Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

cgcsb

Will be multi storey. The modelling shows that P and R adds sweet FA in terms of pax numbers. Once you're in your car and you're driving to work, where there is presumably parking, you're not going to pay more to change to metro, even if that journey is faster than driving. The P&R thing is more for political reasons, the 'there's no bus near me, Joe' types demand it.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Will be multi storey. The modelling shows that P and R adds sweet FA in terms of pax numbers. Once you're in your car and you're driving to work, where there is presumably parking, you're not going to pay more to change to metro, even if that journey is faster than driving. The P&R thing is more for political reasons, the 'there's no bus near me, Joe' types demand it.

Well, no. The P&Rs are usually well subscribed. The problem is there are not enough of them, and not in ideal locations.

marno21

Another thing is that the from the M1 P&R to the city centre will be quick, and the quickest alternative by road carries a €10 toll

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

Will be multi storey. The modelling shows that P and R adds sweet FA in terms of pax numbers. Once you're in your car and you're driving to work, where there is presumably parking, you're not going to pay more to change to metro, even if that journey is faster than driving. The P&R thing is more for political reasons, the 'there's no bus near me, Joe' types demand it.

Between this and the Busconnects thread, you have clearly shown your lack of knowledge regarding interchanges and the interchange penalty.
The park and ride will be extremely well subscribed like the one at red cow. It will offer an cheaper, quicker trip to the city centre. The interchange penalty is cancelled out by the reduction in trip length and relative costs (assuming you pay for parking in city centre). Throw in the tax saver option and it’s a no-brainier for anyone north of Swords.
3,000 cars would be a significant reduction on the M1!!
Also this location, it has the potential to double as an airport car park long term given the pressure that their parking is likely to be under going forward (currently fully booked during peak season).
Throw in a bus interchange like at the red cow and it will likely be a very busy station.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, no. The P&Rs are usually well subscribed. The problem is there are not enough of them, and not in ideal locations.

A 3000 veh capacity p and r brings a max of 3,000 users per day, on a line capable of 20,000 per hour. For the cost of constructing it, you get a pretty bad return compared to other stations

cgcsb

Last Stop wrote: »

Between this and the Busconnects thread, you have clearly shown your lack of knowledge regarding interchanges and the interchange penalty.
The park and ride will be extremely well subscribed like the one at red cow. It will offer an cheaper, quicker trip to the city centre. The interchange penalty is cancelled out by the reduction in trip length and relative costs (assuming you pay for parking in city centre). Throw in the tax saver option and it’s a no-brainier for anyone north of Swords.
3,000 cars would be a significant reduction on the M1!!
Also this location, it has the potential to double as an airport car park long term given the pressure that their parking is likely to be under going forward (currently fully booked during peak season).
Throw in a bus interchange like at the red cow and it will likely be a very busy station.

That's a lot of aggression in one post, cheers

CatInABox

The biggest worry that the NTA and the local authority has isn't that people won't use it, it's that the traffic jam will move from the motorway and onto the entrance to the P&R. Good design should minimise that issue though.

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

A 3000 veh capacity p and r brings a max of 3,000 users per day, on a line capable of 20,000 per hour. For the cost of constructing it, you get a pretty bad return compared to other stations

No it doesn’t. You’re assuming 1 person per car, no one coming or going during the day and no bus interchange. In reality, there is potential for up to 5 people in some cars (e.g. families on a day out), some people will come and go throughout the day and there will be a bus interchange. That significantly increases the demand.

But let’s assume 3000 passengers arrive in the morning peak. That gives you 15% of your max capacity from one stop. The cost of a multi-storey car park is likely only a few million (max 10m I would say) and in the context of a 3 Billion Euro Scheme is minimal. 3% of the overall cost when you were going to have a station there anyway is a pretty impressive return.

donvito99

Last Stop wrote: »

In reality, there is potential for up to 5 people in some cars (e.g. families on a day out)

Hahaha would you go away with this nonsense. The average occupancy of a car commuting to Dublin can be no more than two, and that is speaking generously.

EDIT: Avg vehicle occupancy was 1.2 in 2016 according to this "5 people in some cars" https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/traffic-management-changes-north-and-south-quays/supporting_documents/Dublin%20City%20Centre%20Transport%20Study.pdf

let’s assume 3000 passengers arrive in the morning peak. That gives you 15% of your max capacity from one stop. The cost of a multi-storey car park is likely only a few million (max 10m I would say) and in the context of a 3 Billion Euro Scheme is minimal. 3% of the overall cost when you were going to have a station there anyway is a pretty impressive return.

That figure is closer to what it would cost to design a multi story car park of this magnitude.

Cannot believe we are building P&R on top of a station and not housing! MOAR TRAFFIC is clearly the name of the game!

Last Stop

donvito99 wrote: »

Hahaha would you go away with this nonsense. The average occupancy of a car commuting to Dublin can be no more than two, and that is speaking generously.

EDIT: Avg vehicle occupancy was 1.2 in 2016 according to this "5 people in some cars" https://consultation.dublincity.ie/traffic-and-transport/traffic-management-changes-north-and-south-quays/supporting_documents/Dublin%20City%20Centre%20Transport%20Study.pdf



That figure is closer to what it would cost to design a multi story car park of this magnitude.

Cannot believe we are building P&R on top of a station and not housing! MOAR TRAFFIC is clearly the name of the game!

Key word being AVERAGE. I’m still correct in saying some cars may have 5 as the average is above 1...

Honestly it’s not that complicated a build on a greenfield site so it shouldn’t be too far off that figure. Remember that the design fee for Metrolink in total is €14m (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jacobs-and-idom-win-metro-contract-ddjtkgjbf) so there’s no way that the car park design is over 200k.
Building a strategic park and ride beside an inter urban motorway is one of the best decisions that could be made and there is still massive potential for housing.

cgcsb

Last Stop wrote: »

No it doesn’t. You’re assuming 1 person per car, no one coming or going during the day and no bus interchange

Yes because that's easier to calculate, I'm also assuming 100% occupancy, whereas 50% would be optimistic compared to similar facilities elsewhere.

Last Stop wrote: »

In reality, there is potential for up to 5 people in some cars (e.g. families on a day out),

😂

Last Stop wrote: »

But let’s assume 3000 passengers arrive in the morning peak. That gives you 15% of your max capacity from one stop. The cost of a multi-storey car park is likely only a few million (max 10m I would say) and in the context of a 3 Billion Euro Scheme is minimal. 3% of the overall cost when you were going to have a station there anyway is a pretty impressive return.

The only reason there's a station going there is for the p&r, it's an unpopulated area that has motorway access, they were hardly going to plonk a station out there without even a footpath in the area. It's a station for p and r

Zebra3

Last Stop wrote: »

3,000 cars would be a significant reduction on the M1!!

Which will sadly be quickly replaced by 3,000 other cars.

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

Yes because that's easier to calculate, I'm also assuming 100% occupancy, whereas 50% would be optimistic compared to similar facilities elsewhere.


��



The only reason there's a station going there is for the p&r, it's an unpopulated area that has motorway access, they were hardly going to plonk a station out there without even a footpath in the area. It's a station for p and r

Easier to calculate doesn’t mean it’s correct. The station will attract far more than 3,000 passengers per day in the same way Red cow attracts more than 800.

That’s not the only reason. The original scheme has a depot further north of this so it was conveniently on the way. An Bord Pleanála rejected the depot location due to flooding and suggested moving the station because the lands were unzoned. Check the latest FCC development plan and you’ll see the area is now zoned for metro economic zone which involves high density housing and offices etc. Did you think that they put stations in Cherrywood for the fun of it too?

The current location leaves also room for a future extension when required.

Last Stop

Zebra3 wrote: »

Which will sadly be quickly replaced by 3,000 other cars.

Well also consider the multiple of this that will be taken off the M1 south of Estuary. This will have a massive benefit on those who commute from Swords where current buses are slow, infrequent and over capacity.

Zebra3

Last Stop wrote: »

Well also consider the multiple of this that will be taken off the M1 south of Estuary. This will have a massive benefit on those who commute from Swords where current buses are slow, infrequent and over capacity.

Unless current lanes used by private traffic is redesignated for PT, there won’t be much change after possibly a brief drop in traffic levels.

Last Stop

Zebra3 wrote: »

Unless current lanes used by private traffic is redesignated for PT, there won’t be much change after possibly a brief drop in traffic levels.

Are you taking the piss?? Metrolink will have a huge impact on traffic levels from Swords to city centre. There’s even Daft.ie studies which show house prices increased in Swords when OMN was being planned.

specialbyte

Last Stop wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?? Metrolink will have a huge impact on traffic levels from Swords to city centre.

In the short-term (~5 years) MetroLink will probably reduce traffic volumes on the M1 and northern parts of the M50. However, long-term we know because of induced demand that any driver who swaps to metro will (in time) be replaced by a new driver who will take advantage of the new road space. If we want to see long-term traffic reductions then you need to follow the opposite of induced demand: traffic evaporation. We need to actively remove/reduce motor traffic capacity/demand as we add in MetroLink.

I'm not advocating that we remove traffic lanes from a strategic motorway link. However, we should be looking at re-assigning road space elsewhere. Ballymun is the great example. If we're adding a metro below ground and a core bus corridor above ground do we really need to maintain two general traffic lanes? We definitely could reduce the scar that is the R108 right through Ballymun.

Other options worth considering are adding in demand measurement measures when MetroLink and the P&R open. Demand management is normally code for tolls, because nothing quite works at reducing motor traffic demand like money.

MJohnston

Last Stop wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?? Metrolink will have a huge impact on traffic levels from Swords to city centre. There’s even Daft.ie studies which show house prices increased in Swords when OMN was being planned.

Under the principles of induced demand, it probably won't actually ever seem like traffic levels decrease on the M1/N1 though.

Last Stop

specialbyte wrote: »

In the short-term (~5 years) MetroLink will probably reduce traffic volumes on the M1 and northern parts of the M50. However, long-term we know because of induced demand that any driver who swaps to metro will (in time) be replaced by a new driver who will take advantage of the new road space. If we want to see long-term traffic reductions then you need to follow the opposite of induced demand: traffic evaporation. We need to actively remove/reduce motor traffic capacity/demand as we add in MetroLink.

I'm not advocating that we remove traffic lanes from a strategic motorway link. However, we should be looking at re-assigning road space elsewhere. Ballymun is the great example. If we're adding a metro below ground and a core bus corridor above ground do we really need to maintain two general traffic lanes? We definitely could reduce the scar that is the R108 right through Ballymun.

Other options worth considering are adding in demand measurement measures when MetroLink and the P&R open. Demand management is normally code for tolls, because nothing quite works at reducing motor traffic demand like money.

I’m aware of how induced demand works however the provision of a high capacity transport line leads to a modal shift which will see a reduction in car use along that corridor. In theory, yes there should be the same amount of cars on the M1 as before but in reality with 3,000 exiting at Estuary, feeder buses from places further north and east and a change in how people from Swords traffic levels on the M1 and in particular R108 will reduce over time.

ncounties

Last Stop wrote: »

I’m aware of how induced demand works however the provision of a high capacity transport line leads to a modal shift which will see a reduction in car use along that corridor. In theory, yes there should be the same amount of cars on the M1 as before but in reality with 3,000 exiting at Estuary, feeder buses from places further north and east and a change in how people from Swords traffic levels on the M1 and in particular R108 will reduce over time.

It's been proven time and again in other countries. Provide capacity and they shall come. Even with a world class public transport system, we'll still be begrudging traffic jams (have you ever driven in The Netherlands, apart from the fact they can't drive, their roads are always rammed).

The only solution to reduce car travel is, increase public transport infrastructure, reduce car transport infrastructure.

specialbyte

Last Stop wrote: »

I’m aware of how induced demand works however the provision of a high capacity transport line leads to a modal shift which will see a reduction in car use along that corridor. In theory, yes there should be the same amount of cars on the M1 as before but in reality with 3,000 exiting at Estuary, feeder buses from places further north and east and a change in how people from Swords traffic levels on the M1 and in particular R108 will reduce over time.

If you believe that in the long-term we will not see traffic levels grow again to pre-MetroLink opening numbers then you do not understand induced demand. Cars will always fill all available space. It's not because of new demand because of latent demand. Cars are so inefficient at using space that there is always huge latent demand, i.e. people choosing not to travel (or travel by car) because of the congestion. Traffic levels will re-rise to pre-MetroLink opening numbers.

Dats me

specialbyte wrote: »

If you believe that in the long-term we will not see traffic levels grow again to pre-MetroLink opening numbers then you do not understand induced demand. Cars will always fill all available space. It's not because of new demand because of latent demand. Cars are so inefficient at using space that there is always huge latent demand, i.e. people choosing not to travel (or travel by car) because of the congestion. Traffic levels will re-rise to pre-MetroLink opening numbers.

A huge programme of switching car lanes inside the M50 to segregated cycle paths and wider footpaths however...

Sam Russell

Car traffic can be controlled by:

1. A congestion charge - political suicide.

2. Parking restrictions - possible if implemented slowly space by space, increasing electric charging points and disabled parking, say. Obviously removing whole streets from free on-street parking would be another way, or just removing the parking altogether.

3. Providing adequate P&R - needs investment but if Metrolink is open then quite possible. It works for Luas.

4. Extra congestion caused deliberately by making roads one way - or tidal.

5. Restricting right turns and making through roads difficult.

All of these would only be possible after Metrolink is running. P&R is a no brainer though.

Dats me

Sam Russell wrote: »

Car traffic can be controlled by:

1. A congestion charge - political suicide.

2. Parking restrictions - possible if implemented slowly space by space, increasing electric charging points and disabled parking, say. Obviously removing whole streets from free on-street parking would be another way, or just removing the parking altogether.

3. Providing adequate P&R - needs investment but if Metrolink is open then quite possible. It works for Luas.

4. Extra congestion caused deliberately by making roads one way - or tidal.

5. Restricting right turns and making through roads difficult.

All of these would only be possible after Metrolink is running. P&R is a no brainer though.

Yes, filtered permeability i.e. keeping access but making artificial cul de sacs is an amazing way of discouraging driving and making cycling safer

bk

It is important to remember in these conversations that the population of Dublin is expected to grow by 400,000 extra people over the next 15 years and that is the conservative estimate!

So when Metrolink opens, I expect that the Metros will be jammed, the P+R will be jammed and the M1 will continue to be jammed!

While the M1 will continue to be jammed, just imagine how much worse it would get if we don't have Metrolink and P+R!!

I agree that once Metrolink comes online, we should shift the roads to more bus/bike/pedestrian priority and probably congestion charging too.

Last Stop

specialbyte wrote: »

If you believe that in the long-term we will not see traffic levels grow again to pre-MetroLink opening numbers then you do not understand induced demand. Cars will always fill all available space. It's not because of new demand because of latent demand. Cars are so inefficient at using space that there is always huge latent demand, i.e. people choosing not to travel (or travel by car) because of the congestion. Traffic levels will re-rise to pre-MetroLink opening numbers.

That’s assuming latent demand outstrips the modal shift to metro and there is growth along the corridor. Of course the M1 traffic will increase over time but this will be at a much slower rate after metro opens than currently.

CatInABox

More ground investigations going on.

https://twitter.com/DublinOnTrack/status/1149068026597322758

Stephen15

Looks like the closest we've got to shovels in ground so far. Hopefully it won't be the closest we'll get.

cgcsb

When the time comes, I just can't see a minister signing a cheque of that size. Even motorway schemes (we know how TDs love a good bypass) are only built in small sections to avoid such big cheque signings.

I can't think of such a large single item of infrastructure getting funded in the past. Maybe Ardnacrusha was the last time we spent that much (adjusting for inflation??)

The childrens hospital comes close, and that's a political hot potatoe. The National broadband plan costs about the same and that has effectively been binned.

AlmightyCushion

cgcsb wrote: »

When the time comes, I just can't see a minister signing a cheque of that size. Even motorway schemes (we know how TDs love a good bypass) are only built in small sections to avoid such big cheque signings.

I can't think of such a large single item of infrastructure getting funded in the past. Maybe Ardnacrusha was the last time we spent that much (adjusting for inflation??)

The childrens hospital comes close, and that's a political hot potatoe. The National broadband plan costs about the same and that has effectively been binned.

Ardnacrusha cost about 20% of the state's annual budget at the time. It was a much, much bigger project in that regards even if the actual cost adjusted for inflation wasn't.