DART-Airport Spur From Clongriffin

Jayuu · 07-09-2011 4:36pm

lxflyer wrote: »

People do seem to be ignoring the fact that Howth will benefit with an increased service (albeit a shuttle between Howth Junction and Howth during off-peak) of 4 trains an hour every hour rather than the current hotch-potch. The only losers really would be Malahide/Portmarnock, which would lose the DART in off-peak, but if there was a half-hourly diesel that ought to be sufficient.

But the point here is that we'd be spending €200 million to create a service that would help one group of people at the expense of another.

It's complete short-term thinking and at some point in the future when the economy recovers, which it will, we'd probably end up building Metro North anyway and rendering the spur obsolete.

dowlingm · 07-09-2011 7:58pm

I don't think a spur would make Metro North redundant. After all, they largely serve different catchments. The DART line would be more convenient for passengers from Dundalk/Drogheda/Skerries/Balbriggan/Howth/Bray to change trains at Howth Junction for the spur. Metro North does little/nothing for them like the spur does nothing for Ballymun/DCU/north inner city.

Metro North's mistake in my view was that they did not extend the original design to the Northern Line. Offering the ability for Drogheda/Dundalk/Balbriggan/Skerries people to transfer at Malahide, Donabate or Rush would have brought in more political capital than the mere park and ride in the middle of nowhere at the north end of the line. Instead the debate revolved around City Centre-Airport trips.

And now - it's likely there's no money for either line

Niles · 07-09-2011 8:38pm

With hindsight (a wonderful thing I know), one wonders would it have been better never to have electrified Howth Junction-Malahide, left it as a reasonably frequent diesel service, and instead constructed this Airport branch. Ah well.

Seriously though, if the Airport DART branch goes ahead, perhaps consideration could be given at some point to serving the non-Airport MN line with a Luas route. That way the Airport gains its supposedly essential rail link, the communities that would have been served by MN get a light rail service, and it avoids the need for a seperate Metro system with its own dedicated, standalone, trains and depot, etc...

AngryLips · 07-09-2011 9:22pm

Setting aside MN for a minute, why has a spur from Maynooth/Dunboyne line been passed over for a spur on the northern line?

L1011 · 07-09-2011 9:24pm

AngryLips wrote: »

Setting aside MN for a minute, why has a spur from Maynooth/Dunboyne line been passed over for a spur on the northern line?

Distance (more), development in the way and suffering the exact same problems with lack of slots due to the line joining the Northern Line.

Niles · 07-09-2011 9:25pm

AngryLips wrote: »

Setting aside MN for a minute, why has a spur from Maynooth/Dunboyne line been passed over for a spur on the northern line?

Less available land maybe? And if you went from the Dunboyne branch itself it would quite circuitous. Though it would help towards the capacity issue.

LXFlyer · 07-09-2011 9:26pm

Jayuu wrote: »

But the point here is that we'd be spending €200 million to create a service that would help one group of people at the expense of another.

It's complete short-term thinking and at some point in the future when the economy recovers, which it will, we'd probably end up building Metro North anyway and rendering the spur obsolete.

You are and you aren't.

You are removing the off-peak direct service on the Howth branch and replacing it with a more frequent shuttle.

Malahide and Portmarnock would lose (on average) one off-peak DART an hour - would that necessarily be such a big loss?

Peak time would still have direct services from Malahide and Howth, presumably with the shuttle continuing also connecting into the airport DARTs.

cgcsb · 08-09-2011 12:17am

Niles wrote: »

Seriously though, if the Airport DART branch goes ahead, perhaps consideration could be given at some point to serving the non-Airport MN line with a Luas route. That way the Airport gains its supposedly essential rail link, the communities that would have been served by MN get a light rail service, and it avoids the need for a seperate Metro system with its own dedicated, standalone, trains and depot, etc...

Niles, metro and luas are the same thing. the metro has slightly wider trams that could not be suitable for the red line luas.

cgcsb · 08-09-2011 12:23am

lxflyer wrote: »

You are and you aren't.

You are removing the off-peak direct service on the Howth branch and replacing it with a more frequent shuttle.

Malahide and Portmarnock would lose (on average) one off-peak DART an hour - would that necessarily be such a big loss?

Peak time would still have direct services from Malahide and Howth, presumably with the shuttle continuing also connecting into the airport DARTs.

the thing is, it's making a sh*t service even sh*ter to accommodate another sh*t service. When there is a simple 4 step solution to the city's transport needs:

-DART underground,
-Metro North,
-Integrated ticketing
-More bikes

a DART spur is just a ridiculous attempt to pacify the plebs. We have no money and we will continue to have no money as long as we continue to give our money to former millionaires who are too posh for the dole.

I'm happy to wait a few years in order to have Dublin's transport needs fulfilled. adding more band aids to the patchwork is just PR.

Niles · 08-09-2011 1:26am

cgcsb wrote: »

Niles, metro and luas are the same thing. the metro has slightly wider trams that could not be suitable for the red line luas.

Different vehicles though. Even from something as simple as a spare parts aspect it's more economical to keep as little diversity in the fleet as possible. (In fact, I've seen this cited as a reason behind way the infamous Alstom DARTs have lain unused for nearly half a decade). The Metro cars would be different to the Luas vehicles, for example. The past has seen Luas vehicles transfer, on occasion, between the Green and Red lines. With Metro North this won't be possible, and unless Metro West was ever built (not anytime soon) it would continue to use its own equipment, own pool of parts, etc...

Of course, this isn't a reason in itself why Metro North shouldn't be built, but it is one which adds to the argument suggesting that a northern Luas line might make more economic sense.

cgcsb · 08-09-2011 1:31am

Niles wrote: »

Different vehicles though. Even from something as simple as a spare parts aspect it's more economical to keep as little diversity in the fleet as possible. (In fact, I've seen this cited as a reason behind way the infamous Alstom DARTs have lain unused for nearly half a decade). The Metro cars would be different to the Luas vehicles, for example. The past has seen Luas vehicles transfer, on occasion, between the Green and Red lines. With Metro North this won't be possible, and unless Metro West was ever built (not anytime soon) it would continue to use its own equipment, own pool of parts, etc...

Any luas tram can operate on metro north and any metro tram can operate on luas green

Niles wrote: »

Of course, this isn't a reason in itself why Metro North shouldn't be built, but it is one which adds to the argument suggesting that a northern Luas line might make more economic sense.

again metro north and "a northern luas line" are the same thing. The only different is branding. Metro North is likely to be re-branded as luas anyway.

AngryLips · 08-09-2011 1:00pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Any luas tram can operate on metro north and any metro tram can operate on luas green

I'm not sure if this can be done without some changes to existing infrastructure. Given that metro rolling stock is wider I would expect that metro rolling stock could not operate on Luas Green line unless the platform width was reduced away from the tracks to allow the wider metro trains. Conversely, any Luas operating on metro spec lines will have a larger gap between the tram door and the platform than is currently the case. Both are interchangable to a degree but it remains to be seen if it would allow flexibility of rolling stock that you imply.

cgcsb · 08-09-2011 1:47pm

AngryLips wrote: »

I'm not sure if this can be done without some changes to existing infrastructure. Given that metro rolling stock is wider I would expect that metro rolling stock could not operate on Luas Green line unless the platform width was reduced away from the tracks to allow the wider metro trains. Conversely, any Luas operating on metro spec lines will have a larger gap between the tram door and the platform than is currently the case. Both are interchangable to a degree but it remains to be seen if it would allow flexibility of rolling stock that you imply.

the green line was designed to accommodate wider trams for a future up grade to metro. there is a gap on most dart services between the platform and carriage, doesn't seem to be a problem

Brian CivilEng · 08-09-2011 4:26pm

As far as I am aware no decision has yet been made on the exact vehicles to operate on the metro north line, that will be up to the winning consortium that builds it. The RPA will however give specs for the vehicles and they will be inter-operable with the luas, although it is unlikely that will be used in operation.

The metro trams wont be wider than Luas. That misconception from the distance between the tracks on the green line which was supposed "future proofed" to be updated to Metro in the future. The reason is due to the swept path of the Metro at high speeds, which requires a greater distance between the lines. Two metro cars passing each other on a bend on the red line would collide, whereas this wont happen on the Green line.

Luas and Metro are basically the same thing, Metro just being built to a higher standard. It's kind of like the difference between a bus lane and a QBC.

Niles · 08-09-2011 5:06pm

Fair enough. I still think it would make more sense to keep everything as standard when it comes to new non-IÉ systems. I guess it's all hypothetical at this stage anyway!

Ernest · 08-09-2011 7:04pm

"..it's kind of like the difference between a bus lane and a QBC."

There IS such a difference?????

Brian CivilEng · 08-09-2011 10:59pm

Ernest wrote: »

"..it's kind of like the difference between a bus lane and a QBC."

Yes of course there is. A bus lane is just a lick of paint down the side of the road, restricting one of the lanes to public transport wherever there is room. Westland Row for example. Bus lanes on their own are useful to get buses down a particularly congested street, although right turning movements and normal junctions mean that their benefits are limited.

A QBC looks at the whole corridor, the bus lane is there for all or a significant portion of the main bus route. The QBC doesn't just aid existing scheduled services, services can be scheduled to get the most out of it. The route is designed to be as straight as possible, the signals and junctions are designed to give the bus priority over other traffic. The Stillorgan QBC is the best example in Dublin, primarily because the room was there along the N11 to build it.

dowlingm · 09-09-2011 3:42pm

LUAS trams are, IIRC, 2.4m wide. The swept path on Red line assumes only 2.4m vehicles or narrower. LUAS Green was built for 2.6m wide at a future date I believe from the point of view of vehicles passing each other but I think the platforms would have to be shaved back 100mm should 2.6m wide vehicles enter service. Not sure about Sandyford yard whether similar future proofing was done.

Ernest · 10-09-2011 5:38pm

So a "QBC" is just a hyped-up bus lane, then. QED

27061986a · 10-09-2011 7:39pm

are there any maps showing a detailed route of the proposed dart line? I would love to see one.

dubhthach · 10-09-2011 7:49pm

27061986a wrote: »

are there any maps showing a detailed route of the proposed dart line? I would love to see one.

Not that I know of, at the moment it's pure "pie in the sky" stuff. Here's a bog standard one I created in mspaint. Obviously I avoid any major areas of devolpment (around clongriffen station and the graveyards)

27061986a · 10-09-2011 9:43pm

THANKS DUBHTHACH FOR THE MAP. IS THE PROPOSED DART LINE GOING TO RUN TO SWORDS OR IS IT GOING TO TERMINATE AT DUBLIN AIRPORT. IF SO IT SEEMS POINTLESS BUILDING IT IF ITS GOING TO SERVE ONE STOP ONLY. A PARK AND RIDE AT THE M1 INTERCHANGE MIGHT BE OF SOME BENEFIT.

dubhthach · 10-09-2011 9:48pm

27061986a wrote: »

THANKS DUBHTHACH FOR THE MAP. IS THE PROPOSED DART LINE GOING TO RUN TO SWORDS OR IS IT GOING TO TERMINATE AT DUBLIN AIRPORT. IF SO IT SEEMS POINTLESS BUILDING IT IF ITS GOING TO SERVE ONE STOP ONLY. A PARK AND RIDE AT THE M1 INTERCHANGE MIGHT BE OF SOME BENEFIT.

I'm assuming you are typing in Caps by accident (not very nice otherwise), anyways the idea floated in press has no connection to Swords at all. Just a line from Airport to Clongriffen. I also think it's laughable that they claim it can be provided for €200m

Brian CivilEng · 12-09-2011 5:30pm

Ernest wrote: »

So a "QBC" is just a hyped-up bus lane, then. QED

No not "QED", it's QBC

A bus lane is a part of a QBC. All bus lanes are not QBCs but all QBCs contain bus lanes.

Speaking of bus lanes, there used be one along the N32, the aim of which was to connect the Airport to the DART station. That bus route failed, the bus lane is still marked on the road but hasn't been operation in years. Funny that a route where there was a complete lack of demand on the bus is now being considered for upgrade to DART.

Ernest · 12-09-2011 5:59pm

"Speaking of bus lanes, there used be one along the N32, the aim of which was to connect the Airport to the DART station. That bus route failed, the bus lane is still marked on the road but hasn't been operation in years. Funny that a route where there was a complete lack of demand on the bus is now being considered for upgrade to DART"

See my earlier post on 28th July on this thread about the now defunct N32 Bus Lane.

It just goes to prove that clumsy bus lanes (or even Fantasy Bus Corridors, if you prefer) are no substitute for properly integrated rail links.

Brian CivilEng · 12-09-2011 6:07pm

Ernest wrote: »

See my earlier post on 28th July on this thread about the now defunct N32 Bus Lane.

It just goes to prove that clumsy bus lanes (or even Fantasy Bus Corridors, if you prefer) are no substitute for properly integrated rail links.

Sorry, I missed that when I read through the thread.

strassenwo!f · 30-09-2011 1:49pm

There seem to be at least two issues here which need consideration. (Probably more)

The first is the spur from Clongriffin, which seems to run through fairly low density territory. This means that, unlike the metro north, this is only a project to facilitate connection of the city with the airport.

The second is the apparent necessity to four-track the northern line out to the entry/exit point for the spur.

Has the option of building a tunnel been from Killester or Harmonstown been properly considered? I haven't looked at it closely, but it looks like it would take a tunnel of a couple of km to get from Killester/Harmonstown to the area currently being considered for the spur. This tunnel could serve areas like Coolock and Darndale on its way to the airport. These are quite high density areas which were not planned to be directly served by the metro north project, or any known LUAS project.

It would seem that the easy part of four-tracking is the section out to Killester, then it gets harder, especially beyond Harmonstown. Most of what would be required could be nibbled from Mount Temple school and Clontarf Golf Club. The four-tracking costs for this section would be relatively small, compared to the costs for four-tracking in the more northern section. So the saved money could be put towards reducing the costs of the tunnel section.

And a tunnel and (mostly) overground route from Killester/Harmonstown might also approach the airport in such a way as to make it easier to extend to Swords in the future.

Such a project would undoubtedly be more costly than four-tracking the northern line, but surely a lot cheaper than the metro north project. And it would serve areas not really served by the metro north, so that it need not become redundant when the money is around for (most of) metro north to eventually be built.

It would also fit in nicely with the signalling upgrade on the loop line.

Ernest · 30-09-2011 2:47pm

Perhaps I misunderstood earlier postings but I did not think that four-tracking the DART between Connolly and Howth Junction was part of the plan. I understood that improved signalling alone would enable the higher density of train service to be made possible. I also understand that pigs can be made fly once they have better avionics circuitry installed....

BluntGuy · 30-09-2011 2:52pm

I read somewhere that some kind of scoping study or feasibility study or what have you will be done on 4-tracking the northern route. Maybe it was in the 2030 Vision document. But beyond that, nothing.

dowlingm · 30-09-2011 5:09pm

Tunnelling under an active line would be tricky, I'd say... not to mention ruinously expensive. Some three tracking would make a big difference but also sorting out the 2-track bottleneck between Fairview and Connolly.

I wonder if the spur could also handle a small storage yard immediately beside the Northern Line to relieve Fairview and reduce morning deadheading? Suddenly the spur would be useful for more than just airport runs.

strassenwo!f · 01-10-2011 2:29am

dowlingm wrote: »

Tunnelling under an active line would be tricky, I'd say... not to mention ruinously expensive.

Tricky yes, but I've seen road projects which did just this (i.e. tunnelling under an active railway). There was some disruption, usually at weekends, but for most of the time the tunnelling work continued while the trains rattled along above.

Not sure that any of the projects I've seen were ruinously expensive either. Doubtless not cheap, but not enormously expensive either.

I haven't looked closely at the IE plans for the Clongriffen spur, but presumably - in their 200m Euro figure - they've figured out a way to avoid conflict between "Northern line" trains (ie Malahide, Drogheda, Dundalk and Belfast trains) and "Airport trains".

No reason to see why IE's method of avoiding this conflict should be any more expensive around Killester or Harmonstown than it would be around Clongriffen.

BrianD · 01-10-2011 5:51pm

It comes back to the question ... do we need an airport direct rail link?

I would say no, buses are doing and will do the job very well.

The building of this link could influence future project routing, possibly detrimentally.

The RPA had an obsession with terminating at the airport and got over it, CIE need to get over it as do the folks in the Department.

I say preserve the route of the line and it's something that can be reviewed further down the line.

Wild Bill · 01-10-2011 10:09pm

Frankly, building any rail link is better than building none.

Aard · 01-10-2011 10:50pm

Sure it'll do won't it.

loyatemu · 02-10-2011 12:01am

dowlingm wrote: »

Some three tracking would make a big difference but also sorting out the 2-track bottleneck between Fairview and Connolly.

is it not already 3 track between Fairview and Connolly? there are 4 tracks on the Tolka bridge (though one is blocked)

Wild Bill wrote: »

Frankly, building any rail link is better than building none.

why?

The Port Tunnel and M50 upgrade have transformed access to the airport, you can now run a reasonably reliable express bus service from the city centre or anywhere else in the country, and Aircoach, Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann and others are doing just this. Those 2 projects cost €1.5 billion between them. Spending another €200m on a rail link that just serves the airport is not better than building none.

dowlingm · 02-10-2011 1:59am

loyatemu wrote: »

is it not already 3 track between Fairview and Connolly? there are 4 tracks on the Tolka bridge (though one is blocked)

Look at the section which runs parallel to Stoney Road and West Road in Google Maps - it narrows to 2 there. Expanding that will be dicey as it's on an embankment.

Brian CivilEng · 02-10-2011 1:37pm

It's all a matter of numbers people. Dublin airport gets approx 20million passengers a year. It is open 364 days a year. Assuming this was spread evenly through the year that would mean 55,000 passengers a day. This doesn't happen, there are peak days, but for the purposes of this example we will assume that on the busiest day of the year 70,000 people pass through the airport.

The airport is open 18 hours a day ( for flight arrivals/departures). If journeys were evenly distributed over the day that would mean just under 4,000 passengers an hour on the busiest day of the year. There is a peak hour, so for simplification we will call it 5,000 passengers on the peak hour for the peak day.

Lets say the target is that 50% of people using the airport should use public transport. (I think currently 50% use private cars, the rest use rented cars, taxis and public transport). So that means that 2,500 need to be served by buses. We'll assume 1/3 of the people are using coaches to the provincial cities and 2/3 using Dublin bus/ Aircoach. That means approx 14 coaches and 25 local buses leave the airport every hour (assume 55 pax on intercity coach, 60 on aircoach and 85 on Dublin bus). Or one coach every 4 mins and one bus every 2.4 mins. It would be do-able but very difficult to achieve these frequencies with buses alone. This is why rail is proposed, not because of vanity projects or delusions of grandeur, but simple numbers!

50% of passengers using public transport is not an unreasonable aim. These figures are just loose estimates, I haven't even considered staff numbers. It may seem to be working well now, but it does not leave much wiggle room. All is needs is for the economy to improve, the airport to get busier and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Policy is to shift more people away from private cars to public transport, that is not achievable currently.

We suffer from a lack of ambition in this country. Some may call the Luas a success because it is busy, I think that just proves that it was massively underspecced. Don't let the same mistakes be made again.

Take your own more detailed look at the numbers and see if buses will suffice. Get a map of Dublin city, draw a straight line from the city centre to the airport, then look at the Clongriffen spur and tell me that something like Metro North isn't needed.

chooochooo · 02-10-2011 4:06pm

abitofacomedian wrote: »

It's all a matter of numbers people. Dublin airport gets approx 20million passengers a year. It is open 364 days a year. Assuming this was spread evenly through the year that would mean 55,000 passengers a day. This doesn't happen, there are peak days, but for the purposes of this example we will assume that on the busiest day of the year 70,000 people pass through the airport.

The airport is open 18 hours a day ( for flight arrivals/departures). If journeys were evenly distributed over the day that would mean just under 4,000 passengers an hour on the busiest day of the year. There is a peak hour, so for simplification we will call it 5,000 passengers on the peak hour for the peak day.

Lets say the target is that 50% of people using the airport should use public transport. (I think currently 50% use private cars, the rest use rented cars, taxis and public transport). So that means that 2,500 need to be served by buses. We'll assume 1/3 of the people are using coaches to the provincial cities and 2/3 using Dublin bus/ Aircoach. That means approx 14 coaches and 25 local buses leave the airport every hour (assume 55 pax on intercity coach, 60 on aircoach and 85 on Dublin bus). Or one coach every 4 mins and one bus every 2.4 mins. It would be do-able but very difficult to achieve these frequencies with buses alone. This is why rail is proposed, not because of vanity projects or delusions of grandeur, but simple numbers!

50% of passengers using public transport is not an unreasonable aim. These figures are just loose estimates, I haven't even considered staff numbers. It may seem to be working well now, but it does not leave much wiggle room. All is needs is for the economy to improve, the airport to get busier and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Policy is to shift more people away from private cars to public transport, that is not achievable currently.

We suffer from a lack of ambition in this country. Some may call the Luas a success because it is busy, I think that just proves that it was massively underspecced. Don't let the same mistakes be made again.

Take your own more detailed look at the numbers and see if buses will suffice. Get a map of Dublin city, draw a straight line from the city centre to the airport, then look at the Clongriffen spur and tell me that something like Metro North isn't needed.

This long winded essay is a nice example of why virtually all the posts on this forum are hot air.
In fact while 20m passengers might used the airport per annum............in reality.........meeters and greeters (and workers) amount to more than 20m per annum (extra)

Fine Gael are small time shopkeepers and farmers who know as much about public transport as my dog knows about sanskrit. Labour are a band of trade union idlers who wouldn't be able to think bigger than a credit union loan.
That is why public transport will go nowhere under this gov with sweet talking spoofer Varadkar talking through his arse posing as a transport minister. Snake oil saleman might work better for him.

Ernest · 02-10-2011 4:09pm

chooochooo wrote: »

This long winded essay is a nice example of why virtually all the posts on this forum are hot air.
In fact while 20m passengers might used the airport per annum............in reality.........meeters and greeters (and workers) amount to more than 20m per annum (extra)

Fine Gael are small time shopkeepers and farmers who know as much about public transport as my dog knows about sanskrit. Labour are a band of trade union idlers who wouldn't be able to think bigger than a credit union loan.
That is why public transport will go nowhere under this gov with sweet talking spoofer Varadkar talking through his arse posing as a transport minister. Snake oil saleman might work better for him.

Well, that wasn't a very helpful response, was it?

patrickbrophy18 · 02-10-2011 6:52pm

abitofacomedian wrote: »

It's all a matter of numbers people. Dublin airport gets approx 20million passengers a year. It is open 364 days a year. Assuming this was spread evenly through the year that would mean 55,000 passengers a day. This doesn't happen, there are peak days, but for the purposes of this example we will assume that on the busiest day of the year 70,000 people pass through the airport.

The airport is open 18 hours a day ( for flight arrivals/departures). If journeys were evenly distributed over the day that would mean just under 4,000 passengers an hour on the busiest day of the year. There is a peak hour, so for simplification we will call it 5,000 passengers on the peak hour for the peak day.

Lets say the target is that 50% of people using the airport should use public transport. (I think currently 50% use private cars, the rest use rented cars, taxis and public transport). So that means that 2,500 need to be served by buses. We'll assume 1/3 of the people are using coaches to the provincial cities and 2/3 using Dublin bus/ Aircoach. That means approx 14 coaches and 25 local buses leave the airport every hour (assume 55 pax on intercity coach, 60 on aircoach and 85 on Dublin bus). Or one coach every 4 mins and one bus every 2.4 mins. It would be do-able but very difficult to achieve these frequencies with buses alone. This is why rail is proposed, not because of vanity projects or delusions of grandeur, but simple numbers!

50% of passengers using public transport is not an unreasonable aim. These figures are just loose estimates, I haven't even considered staff numbers. It may seem to be working well now, but it does not leave much wiggle room. All is needs is for the economy to improve, the airport to get busier and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Policy is to shift more people away from private cars to public transport, that is not achievable currently.

We suffer from a lack of ambition in this country. Some may call the Luas a success because it is busy, I think that just proves that it was massively underspecced. Don't let the same mistakes be made again.

Take your own more detailed look at the numbers and see if buses will suffice. Get a map of Dublin city, draw a straight line from the city centre to the airport, then look at the Clongriffen spur and tell me that something like Metro North isn't needed.

I couldn't agree with you more. As I pointed out in the first page of this thread, the population, amenities, colleges, interchanges, shopping areas and of course, the countries main airport are the icing on the cake for the Metro North business case. It is badly needed, plain and simple. A half-assed alternative such as the Clongriffin DART spur will not suffice because the people between Ballymun and town will be left out of the loop. Not to mention, the services and shopping areas. Yet again, common sense has escaped this country.

dowlingm · 03-10-2011 2:32am

Dublin Airport Travel Plan

bk · 03-10-2011 2:40pm

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Lets say the target is that 50% of people using the airport should use public transport. (I think currently 50% use private cars, the rest use rented cars, taxis and public transport). So that means that 2,500 need to be served by buses. We'll assume 1/3 of the people are using coaches to the provincial cities and 2/3 using Dublin bus/ Aircoach. That means approx 14 coaches and 25 local buses leave the airport every hour (assume 55 pax on intercity coach, 60 on aircoach and 85 on Dublin bus). Or one coach every 4 mins and one bus every 2.4 mins. It would be do-able but very difficult to achieve these frequencies with buses alone. This is why rail is proposed, not because of vanity projects or delusions of grandeur, but simple numbers!

Dublin Bus now operates 8 bus routes to the airport in total providing 30 trips per hour throughout the day. At peak 42 services operate in the morning and 45 in the evening, almost a bus every minute indicating a frequent Dublin Bus airport service. More than 600 bus movements operate to and from Dublin Airport per day.

And that is just DB, so it is already been achieved and surpassed by bus today.

I'm not saying the Airport shouldn't have a rail link, it should.

I'm just saying there is no point to a DART spur that is going to run just every 15 minutes and take longer to get to the city center then a bus!!

What is needed in the long term is Metro North, which will serve many people, not just the airport and they should also reserve the DART spur alignment for future use when DART Underground and quad tracking is complete and it will make more sense.

In the meantime lets not waste 300 million on this white elephant which could be better spent on Luas BXD or other projects.

AngryLips · 03-10-2011 5:03pm

bk wrote: »

I'm not saying the Airport shouldn't have a rail link, it should.

...What is needed in the long term is Metro North

Leaving aside everything else, if providing the airport with a rail service is the objective then it should be a quick, direct, express link to the city centre that also connects it to the national rail network. Neither of the crappy solutions on the table (Dart spur or MN) provide that. It should be something that connects Connolly, Heuston and the south city centre (maybe also north city centre).

Given the airport's proximity to the northern line an option that would best satisfy such a criteria would be to plug it into northern line services northbound and southbound served by non-stop trains into Connolly. This would require quad-tracking of the northern line shared with Dart for capacity and a delta junction at the spur. It would also need supplementary services to make up a clockface 15 minute frequency (or more) where northern line Arrow or Enterprise services fall short. Services could be further reinforced by making Dublin Airport the terminus for Arklow and Wexford bound trains. The only thing missing from this is that Connolly is not a great location for the city centre and Heuston misses out.

If you want to think radically about it IE should work on finding some way to consolidate its national rail termini in Dublin in the one location. Prefrabably one conveniently served by the metropolitan public transport infrastructure. Of course, all this is just an ideal scenario beyond the vision of anyone with responsibility for planning.

BrianD · 03-10-2011 6:26pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Frankly, building any rail link is better than building none.

But why would we if the passengers aren't there? The budget would be better used upgrading what is there already.

abitofacomedian wrote:

Lets say the target is that 50% of people using the airport should use public transport. (I think currently 50% use private cars, the rest use rented cars, taxis and public transport). So that means that 2,500 need to be served by buses. We'll assume 1/3 of the people are using coaches to the provincial cities and 2/3 using Dublin bus/ Aircoach. That means approx 14 coaches and 25 local buses leave the airport every hour (assume 55 pax on intercity coach, 60 on aircoach and 85 on Dublin bus). Or one coach every 4 mins and one bus every 2.4 mins. It would be do-able but very difficult to achieve these frequencies with buses alone. This is why rail is proposed, not because of vanity projects or delusions of grandeur, but simple numbers!

I would dispute those numbers. Look at it logically, a rail connection doesn't work for the majority of people based on the current rail network and the fact that it would mean that early departures and late arrivals would be out of the question. This would rule out many business travellers. Buses on the other hand can operate at a lower cost 24hours if necessary and reach more places

For a family of four going on holiday, it makes far more sense logistically to travel in a car as it's an economical use of a car and means you can carry all your stuff. So car for them will trump all public transport.

Employees at the airport? Most live within the vicinity of the airport, north Dublin and across into Meath. Rail would not be of any real advantage to them and they work shifts. After that the employees could be anywhere in the city and bus would be the only option.

As desirable as it is, I don't think you'll convert anywhere near 50% of airport users and even if you could, bus still offers the most convenience and utility.

bk · 03-10-2011 10:49pm

AngryLips wrote: »

Leaving aside everything else, if providing the airport with a rail service is the objective then it should be a quick, direct, express link to the city centre that also connects it to the national rail network.

But is that the goal? And should it be the goal?

According to the report Dowlingm linked to above, only 1% of people take rail to get to the airport.

Now obviously the airport doesn't have a rail link, but the report takes this into account and counts any journey that majority takes rail as a rail link. So for example if you got the train form Cork to Dublin and then a taxi or bus to the airport, it is counted as a rail journey, similarly with DART.

However despite that only 1% of people take rail to get to the airport!! This shows very little demand for people to connect to the airport from mainline rail.

The reality is it is just as quick, more convenient and definitely cheaper to get to Dublin Airport by modern direct non stop bus coach services.

As an example, I recently traveled from the Airport to Dun Laoighare via Aircoach in 35 minutes at 7pm. Traveling by Dart to the airport would actually be slower!!

Why spend all this money for a slower, less convenient service?

L1011 · 03-10-2011 10:59pm

bk wrote: »

However despite that only 1% of people take rail to get to the airport!! This shows very little demand for people to connect to the airport from mainline rail.

Two reasons for this neither of which have anything to do with "very little demand"

1: Many areas which have train links to Dublin also have coach services which serve Dublin Airport *directly*. Cork, Galway, Rosslare line, Ballina, Portlaoise, etc, etc. Why get a train (that may take longer than the coach) and transfer to another bus when you can just get a single bus? These may go to rail if a link opens, but never before.

2: Most of the people who would use a rail link to the city centre are, erm, going to/from the city centre clearly. There is no rail setup that'd have them appear in the usage figures as stands.

bk · 04-10-2011 12:02am

Err, thanks for reinforcing my point!!

MYOB wrote: »

Two reasons for this neither of which have anything to do with "very little demand"

1: Many areas which have train links to Dublin also have coach services which serve Dublin Airport *directly*. Cork, Galway, Rosslare line, Ballina, Portlaoise, etc, etc. Why get a train (that may take longer than the coach) and transfer to another bus when you can just get a single bus? These may go to rail if a link opens, but never before.

You can currently get fast direct cheap bus services from all over the country to the airport.

Why spend hundreds of millions to replicate an existing service which at best will only equal the buses in speed, at worst will more likely be slower, at much higher ticket prices?

Oh and if you do this you will make the existing intercity and commuter services even slower due to the additional stop at the airport. Thus making them even less competitive just as they face competition from cheaper bus services.

And all for the cost of 500 million * or so.

* We are now talking about much more then a simple DART spur, which would involve quad tracking, etc. thus more expensive.

Genius!!!

MYOB wrote: »

2: Most of the people who would use a rail link to the city centre are, erm, going to/from the city centre clearly. There is no rail setup that'd have them appear in the usage figures as stands.

True and will that change with a Dart spur that will be slower then the current bus services to the airport?

Metro North on the other hand, which would actually offer a faster service to the airport then the buses and would also service other areas and perhaps most importantly Swords, where so many airport employees work and a massive park and ride on the M50, might actually stand a chance in changing these usage figures.

L1011 · 04-10-2011 8:45am

bk wrote: »

Err, thanks for reinforcing my point!!

Its only reinforcing your point by you attempting to represent yourself as saying things you weren't. The rest of your spinning post isn't worth trying to answer.

bk · 04-10-2011 9:24am

MYOB wrote: »

Its only reinforcing your point by you attempting to represent yourself as saying things you weren't. The rest of your spinning post isn't worth trying to answer.

What? I think it is pretty clear what I've been saying.

I was pointing out that there is little demand for an airport link from mainline rail services.

You pointed out that the reason this is the case is because superior, faster, cheap bus services already meet that demand.

I agreed with you and I asked the obvious question, why should we spend hundreds of millions building a mainline rail link to the airport if the demand is already been adequately meet by existing bus services?

Pretty simple really.

Anyone care to answer my question?

petronius · 04-10-2011 11:24am

Dart Spur line from Clongriffin, well it should be build anyways, would allow for connectivity from the northern line, e.g. dundalk change at clongriffin then to the airport. The only issue I would have is that it would be a single use line really, since there is very little else it would serve.

The Benefit of the Metro North is that it provides a transport service for Swords, Ballymun, DCU, Drumcondra as well as the airport. (it should connect tot he northern line also north of swords so as there would be connectivity with travellers from Belfast, Newry, Dundalk Drogheda who would use the airport!)

Just do it.

DART-Airport Spur From Clongriffin

Comments