Minister to host discussion on public transport policy

[James Shields]

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0426/957392-transport/

Minister for Transport Shane Ross is to host a round-table discussion on public transport policy next month, which will include the issue of a sustainable funding model.

I don't suppose RUI could get an invite to these discussions? Are the passengers considered a "stakeholder"?

[Mark Gleeson]

Nothing in the post yet.

I would expect the usual talking shop. It all about money and unless the minister is will to cough up no amount of talking will fix matters.

[Thomas J Stamp]

https://lovindublin.com/dublin/dubli...metro-10-years

DART Underground

"It’s not going to happen within ten years anyway at all, that decision has been made. The route will be protected but there is not going to be any intention of actually building this in that period of time," Ross told the Oireachtas.

[James Shields]

Possibly the first time he has acknowledged he's heard of the project!

I don't believe it will ever get built as long as FG and/or FF are in power.

[Jamie2k9]

Originally Posted by James Shields

Possibly the first time he has acknowledged he's heard of the project!

I don't believe it will ever get built as long as FG and/or FF are in power.

Its not as urgent as we were lead to believe back in the boom. Once the 10 minute DART starts there is no immediate need to more than double capacity. They will squeeze in any extra commuter services at peak hours as required and DART freq will never drop below 10 minutes.

Given it was a choice between this and the Metro, there was never a question of which is more important.

[ACustomer]

The proposed discussion has sustainable funding as a major item. This relates to how the recurrent operation of public transport is funded (and organised) and is in a sense separate from major capital developments such as Dart Underground.

Items which should be on the agenda:
1. Payment for "free" travel should come from the Dept of Social Protection and should be based on usage, not a lump-sum transfer, whihc I gather is the present lazy way of doing it.
2. Payment for upkeep of the basic infrastructure: track access charges road taxes etc. Do HGVs pay enough?
3. Should the CIE group companies compete with one another or should the NTA be given the role of developing services which are complementary rather than competitive? You can have competition for the award of services by the NTA, which is a different matter.

Finally, the 10-minute DART proposal has little to do with the case for DART underground, which is an extension of network capacity. Anyhow the idea of a suburban service where the intervals between trains is independent of demand levels is just nonsense (just look at LUAS to see how it should be done)

[James Shields]

"It’s not going to happen within ten years anyway at all, that decision has been made."

Hang on, if it might happen ten years from now, shouldn't there at least be some sort of feasibility study in the government's 22 year development plan?

Its not as urgent as we were lead to believe back in the boom.

I respectively disagree. It's not just about increasing capacity, it's about opening up travel options. There are too many journeys that require two or more changes, often between different infrequent modes of transport. When faced with those journey options, it's no wonder people choose to take their cars.

Finally, the 10-minute DART proposal has little to do with the case for DART underground, which is an extension of network capacity. Anyhow the idea of a suburban service where the intervals between trains is independent of demand levels is just nonsense (just look at LUAS to see how it should be done)

I partially agree. I think the issue is that if a high frequency service is running, people will mentally see it as a service where they can just show up and travel. Ten minutes is about the limit of what people consider an acceptable wait. Every 15 minutes, and people need to check the timetable, which is enough to put a lot of people off, while others check it and find they've just missed one, so head for the car instead.

They need to stop rolling around empty 8-car sets off-peak, and split up sets as demand requires.

[Jamie2k9]

I respectively disagree. It's not just about increasing capacity, it's about opening up travel options. There are too many journeys that require two or more changes, often between different infrequent modes of transport. When faced with those journey options, it's no wonder people choose to take their cars.

Don't fully agree, now that PPT has happened, you can travel from a to b with one or two changes. DU wouldn't of reduced the number of changes very much.

Costs v Usage just don't add up. A Metro from Dublin airport will deliver 10-15 million in its first year, I cannot see DU boosting numbers as fast.

I think the project is good in principal but starting construction now or in 10 years will make little difference to the public.

Finally, the 10-minute DART proposal has little to do with the case for DART underground, which is an extension of network capacity. Anyhow the idea of a suburban service where the intervals between trains is independent of demand levels is just nonsense (just look at LUAS to see how it should be done)

I agree but was more emphasizing the capacity issues.

I partially agree. I think the issue is that if a high frequency service is running, people will mentally see it as a service where they can just show up and travel. Ten minutes is about the limit of what people consider an acceptable wait. Every 15 minutes, and people need to check the timetable, which is enough to put a lot of people off, while others check it and find they've just missed one, so head for the car instead.

They need to stop rolling around empty 8-car sets off-peak, and split up sets as demand requires.

I would expect once the 10 minute is up and running all units will be 4 car sets with prehaps the odd 6 car at peak for Malahide side.

[Ronald Binge]

Originally Posted by Jamie2k9

Its not as urgent as we were lead to believe back in the boom. Once the 10 minute DART starts there is no immediate need to more than double capacity. They will squeeze in any extra commuter services at peak hours as required and DART freq will never drop below 10 minutes.

Given it was a choice between this and the Metro, there was never a question of which is more important.

Yep. So important that we can kick our heels for another bloody ten years for it. Imagine the pearl-clutching that would go on if it was announced that the M20 wasn't going to be ready until 2028.

[Jamie2k9]

Originally Posted by Ronald Binge

Yep. So important that we can kick our heels for another bloody ten years for it. Imagine the pearl-clutching that would go on if it was announced that the M20 wasn't going to be ready until 2028.

Well, a Dublin central capital spend will end any Goverment in power. I also don't think you can compare the M20 to this. Given the level of fatalities on the road a new road is needed and it just happens to be a motorway in this case which is rather good future proofing.

Now you could compare the NTA suddenly bringing forward the Luas to Finglas route planning by 10 years because of political meddling.

DU will not deliver anything significant if it opened tomorrow.

[Thomas J Stamp]

DU would bring all of the things that were agreed it would bring when it was appoved only a few years ago, having gone though all of the public consultations needed, the planning processes required and the political backing it needed. The arguments were presented in great detail and it was generally agreed that it was needed and needed in the short to medium term.

All of those things still exist, and the sticking plaster of the PPT does nothing to negate them. The sidelining of it for a metro project whose USP is that it will stimulate housing development in two corridoors of the GDA is a terrible choice.

I would say, sure, there may be an argument for an either or, but the reality is that when it was all being trashed out DU won the argument. What killed DU wasnt its merits or demerits, it was simply the fact that the government of the day wanted the money to use on the fiscal space int he run up to a general election and "paused" it at the last possible moment using highly spurious reasons.