DART+ (DART Expansion)

strassenwo!f

The interconnector, together with the two dedicated suburban rail lines on the four-tracked Hazelhatch line, represent a unique opportunity in Ireland. No Arrows, no Enterprise, nothing. The theoretical capacity of that combination is ca. 30 trains per hour and other cities reach that level of throughput. Dublin should be aiming for more than just using that wonderful opportunity to feed up to about 8 trains an hour in from, or out to, Hazelhatch. Just my opinion.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

The interconnector, together with the two dedicated suburban rail lines on the four-tracked Hazelhatch line, represent a unique opportunity in Ireland. No Arrows, no Enterprise, nothing. The theoretical capacity of that combination is ca. 30 trains per hour and other cities reach that level of throughput. Dublin should be aiming for more than just using that wonderful opportunity to feed up to about 8 trains an hour in from, or out to, Hazelhatch. Just my opinion.

You can run trains every 3-5 mins from Hazelhatch to Spencer Dock and turn them back. You can fill those trains with a revamped West Dublin bus network that re-orients itself to feeding the KRP stations, rather than attempting to directly serve the city centre. Metro West would perform a similar role wrt the KRP but would also provide a good quality option for people travelling between West Dublin settlements themselves.

strassenwo!f

Of course you can run trains every 3-5 minutes between Hazelhatch and the city, and realign the bus routes. But is there demand for 15 trains an hour directly between Hazelhatch and the city? Even with a reorganised bus service, this is definitely not as good for other suburbs as a train straight into town. Don't you think people in West Dublin might notice the uber-fantastic service enjoyed by people who live directly alongside this glorious Hazelhatch route and start to think that they'd like some of that direct service into the city?

Aard

Half the trains could go to Hazelhatch, the other half could go to Fonthill. Like what's done on the Green Line.

strassenwo!f

Aard wrote: »

Half the trains could go to Hazelhatch, the other half could go to Fonthill. Like what's done on the Green Line.

Stop at Fonthill, rather than eventually providing a better public transport experience to and from other suburbs? Where's the advantage for Dublin, as a whole, by stopping half those trains at Fonthill?

Aard

Because then the same train can continue back to the city centre....to use the expensive tunnel rather than serving comparatively lower ridership suburbs. That's what busses or indeed MW are for.

Actually, I'm not going to argue the toss much further. Read the HiTrans Public Transport Network Planning document for best practice on network design if you're interested.

strassenwo!f

These comparatively low ridership suburbs apparently warrant investment on the scale required to build the metro west.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

These comparatively low ridership suburbs apparently warrant investment on the scale required to build the metro west.

Metro West would cost a LOT less than a heavy rail alternative (what you're proposing). Using your spur idea...how would a passenger travel from Liffey Valley to The Square (just as a matter of interest)?

Aard

Exactly. Now you're getting it. MW and not DU. It'd be like building a motorway where a regional road would suffice, to use an inexact roads-analogy.

And seriously, that document I suggested is worth a glance. Judging by the comments you make, network design seems to be an area you are interested in but could do with some brushing up on.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

Metro West would cost a LOT less than a heavy rail alternative (what you're proposing). Using your spur idea...how would a passenger travel from Liffey Valley to The Square (just as a matter of interest)?

Demand for getting between western suburbs is not nearly as great as for getting into town or getting to the east of the city. Building a couple of spurs north of the Hazelhatch line, gradually increasing the density along those routes, and gradually extending them means that you give an overall better transport experience to more people.

This would most certainly be more expensive than building comparable lengths of metro west.

I understand from previous discussions that any spur to Tallaght via Clondalkin would be very expensive. It is a terrible pity that a route serving upwards of 100,000 people has been squandered by poor planning decisions. So that section might have to be served by a tram. But north of the Hazelhatch line there is scope for doing what I said above and gradually introducing spurs which more effectively serve more people.

Re your question about travel between Liffey Valley and the Square: are there a lot of people who live in/near Liffey Valley and work in the Square, and vice versa, and how are they making this journey at the moment? But to answer it, I would suggest the following itinerary (in the far distant future when any of this stuff is built): (i) get on the DART spur at Liffey Valley and travel to the Hazelhatch line; (ii) change onto the tram to Tallaght (while the vast majority of the passengers on the DART travel merrily into town).

LXFlyer

Aard wrote: »

Half the trains could go to Hazelhatch, the other half could go to Fonthill. Like what's done on the Green Line.

It would be Adamstown as that's where the turnback platform is.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Re your question about travel between Liffey Valley and the Square: are there a lot of people who live in/near Liffey Valley and work in the Square, and vice versa, and how are they making this journey at the moment? But to answer it, I would suggest the following itinerary (in the far distant future when any of this stuff is built): (i) get on the DART spur at Liffey Valley and travel to the Hazelhatch line; (ii) change onto the tram to Tallaght (while the vast majority of the passengers on the DART travel merrily into town).

Could you draw a simple sketch of the interchange at Kishogue or wherever you envisage the spur meeting the KRP please. Please mark the location of the platforms and allow roughly enough radius for the spur curves.

It's important to see just how you'd cater for the orbital journey that metro west caters for. I don't think you've considered orbital journeys at all tbh. The spurs would need to approach the KRP on a large radius curve. Platforms on the curves would not be allowed today, so you'd need platforms on the straights, but where? How? I think your attitude is more one of "direct connections at the expense of orbital ones" whereas MW provides orbital connections and rapid change to services towards the city centre (the MW platforms would be just a few metres above the KRP platforms).

mackerski

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You probably don't want or need to go to the extent of a city like Munich when it comes to branching, though that city does have one of Europe's most effective underground networks and manages to cover a whole urban area with just four lines. But there are many cities with branched lines and generally those lines work well. Dublin is not a megalopolis.

I count 5 lines in Munich and 6 if you include the S-Bahn Stammstrecke, which you should, since it has service levels in excess of any of the U-Bahn lines.

strassenwo!f

mackerski wrote: »

I count 5 lines in Munich and 6 if you include the S-Bahn Stammstrecke, which you should, since it has service levels in excess of any of the U-Bahn lines.

I was thinking the S-Bahn, the U1/U2 line, the U3/U6 line and the U4/U5 line.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Demand for getting between western suburbs is not nearly as great as for getting into town or getting to the east of the city. Building a couple of spurs north of the Hazelhatch line, gradually increasing the density along those routes, and gradually extending them means that you give an overall better transport experience to more people.

This would most certainly be more expensive than building comparable lengths of metro west.

I understand from previous discussions that any spur to Tallaght via Clondalkin would be very expensive. It is a terrible pity that a route serving upwards of 100,000 people has been squandered by poor planning decisions. So that section might have to be served by a tram. But north of the Hazelhatch line there is scope for doing what I said above and gradually introducing spurs which more effectively serve more people.

Re your question about travel between Liffey Valley and the Square: are there a lot of people who live in/near Liffey Valley and work in the Square, and vice versa, and how are they making this journey at the moment? But to answer it, I would suggest the following itinerary (in the far distant future when any of this stuff is built): (i) get on the DART spur at Liffey Valley and travel to the Hazelhatch line; (ii) change onto the tram to Tallaght (while the vast majority of the passengers on the DART travel merrily into town).

Are you for real or do you just simply not have a clue about things in Dublin?

Demand between Western suburbs is one of the reasons we had to upgrade the M50. Its also one of the reasons that the OOR was suggested in order to assist the commuter traffic on the M50 which is essentially movement and demand between western suburbs. You really need to experience the cross affect of commuting in West Dublin. Move a little east and the chronic congestion along the Kylemore road route absolutely defines that cross city commutes are an absolute disaster and ignored. Move back west and the Newlands Cross/Belgard road axis clearly highlights commuting habits and congestion. The entire demand between western suburbs is satisfied by the car. MW is an attempt to remedy this, but will not go far enough.

Demand for getting between western suburbs is not nearly as great as for getting into town or getting to the east of the city.

May not be as great, but it's a huge issue and contributes to the Dublin problem. Your acceptance of "An Larism" is part of the problem.

Building a couple of spurs north of the Hazelhatch line, gradually increasing the density along those routes, and gradually extending them means that you give an overall better transport experience to more people.

Spurs? You want to run the train right into the middle of a community and forget all about the cheaper solutions of park and ride and feeder buses, which if done right is successful, without the need to build unnecessary lines.

I understand from previous discussions that any spur to Tallaght via Clondalkin would be very expensive. It is a terrible pity that a route serving upwards of 100,000 people has been squandered by poor planning decisions. So that section might have to be served by a tram.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You have dissed the Western commute as being not as great as the "getting to town" commute, yet you want to spend billions on spurs. I completely understand the public transport requirements for west Dublin and MW is a fairly poor remedy, but it would hugely improve things if it existed.

Re your question about travel between Liffey Valley and the Square: are there a lot of people who live in/near Liffey Valley and work in the Square, and vice versa, and how are they making this journey at the moment?

Yes and they drive. West Dublin was a very poorly planned idea and based on the assumption that a limited amount of people would drive and the rest could **** off! Fact. I lived in West Dublin in the early 80s. I saw the introduction of the 76 bus route as an attempt to link parts of it. It was sporadic and if you had a car, you got in and started driving it.

(i) get on the DART spur at Liffey Valley and travel to the Hazelhatch line; (ii) change onto the tram to Tallaght

MW would do that without any change.

strassenwo!f

murphaph wrote: »

Could you draw a simple sketch of the interchange at Kishogue or wherever you envisage the spur meeting the KRP please. Please mark the location of the platforms and allow roughly enough radius for the spur curves.

I get an ominous feeling you're going to tell me it can't be done.

murphaph wrote: »

It's important to see just how you'd cater for the orbital journey that metro west caters for. I don't think you've considered orbital journeys at all tbh. The spurs would need to approach the KRP on a large radius curve. Platforms on the curves would not be allowed today, so you'd need platforms on the straights, but where? How? I think your attitude is more one of "direct connections at the expense of orbital ones" whereas MW provides orbital connections and rapid change to services towards the city centre (the MW platforms would be just a few metres above the KRP platforms).

My attitude is certainly "direct connections at the expense of orbital ones". The illustration above of the likely passenger demand on the journey from Liffey Valley and the Square should help explain why this is my attitude.

While Dublin still has a big problem getting people rapidly into town, orbital journeys should stay on the transport investment back-burner.

I don't have the technical skills to work out how this should best be done and to present a plausible diagram to the board. But I've seen enough to know that this stuff can be done, and is done, all the time. It's not beyond the wit of man to design and build a spur (or spurs) from the Hazelhatch line heading north, and have a good connection with a putative tram line from Tallaght to the same line. It really isn't.

mackerski

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I was thinking the S-Bahn, the U1/U2 line, the U3/U6 line and the U4/U5 line.

Ok, that's another way of looking at it, works for the very central area.

strassenwo!f

Grandeeod, I have to make it clear that I didn't "diss" anything.

strassenwo!f

mackerski wrote: »

Ok, that's another way of looking at it, works for the very central area.

No, that works very well for most of the urban area of Munich. There's little outlying bits which are served by the minor S-lines from Monday to Friday, but 4 lines pretty much covers it. Where were you getting 5?

mackerski

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No, that works very well for most of the urban area of Munich. There's little outlying bits which are served by the minor S-lines from Monday to Friday, but 4 lines pretty much covers it. Where were you getting 5?

I get 5 because if you want to serve more than the central area you need to split the lines. The line pairs you mention are pairs because they split at each end (except for the U4 and U5 that only split at one end).

strassenwo!f

mackerski wrote: »

I get 5 because if you want to serve more than the central area you need to split the lines. The line pairs you mention are pairs because they split at each end (except for the U4 and U5 that only split . at one end).

This doesn't make sense, and is a distraction. Munich has three U-Bahn lines which cross the central area, two of which split into branches at either end, and one of which currently splits into branches at only one end. So, instead of a potential total of twelve routes served by three lines, they're stuck at just ten. Sad for them.

What is important for Dublin, from Munich (with its S-Bahn) and other cities, is that very high-capacity lines into and out of the city can have, and do have, spurs from the main line. Dublin should seriously look at it.

munchkin_utd

Aard wrote: »

<snip>
Actually, I'm not going to argue the toss much further. Read the HiTrans Public Transport Network Planning document for best practice on network design if you're interested.

thats an amazing document, and pretty much mirrors what happens in cities on the continent which have really well put together public transport systems/ networks.
And theres next to nothing of what you currently have in Dublin that is remotely approching what they outline as best practice.
http://www.kpvv.nl/KpVV/KpVV-Overige-Content/KpVV-Overige-Content-Media/Bijlagen-bij-Kennispaginas/HOV-2-Public-transport---Planning-the-networkspdf.pdf

theres so much in there, but if you were to summarise it you'd have to say that the essense of the document time and time again focuses on the importance of having really really good and frequent trunk lines that everything else is secondary to.
So essentially what Dart underground would provide as the centre of a bigger plan.

murphaph

strassenwo!f wrote: »

While Dublin still has a big problem getting people rapidly into town, orbital journeys should stay on the transport investment back-burner.

If we had DART Underground then we could easily get most of West Dublin into town, quickly and reliably, with a single change at most.

Even if we built DART spurs we still won't have single change journeys for vast swathes of West Dublin. You'd need a DART spur STATION within 1km of every property to achieve that as beyond that people will not walk.

It is FAR more sensible to establish a really frequent trunk line into which you can feed passengers by bus and indeed later by Metro West. We have built many fine wide distributor roads in West Dublin and more are planned. These roads allow very predictable journey times by bus from your local stop to the KRP (and indeed Maynooth line). If you know that your bus will be on time and will get you to the train that runs every 3-5 mins at peak then you will use it. It's the uncertainty of the present bus network that discourages use. With DART Underground bus services in West Dublin would look completely different to today, more or less turning their backs on the city as a destination and preferring to feed the KRP stations instead.

Cool Mo D

murphaph wrote: »

If we had DART Underground then we could easily get most of West Dublin into town, quickly and reliably, with a single change at most.

Even if we built DART spurs we still won't have single change journeys for vast swathes of West Dublin. You'd need a DART spur STATION within 1km of every property to achieve that as beyond that people will not walk.

It is FAR more sensible to establish a really frequent trunk line into which you can feed passengers by bus and indeed later by Metro West. We have built many fine wide distributor roads in West Dublin and more are planned. These roads allow very predictable journey times by bus from your local stop to the KRP (and indeed Maynooth line). If you know that your bus will be on time and will get you to the train that runs every 3-5 mins at peak then you will use it. It's the uncertainty of the present bus network that discourages use. With DART Underground bus services in West Dublin would look completely different to today, more or less turning their backs on the city as a destination and preferring to feed the KRP stations instead.

At the moment, the frequent trunk lines in Dublin are crippled by the lack of integrated ticketing. People are not going to take a feeder bus when they have to pay twice for their trip. Ticketing between bus, Luas and DART needs to be sorted ASAP.

spacetweek

Cool Mo D wrote: »

At the moment, the frequent trunk lines in Dublin are crippled by the lack of integrated ticketing. People are not going to take a feeder bus when they have to pay twice for their trip. Ticketing between bus, Luas and DART needs to be sorted ASAP.

Doesn't the Leap already do that?

LXFlyer

spacetweek wrote: »

Doesn't the Leap already do that?

Not yet for single trips.

It does provide a daily/weekly cap for multi-mode trips.

This is however higher than the cost of using a single mode.

munchkin_utd

spacetweek wrote: »

Doesn't the Leap already do that?

no

and THATs the thing.
Even when it is introduced you'll have a cap on spending, but you are still implicitly encouraged to keep your changes to a minimum as theres a "penalty" of paying on the double.

now, leap will limit how much you eventually pay overall, and theres talk that a subsequent "journey" will be cheaper (even if all you are doing is looking to get from A to B in the same journey) but it still means that theres somehow a financial benefit to the consumer to have busses running from every shaggin piddly estate 20km from the centre direct (without change) to the centre taking half an eterrnity to do so.

murphaph

Cool Mo D wrote: »

At the moment, the frequent trunk lines in Dublin are crippled by the lack of integrated ticketing. People are not going to take a feeder bus when they have to pay twice for their trip. Ticketing between bus, Luas and DART needs to be sorted ASAP.

Agree 100%. Any comments I make about infrastructure assume proper integrated fares are in place. Without them we may as well not bother building ANYTHING.

Aard

Yep, integrated ticketing needs to be removed from the debate. It should be taken as a given when discussing infrastructural investment. Otherwise there'd be nothing but point-to-point routes everywhere!

Grandeeod

Dublin doesn't really have integrated ticketing. Dublin doesn't have integrated public transport, full stop!. Government interference didn't help and its fair to say that since 1984ish any semblance of ticket integration has gone out the window. The Leap? Yeah right!

Why?

Because Governments have introduced new barriers via private bus routes and a luas sell off. Its a complete mess and ultimately driven by an absolute fear of the CIE group. However its ultimately a Government decision. Take CIE out of the equation and you will see rapid progress. Sorry CIE lads, but the deals done over the years are holding progress back. Here's a small example.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/irish-rail-worker-awarded-60000-following-withdrawal-of-voluntary-redundancy-offer-30066438.html

How many more are getting ready for their day in court?

With the dinosaur that is CIE in place, we will keep introducing small public transport projects that attempt to take away the power, but that's akin to pissing into the wind. Public transport in a modern Ireland is not about retaining the jobs club that is CIE. I already know who will disagree with me and that's a shame, because the CIE brand is dirty and detrimental to developing public transport in Ireland.