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

How is the Malahide Dart line going to cope with the new developments being built?

Options
  • 10-11-2019 2:20pm
    #1
    antimatterx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,668 ✭✭✭


    The Malahide line is busy enough as is. At present, there is a new development being built beside Portmarnock, and Raheny DART stations, as well as a new 500 property development, being built in Baldoyle, beside Clongriffin Dart station?

    How is the Dart service going to cope with all these additional people? It can be a nightmare at times currently? Is there any scope to extend platforms to cater for 10 carriages? Or build an additional dart line?

    Connolly is a nightmare as is, I'm constantly on trains in the morning that stall at Clontarf Road, and then just before Connolly waiting for platforms to free up? Is there any viable solution to fix this bottleneck? The city center stations just don't have enough platforms?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    antimatterx wrote: »
    The Malahide line is busy enough as is. At present, there is a new development being built beside Portmarnock, and Raheny DART stations, as well as a new 500 property development, being built in Baldoyle, beside Clongriffin Dart station?

    How is the Dart service going to cope with all these additional people? It can be a nightmare at times currently? Is there any scope to extend platforms to cater for 10 carriages? Or build an additional dart line?

    Connolly is a nightmare as is, I'm constantly on trains in the morning that stall at Clontarf Road, and then just before Connolly waiting for platforms to free up? Is there any viable solution to fix this bottleneck? The city center stations just don't have enough platforms?

    Most of units running aren't even 8 carriages long at the moment. Once these come online most of the issues will be resolved. There is also capacity to increase frequency on the mainline.


    Building an additional dart line is a complete non runner.


  • Options
    #3
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    IE want to build an 8th platform in Connolly as well. No actual plans for it as yet. Presumably this will be a through platform and part of a possible redesign of Connolly Platfroms 5,6 & 7.

    By the time these are built we should see a flow of new stock arriving over a number of years.


  • Options
    #4
    ollie103
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭ollie103


    Where would the 8th platform be built? It’s tight as it is already! And how effective would an extra through-platform be with the Loop Bridge being limited to 2 lines?

    Related to the lack of capacity at Connolly is the City Center Resignalling Project: has Connolly been done yet and will it really deliver additional train paths at peak time?


  • Options
    #5
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    ollie103 wrote: »
    Where would the 8th platform be built? It’s tight as it is already! And how effective would an extra through-platform be with the Loop Bridge being limited to 2 lines?

    Related to the lack of capacity at Connolly is the City Center Resignalling Project: has Connolly been done yet and will it really deliver additional train paths at peak time?

    It's not known yet. A through platform adds more flexibility although a terminal platform that allows Sligo/Maynooth services terminate without crossing into platforms 1-4 would be a big benefit also.

    There is some space behind the buildings opp platform 7 and the old turntable. Ideally they'd need to CPO part of the rear of the old red brick building on Preston St. but I believe this is listed.

    Alternatively, platform 4 doesn't need to be as long as it is and could be reduced in size which could allow platform 5 be turned into an island platform with a set of points given access into a shortened platform 4. Im not sure if the building structure would allow for this but obviously a new subway would need to built to access it. It would also require and a small bridge of some sort over the below car park between platform 4 & 5.

    If an 8th platform could be built and making better use of the Newcome curve you could essentially have 4 trains arrive and depart simultaneously without conflict. A service from Maynooth could arrive via the curve, another to Maynooth via the sligo line and a north and south bound service on the Northern line.

    Once complete and operational it will allow for more movements through the station but it's not going to remove conflicting paths between the Northern and Sligo line.


  • Options
    #6
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    They should also be making the developers contribute some funds, like they did with clongriffin, and maybe introduce a small levy on new builds in the vicinity towards a quad tracking project. After all, these new dwellers will benefit from it, once its built and you can be sure the developers will be pricing appropriately for the luxury of having a DART line on your doorstep.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    IE 222 wrote: »
    They should also be making the developers contribute some funds, like they did with clongriffin, and maybe introduce a small levy on new builds in the vicinity towards a quad tracking project. After all, these new dwellers will benefit from it, once its built and you can be sure the developers will be pricing appropriately for the luxury of having a DART line on your doorstep.

    We should be encouraging developers to build high density next to our transport links, not slapping a surcharge on them.

    This should form the basis of good planning. Why not give them a tax break if they build up instead of out. 3 bed semis next to a DART line is just silly.


  • Options
    #8
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,717 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    Transport planning requires looking at min 10 years ahead, not 1-2. They need to understand the treands, make a plan, then they can set taxation policy and planning guidelines to help mould the strategy into action.

    The builders job is to build the houses/infrastructure they are contracted and or have planning to build.

    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/greater-dublin-areatransport-strategy-2016-2035/

    Blaming the builders for the lack of capacity on public transport is like blaming sick people for filling the hospitals.


  • Options
    #9
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    We should be encouraging developers to build high density next to our transport links, not slapping a surcharge on them.

    This should form the basis of good planning. Why not give them a tax break if they build up instead of out. 3 bed semis next to a DART line is just silly.

    Think your missing the point somewhat. The issue surrounding the Northern line is the fact it's already struggling to cope with the high numbers of passengers.

    Developers will charge a premium for living next to the DART line. Its essentially them and the planners that are clogging up the rail line. The line needs to be upgraded to quad tracking sometime in the near future. As it stands, the tax payer will pick up the tab while some developer reaps the benefits. Not only do you want to give them a free pass on this but we should award them with more tax breaks and the ability to build as much as they like.

    Some pay €50k plus for the luxury of this which is very evident when you compare house prices. Taking 50% of this and investing it into the actual luxury people are paying for rather than a developer is not a big ask.


  • Options
    #10
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    We should be encouraging developers to build high density next to our transport links, not slapping a surcharge on them.

    This should form the basis of good planning. Why not give them a tax break if they build up instead of out. 3 bed semis next to a DART line is just silly.

    Very simple, you simply don't give planning permission for homes that aren't close to public transport.


  • Options
    #11
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Xterminator wrote: »
    Transport planning requires looking at min 10 years ahead, not 1-2. They need to understand the treands, make a plan, then they can set taxation policy and planning guidelines to help mould the strategy into action.

    The builders job is to build the houses/infrastructure they are contracted and or have planning to build.

    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/greater-dublin-areatransport-strategy-2016-2035/

    Blaming the builders for the lack of capacity on public transport is like blaming sick people for filling the hospitals.

    Clongriffin station was mainly funded by the developer. I'm not suggesting they should pay for the whole project but they should be contributing their fair share towards it. They'll still make a healthy profit.

    We see the same issues with the M50. It's the regular Joe soap that has to endure the congestion and then have their tax money spent on fixing the problem while the developer pockets the payment you paid for living next to such.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Last Stop
    Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    Usually developer levys are applied to new infrastructure (like a new line or a new station). It would be a very difficult sell to levy developers for the upgrade of an existing line.


  • Options
    #13
    Always number 1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,139 ✭✭✭Always number 1


    Add in all the new developments in Rush, Lusk and Donabate (app 2000 units between the 3 areas) and it's going to put huge pressure on an already overcrowded service.
    The amount of people getting off crowded commuter trains in Malahide (to have some hope of getting a seat or space to breathe on a Dart) has definitely increased in the past year or so.
    I'm not sure what the solution is but it's not sustainable with the infrastructure and plant that are servicing this line at present.


  • Options
    #14
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Last Stop wrote: »
    Usually developer levys are applied to new infrastructure (like a new line or a new station). It would be a very difficult sell to levy developers for the upgrade of an existing line.

    I'm not suggesting it's easy but it should definitely be apart of new developments in such locations. Clongriffin was mostly funded by the developer so it's not impossible. I think a similar approach should be taken were each developer funds x amount of upgrading the nearest station for quad tracking.

    For instance, if people were willingly paying an extra €50k above the norm to live along a Dart line in a new site with a 150 units that will equate to €7.5million. Currently the developer is pocketing that. At least €4 million of that should be put towards a station upgrade.

    It's a win win for everyone, existing users, new users, IE, the government and even the developer who still walks away with an extra €3.5million.


  • Options
    #15
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Always number 1 wrote: »
    Add in all the new developments in Rush, Lusk and Donabate (app 2000 units between the 3 areas) and it's going to put huge pressure on an already overcrowded service.
    The amount of people getting off crowded commuter trains in Malahide (to have some hope of getting a seat or space to breathe on a Dart) has definitely increased in the past year or so.
    I'm not sure what the solution is but it's not sustainable with the infrastructure and plant that are servicing this line at present.

    And you can be sure many are holding off until the DART extension is completed in order to profit more from the site. DART is a lot more attractive than Commuter.


  • Options
    #16
    Last Stop
    Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    IE 222 wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting it's easy but it should definitely be apart of new developments in such locations. Clongriffin was mostly funded by the developer so it's not impossible. I think a similar approach should be taken were each developer funds x amount of upgrading the nearest station for quad tracking.

    For instance, if people were willingly paying an extra €50k above the norm to live along a Dart line in a new site with a 150 units that will equate to €7.5million. Currently the developer is pocketing that. At least €4 million of that should be put towards a station upgrade.

    It's a win win for everyone, existing users, new users, IE, the government and even the developer who still walks away with an extra €3.5million.

    The NEW station at Clongriffin was funded by the developer.

    Th developer is not necessarily pocketing it. The cost of lands near DART stations is higher. Sales fees are typically a percentage of cost so these go up too.

    I struggle to see why a developer would opt in. For new infrastructure it’s obvious, build the line/ station and the price increases. I don’t see the same return here when the DART is already there. Buyers looking at a house will say “oh it’s near the DART” and are unlikely to say “oh it’s near the “Quad tracked rail line” because the average member of the public doesn’t understand that type of thing.


  • Options
    #17
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Last Stop wrote: »
    The NEW station at Clongriffin was funded by the developer.

    Th developer is not necessarily pocketing it. The cost of lands near DART stations is higher. Sales fees are typically a percentage of cost so these go up too.

    I struggle to see why a developer would opt in. For new infrastructure it’s obvious, build the line/ station and the price increases. I don’t see the same return here when the DART is already there. Buyers looking at a house will say “oh it’s near the DART” and are unlikely to say “oh it’s near the “Quad tracked rail line” because the average member of the public doesn’t understand that type of thing.

    The developer most certainly ain't taking a hit on any extra land cost. They'll be passing them on with some interest added on as well.

    If they continue developing along the line without upgrading the infrastructure it will eventually come to a point were been beside the DART line no longer pays off cause they can't get on it. Having easy access to the M50 was once a must have for many commuters but now its actually an inconvenience and many will try to avoid it at all cost. It's a selling point for the developer and within their interests. Its a major deciding factor for many but if they can't access it what's the point in paying more for something you can't use.


  • Options
    #18
    Last Stop
    Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    IE 222 wrote: »
    The developer most certainly ain't taking a hit on any extra land cost. They'll be passing them on with some interest added on as well.

    If they continue developing along the line without upgrading the infrastructure it will eventually come to a point were been beside the DART line no longer pays off cause they can't get on it. Having easy access to the M50 was once a must have for many commuters but now its actually an inconvenience and many will try to avoid it at all cost. It's a selling point for the developer and within their interests. Its a major deciding factor for many but if they can't access it what's the point in paying more for something you can't use.

    The extra land costs contributes to properties being nearer to DART being more expensive. That’s different to the the developer taking the hit.

    I don’t think anyone would see living with easy access to the M50 as a bad thing. Yes it’s congested during peak times but the rest of the time it’s fine and offers great connections to the rest of the country.
    When it comes to someone looking to buy a house, they see it as a good transport connection. The fact it’s busy may mean getting up earlier to get on which people would only figure out after buying. Even if they don’t quad track, the northern line has plenty of extra capacity once they upgrade all peak hour trains to 8 cars and do some work around Connolly. The biggest benefit to quad tracking would be to Enterprise services and potentially a spur to the airport from Clongriffin (now that could be funded by a developer!)


  • Options
    #19
    Colonel Claptrap
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    Let's be honest, it's not a levy on developers
    It's a levy on home buyers.

    Developers need a margin. If the cost goes up they will either pass the cost onto the buyer or not build at all.

    Besides, any funds raised would be a drop in the ocean for a project like quad tracking.

    Why should only new buyers be hit with this tax when all of the existing houses along the northern line will benefit?

    Surely a more equitable way to raise the funds is to hike fares along the northern line. Let all commuters pay for it.

    Personally I think it should be funded by general taxation.


  • Options
    #20
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Colonel Claptrap wrote: »
    Let's be honest, it's not a levy on developers
    It's a levy on home buyers.

    Developers need a margin. If the cost goes up they will either pass the cost onto the buyer or not build at all.

    Besides, any funds raised would be a drop in the ocean for a project like quad tracking.

    Why should only new buyers be hit with this tax when all of the existing houses along the northern line will benefit?

    Surely a more equitable way to raise the funds is to hike fares along the northern line. Let all commuters pay for it.

    Personally I think it should be funded by general taxation.

    Ultimately it's a levy on both. People pay a higher price to live in highly sought after areas. Homes with a DART service are highly sought after. New builds in these areas are going to attract a premium for having DART on their doorstep. The land owner and developer are gaining, for free of charge, from the ability of been able to use DART as a selling point.

    As I said, I'm not expecting them to fund the whole project but to contribute appropriate funds towards it seen as they are contributing more passengers into an already overcrowded system. Between them they should be able to fund enough towards rebuilding 3/4 of the stations they intend to build near. We should be seeing them as part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

    Higher fares will take people away which is one way of reducing the numbers but it's not really the solution as it defeats the purpose by putting them back onto the road.

    Between the vacant land tax and the height restrictions been relaxed it should be a very simple and easy to find a way to make them pay towards it.


Advertisement