importantly: What has this “sprawl” got to do with providing suburban / regional rail along a small number of routes with a good spread of towns already growing along the lines?0 -
When you say “more compact cities”, what cities had you in mind?
What’s your definition of sprawl?
And, finally, how do you think that Dublin is comparable to LA County, effectively a city with 10 million people across 10,570 km2, including 88 incorporated cities?
Maybe most importantly: What has this “sprawl” got to do with providing suburban / regional rail along a small number of routes with a good spread of towns already growing along the lines?
The keyword in my original post was relatively - Dublin is obviously massively smaller than LA, but when you scale down I'd argue there's a comparable mix of a scattered few tall buildings, with a huge proportion of low-rise buildings causing the 'sprawl' I'm talking about.
I'd define sprawl as a city's potential population migrating beyond that city's own limits - in Dublin's case because they have been forced to do so by rising housing costs - to the point where the city can almost be redefined to include commuter towns.
This sprawl is important to rail provision because a larger and larger population are going to move to these commuter towns - unless someone can point to a government intervention in the housing crisis that is actually useful, the problem is going to exponentially increase.
So towns like Malahide, Maynooth, Naas, Ashbourne, and Dunboyne are becoming ersatz suburbs of Dublin, and then there are towns along rail lines even further out like Balbriggan, Skerries, Enfield/Kilcock, Newbridge, even Wicklow, these are filling in the commuter town category that used to belong to those above.
So our public transport network is probably going to have to evolve to deal with this, and the topic in question that I was responding to was an expansion in the short-hop fare zone.0 -
Advertisement
-
The keyword in my original post was relatively - Dublin is obviously massively smaller than LA, but when you scale down I'd argue there's a comparable mix of a scattered few tall buildings, with a huge proportion of low-rise buildings causing the 'sprawl' I'm talking about.
Los Angeles County is mostly a large continuous urban area — it’s not sprawled in the kind of way you think Dublin is, with dispersed satellite towns.
Dublin also has a higher population density than most EU cities of a similar population size — when we’re referring to the modern city area, Dublin is compact: https://i0.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/City-areas.jpg
Copenhagen and Lyon have more compact historic cores / boundary areas, but this points to more low-rise “sprawl” in those cities, while Dublin and Amsterdam have a more balanced approach:
https://i0.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/City-areas-A.jpgI'd define sprawl as a city's potential population migrating beyond that city's own limits - in Dublin's case because they have been forced to do so by rising housing costs - to the point where the city can almost be redefined to include commuter towns.
1,173,179 people live in Dublin continuous urban area — that’s just shy of 25% of the population of the Republic in an area which is mostly in plus slightly around the M50.
For context: All of the commuter towns and one-off housing in the rest of Co Dublin and the other three counties which make up the GDA combined only make up 15% of the population of the Republic but are spread out a far greater area.
People in the media often claim that the commuter towns are sprawl but by European standards (Netherlands, Denmark etc) the commuter towns around Dublin are underdeveloped.
So, there’s no logical bases to the claim that “the city can almost be redefined to include commuter towns”.This sprawl is important to rail provision because a larger and larger population are going to move to these commuter towns - unless someone can point to a government intervention in the housing crisis that is actually useful, the problem is going to exponentially increase.
So towns like Malahide, Maynooth, Naas, Ashbourne, and Dunboyne are becoming ersatz suburbs of Dublin, and then there are towns along rail lines even further out like Balbriggan, Skerries, Enfield/Kilcock, Newbridge, even Wicklow, these are filling in the commuter town category that used to belong to those above.
So our public transport network is probably going to have to evolve to deal with this, and the topic in question that I was responding to was an expansion in the short-hop fare zone.
A larger and larger population was planned to move to these commuter towns way before the housing crisis, but Dublin’s continuous urban area is also growing (including infill of brown and green sites) and this will remain by far the largest population bulk of the GDA.
In the short-term the housing crisis is a mess but infill projects within the continuous Dublin City are starting to happen and land will not be horded forever. But, regardless, expanded commuter towns will be needed.
The rail-supported commuter town is seen as a good model of planning and land use, and is a core part of the thinking behind the Dart expansion.
To sum it up and link what I’ve said back to Dart a bit more:
Talk of low rise is kind of irrelevant to Dart expansion given the bulk of the Netherlands and suburbs of Copenhagen etc are mostly low rise and still supports high-frequency suburban/ regional rail.
The word compact is also kind of irrelevant when it comes to services like the planned expanded Dart — it’s more about good planning around rail hubs/nodes, building a network, and expanding reach for “the last mile” (bicycles, trams and buses connections, feeder buses, park and ride etc). But Dublin City is also already compact compared to cities with similar population sizes.0 -
In ideal world i would have park and rides the same as Dunboyne on all the rail lines heading in to Dublin and bring the dart as far as them. I would during peak times have express darts in to city with stops only at Heuston Connolly and pearse from these park and rides . This would encourage there use if you could be in the city from an equivalent of dunboyne in 25 mins.0
-
Clearly turnback facilities would have to be added at Balbriggan. There’s not much point in judging such a proposal based solely on the current infrastructure.
As for the fares they are set by the NTA, not IE. The fares within the short hop zone are more heavily subsidised than Intercity fares, reflecting the high levels of commuting. Realistically there has to be a point where the more highly subsidised fares within the Dublin suburban area stop. Currently they extend 35km around Dublin. How much further should they go? I really don’t think extending the short hop zone beyond that distance is realistic.
The system determining this has been in place since long before the NTA, and I suspect you know that already.
The Drogheda fares are higher owing to the category of service provided (up to 90mph and double tracked) in comparison to e.g. the same journey per km on the Sligo line. I wasn't calling for the short hop to be extended either, more a rethink on how commuter fares are calculated past that. The difference in pricing between 35km and 40 km is an artificial realisation of what was arbitrarily decided to be a short hop zone, with the rest categorised as intercity. This worked while Dublin was smaller than it is, but people from Drogheda even drive to Balbriggan just to enjoy a far cheaper commute. I can't comment on how widespread that practice is though.
As for judging a proposal, I've seen nothing to say there would be a turnback or siding added, especially considering they removed one about 2km north of Balbriggan in the last couple of years. And that was in response to someone saying they could see no reason to electrify beyond Balbriggan. I think I've refuted that by now.0 -
lucernarian wrote: »The system determining this has been in place since long before the NTA, and I suspect you know that already.
The Drogheda fares are higher owing to the category of service provided (up to 90mph and double tracked) in comparison to e.g. the same journey per km on the Sligo line. I wasn't calling for the short hop to be extended either, more a rethink on how commuter fares are calculated past that. The difference in pricing between 35km and 40 km is an artificial realisation of what was arbitrarily decided to be a short hop zone, with the rest categorised as intercity. This worked while Dublin was smaller than it is, but people from Drogheda even drive to Balbriggan just to enjoy a far cheaper commute. I can't comment on how widespread that practice is though.
As for judging a proposal, I've seen nothing to say there would be a turnback or siding added, especially considering they removed one about 2km north of Balbriggan in the last couple of years. And that was in response to someone saying they could see no reason to electrify beyond Balbriggan. I think I've refuted that by now.
Indeed the basic fare structure predated the NTA, but there have been considerable changes made to it by the NTA to make it fairer, with the suburban matrix now fully distance based, and some graduation introduced between it and the Intercity matrix. The NTA have indicated that the three categories of Intercity fares (currently Express, Economy 1 and Economy 2 depending on the route and service levels) will be further simplified to two.
I certainly would expect full turnback facilities at Balbriggan to be part of any electrification project - otherwise you end up with Malahide Mk 2, and that is in no one’s interest as due to local objections we are stuck with a totally inflexible layout.
I hardly think Mosney loop is particularly relevant in this case, although its removal (along with several crossovers along the DART line) was shortsighted from an operational perspective, driven by a need to cut costs due to subsidy and revenue shortfalls during the bleak years of the recession.0 -
Los Angeles County is mostly a large continuous urban area — it’s not sprawled in the kind of way you think Dublin is, with dispersed satellite towns.
Dublin also has a higher population density than most EU cities of a similar population size — when we’re referring to the modern city area, Dublin is compact: https://i0.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/City-areas.jpg
Copenhagen and Lyon have more compact historic cores / boundary areas, but this points to more low-rise “sprawl” in those cities, while Dublin and Amsterdam have a more balanced approach:
https://i0.wp.com/irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/City-areas-A.jpg
1,173,179 people live in Dublin continuous urban area — that’s just shy of 25% of the population of the Republic in an area which is mostly in plus slightly around the M50.
For context: All of the commuter towns and one-off housing in the rest of Co Dublin and the other three counties which make up the GDA combined only make up 15% of the population of the Republic but are spread out a far greater area.
People in the media often claim that the commuter towns are sprawl but by European standards (Netherlands, Denmark etc) the commuter towns around Dublin are underdeveloped.
So, there’s no logical bases to the claim that “the city can almost be redefined to include commuter towns”.
A larger and larger population was planned to move to these commuter towns way before the housing crisis, but Dublin’s continuous urban area is also growing (including infill of brown and green sites) and this will remain by far the largest population bulk of the GDA.
In the short-term the housing crisis is a mess but infill projects within the continuous Dublin City are starting to happen and land will not be horded forever. But, regardless, expanded commuter towns will be needed.
The rail-supported commuter town is seen as a good model of planning and land use, and is a core part of the thinking behind the Dart expansion.
To sum it up and link what I’ve said back to Dart a bit more:
Talk of low rise is kind of irrelevant to Dart expansion given the bulk of the Netherlands and suburbs of Copenhagen etc are mostly low rise and still supports high-frequency suburban/ regional rail.
The word compact is also kind of irrelevant when it comes to services like the planned expanded Dart — it’s more about good planning around rail hubs/nodes, building a network, and expanding reach for “the last mile” (bicycles, trams and buses connections, feeder buses, park and ride etc). But Dublin City is also already compact compared to cities with similar population sizes.
These are all sound points, but how does it relate to the topic of fare zones?0 -
Indeed the basic fare structure predated the NTA, but there have been considerable changes made to it by the NTA to make it fairer, with the suburban matrix now fully distance based, and some graduation introduced between it and the Intercity matrix. The NTA have indicated that the three categories of Intercity fares (currently Express, Economy 1 and Economy 2 depending on the route and service levels) will be further simplified to two.
I certainly would expect full turnback facilities at Balbriggan to be part of any electrification project - otherwise you end up with Malahide Mk 2, and that is in no one’s interest as due to local objections we are stuck with a totally inflexible layout.
I hardly think Mosney loop is particularly relevant in this case, although its removal (along with several crossovers along the DART line) was shortsighted from an operational perspective, driven by a need to cut costs due to subsidy and revenue shortfalls during the bleak years of the recession.
You also spoke about why the short hop zone distance shouldn't be extended and yet I can't see where anyone brought that up as a potential solution. The pricing aspects of places outside the SHZ especially have been neglected in the past decade, and one should rightly question why stations served by the same 70 mile per hour stock have to pay premium pricing compared to stations an equivalent distance away on the line towards e.g. Mullingar or Wicklow. The indications, whatever they are, are useless until meaningful and detailed plans materialise.
In the meantime, posters here are passing judgement on loadings beyond Balbriggan when the fare structure has historically and continues to distort use of the line.0 -
lucernarian wrote: »You also spoke about why the short hop zone distance shouldn't be extended and yet I can't see where anyone brought that up as a potential solution. The pricing aspects of places outside the SHZ especially have been neglected in the past decade, and one should rightly question why stations served by the same 70 mile per hour stock have to pay premium pricing compared to stations an equivalent distance away on the line towards e.g. Mullingar or Wicklow. The indications, whatever they are, are useless until meaningful and detailed plans materialise.
In the meantime, posters here are passing judgement on loadings beyond Balbriggan when the fare structure has historically and continues to distort use of the line.
I was getting the impression (rightly or wrongly) that some people seemed to think fares should be cut to the likes of Drogheda, Mullingar, Newbridge and Wicklow to similar levels as in the Dublin Short Hop Zone.
That isn’t going to happen, but what the NTA have indicated in fare determination reports (which is where I noted the comment about the fare categories) is that they will make an effort to improve the graduation of the fares between the suburban and Intercity matrices and thereby reduce the impact of the change from one to the other. That being said, they have also indicated that this would be a gradual process, rather than an overnight change, in order to avoid sudden shocks to the company finances or to passengers.
But even allowing for that there is unlikely to be a significant change in overall fare levels to those locations without a comparable increase in subsidy to afford it.0 -
These are all sound points, but how does it relate to the topic of fare zones?
My post was responding to points made in your post which needed to be corrected because such claims — like “sprawl” or lack of density or Dublin not being a compact city etc — are used against Dart Underground and other larger projects.
...why do you think I should not have replied to your claims which I think are incorrect?0 -
My post was responding to points made in your post which needed to be corrected because such claims — like “sprawl” or lack of density or Dublin not being a compact city etc — are used against Dart Underground and other larger projects.
...why do you think I should not have replied to your claims which I think are incorrect?
Because I think it's a largely pedantic digression from what I was originally discussing - that there are cities with comparable levels of spread out commuter areas that provide relatively cheap fares from longer distances.
Basically - perhaps with the increasingly distributed and distant nature of Dublin commuter towns, we should be looking to review fare zones commensurately.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,348 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14044
The money for heavy rail in the Review of the Capital Plan has been beefed up and DART Expansion to Balbriggan will now be complete by 2022 with expansion to Maynooth starting around then
https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2018-01-16a.36930
Advertisement