THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PARK AND RIDE AS A STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABILITY, A CASE STUDY OF THE NORTHERN DART CORRIDOR.

Transcription

1 27-28th August 2015 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PARK AND RIDE AS A STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABILITY, A CASE STUDY OF THE NORTHERN DART CORRIDOR. Mr. Gary Desmond BSc Spatial Planning Graduate DIT Abstract Many cities have adopted the strategy of using Park and Ride (P&R) facilities at transport hubs as a way to manage the demand for access to the city, by encouraging a reduction in car use, and increasing public transport ridership. The objective of P&R is usually to offer car drivers the option of driving part way to their destination to then complete the next leg ir journey by means of public transport. To date there has been a wide range of studies on P&R facilities internationally; however, research for this project found very few studies are available in an Irish context, particularly with regards to the local P&R facilities along the northern DART corridor. The aim of this research is to assess the effective role that P&R plays as a strategy for sustainability, using the northern DART corridor in Dublin as a case study. A total of four sites are analysed in detail. Each four P&R facilities was examined individually in order to gain a greater understanding as to how they may or may not be compatible with the concept of sustainability. The research includes; sampling usage and occupancy levels during the peak morning hours of 7am to, and hourly up to 12pm, whilst also recording the number of per vehicle and gender of users. Twenty five user surveys were carried out at each station during 7am and on mid-week days, gauging user s rationale for using P&R, frequency of use, travel behaviour, opinions/views of service, and transport used for completion of journey. Journey starting point was then used to develop a spatial analysis using the Geographical Information System (ArcGIS) to illustrate catchment areas for all four facilities. A number key findings of this research found that P&R facilities can in certain circumstances improve access to DART services for some commuters. Overall, P&R facilities were not consistent with the concept of sustainability, with all four facilities displaying a number of similar and individual characteristics that negatively impact on commuter behaviour and travel patterns. They can also add to traffic congestion, whilst reducing public transport usage. Relevant Literature: More and more urban planners are coming around to the idea that P&R can work effectively as a demand management tool for reducing the number of cars in the city. It is however, argued that P&R contributes little in the way of reducing the issues of air pollution; in fact they are seen by some as contributors to car based journeys, as most journeys to P&R facilities are relatively short and convenient [1]. In an Irish context there are traditionally two types of P&R. Strategic P&R are designed to serve a regional catchment area, whilst Local P&R are designed to increase a catchment area surrounding a station [2]. According to the review, The State of Ireland A Review of Infrastructure in Ireland, both rail and sustainable transport in general are below standard. The review strongly recommends initiatives be put in place that will focus on changes in commuter behaviour in order to drive a modal shift away from car use in urban areas [3]. When P&R are located on the lands surrounding rail stations there can be a number of effects that the parking can have on that parcel of land. It can render those lands unusable for other activities [4] outside morning and evening peak hours [5]. It can also impact on travel patterns. Priority in most instances of P&R is for cars, which can act as an obstacle

2 27-28 th August 2015 discouraging pedestrian access to the station. Walker [6] adds how developing P&R on lands around rail stations can force future development further away from the station, adding to urban sprawl. There are a number of factors that influence people s choice to use P&R. A study in the UK revealed lack of parking and traffic congestion in the city centre as the most important factors. A similar study also revealed that safety and operating hours shaped the satisfaction levels for users [7]. The concerns need to be addressed as to how effective P&R is in generating a mode shift away from car usage, and the most suitable way to improve the effectiveness of P&R is road user charging [8]. Transport policies in Ireland set out to ensure a more effective and efficient transport system to meet the needs entire country, through transport and land-use planning working intrinsically together to reduce GHG emissions in transport below 2005 levels, reducing congestion and car travel. One overarching transport policy objectives in Ireland is to aim for a reduction in car mode share from 65 to 45 for those travelling to work. The study that informed the Smarter Travel document found, as a result of urban sprawl car ownership had risen by 38, energy consumption had risen by 100 in the transport sector, and GHG emissions had risen by 88 between 1996 and 2006 [9]. P&R is considered as a viable option to assisting a more sustainable transport network where urban centres have efficient connections to the city [10], and only where they can have a role in facilitating a reduction in car-based travel [11]. Many cities have different approaches to dealing with traffic congestion and the environmental concerns of car based travel. In the UK P&R schemes tend to be located on the periphery of urban areas, on national or regional railway systems, and are traditionally bus-based based P&R [7]. Oxford is the most well-established P&R schemes in the UK, and is said to intercept around 1.3 million car journeys to the city centre annually [12]. Strong policy intentions based on the user pays philosophy for city parking, accompanied with development contributions as a trade-off for supplying off-street parking in new developments, works to reduce city based parking, whilst also generating revenue to subsidise the P&R facilities, resulting in greater bus use and a reduction in city centre car based traffic [7].In Toronto lands around rail stations is considered too valuable for use as a P&R, instead, city authorities feel they are better suited for Transit Orientated Development (TOD). Jaffe [13] suggests that P&R needs to be completely abandoned and replaced with high rise mixed use buildings if the city is to grow successfully. Some studies suggest that TOD can reduce travel by up to 84 for commuters, whilst increasing the numbers of walk and ride, bus and ride, and cycle and ride, which has seen Toronto surpass all other north American cities in this regard [1]. Introduction: Petroleum-based fuels for transportation is argued to make up almost one third of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and transport that run on such fuels are considered nonsustainable [14]. Ireland is recognised as a car-dependant country, with almost 68 of trips being made by car, and transport accounting for 21 total GHG emissions. Ireland currently ranks as the 3 rd largest users of cars in the European Union (EU), and the 6 th lowest users of public transport. Transport is widely regarded a key facilitator for the long term objectives of sustainable development in Ireland. Sustainable transport can be defined as transport that satisfies the current transport and mobility needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet these needs [14]. As far back as the 1960 s there has been a particular emphasis on how best to reduce traffic congestion in cities. P&R is now seen as a common transport and planning solution for alleviating traffic congestion and air pollution [15]. Many city authorities have adopted P&R as a strategy for traffic congestion management, and more recently as a facilitator in achieving the 2020 targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol (1997), implemented through the Smarter Travel ( ) policy document in an Irish context [16]. This study is aimed at measuring the effectiveness of P&R as a strategy for sustainability, with a focus on trying to determine how the lands immediately adjacent to four rail stations

3 27-28th August 2015 along the northern DART corridor are maximising their potential to accommodate sustainability objectives. The study also focussed on developing a greater understanding of the factors that influence the use of P&R and how they impact on the travel behaviour for commuters. Methodology: As part research for this study on P&R, four locations were identified as appropriate case studies, where all sites can be measured on equal grounds to determine their effectiveness towards sustainability. These location are as follows; Malahide suburban Dart station (Fingal), Portmarnock suburban Dart station (Fingal), Clongriffin suburban Dart station (North Dublin City), and Connolly City Centre train station (Dublin City). Figure 1 (left): Location of DART stations along the northern DART corridor. The methodology adopted for the purpose of this study involved a number of primary research methods including: Observational fieldwork was carried out over two days at each location between the morning peak hours of 7am and, on either, a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, as these are considered the busiest days week for commuter travel. The primary focus for this element research was to record the levels of usage during this time period, whilst also recording the number of, and gender, per vehicle. On the same two days spent at each location a record was taken on the daily occupancy levels for each facility. This was achieved by walking the site every hour from 7am to 12pm to record the number of occupied spaces, then logging the findings. Additional observations of drop offs and cyclists during 7am and on the two days of fieldwork were also recorded. A user survey questionnaire was also carried out to gain a greater understanding relationship between the users and the P&R facilities. Twenty five users at each location were surveyed during the morning peak hours of 7am to. The primary focus for this element research was to gauge: The purpose of trip. Days week facility is used by commuters. The start and end locations ir trip. The propensity for transfer for the final leg of trip. Likely travel arrangements if P&R was not available at the station. Satisfaction levels of P&R service. The starting locations were used to develop a number of catchment area maps for each of the P&R facilities using the Geographical Information System (GIS) to plot their trip origins using the traditional one kilometre walking catchment in Irish planning [17]. Permission was given by Irish Rail to access any ir facilities, including station platforms, in order to carry out the observational fieldwork and the survey questionnaires. Three semi structured face to face interviews were conducted, with a member from The National Transport Authority (NTA), Dublin City Council (DCC), and Irish Rail (IR). The purpose interviews was to gain a greater appreciation of how the different agencies view the role P&R plays for the northern Dart corridor, and how P&R is likely to serve the northern Dart corridor in the future.

4 27-28 th August 2015 Site Locations and specifications: LEGEND Town Centre Location of DART Station Figure 2 (above): Malahide DART station in relation to town centre Figure 3 (above): Portmarnock DART station in relation to town centre Figure 4 (above): Clongriffin DART station in relation to town centre Figure 5 (above): Connolly train station in relation to city centre Location Site Size Number of Spaces Number of Disabled Spaces Electric Vehicle Spaces Cost per Day by Machine Cost per Day by Text Set Down Area Sheltered Bike Parking Malahide 0.36Hectares Yes Yes Yes Portmarnock 0.52Hectares No Yes No Clongriffin 0.44Hectares Free Free No No No Connolly 0.75Hectares 223 N/A No No No Bike Lockers Present Table 1 (above): Breakdown of each P&R s size, number and types of available spaces, cost, and alternative travel mode infrastructure Results from Observational Research: DAY 1 1. Occupancy & Usage Levels Spaces cars present on arrival on - on - Overall Malahide Full Portmarnock Full Total Occupancy at Clongriffin vacant Connolly vacant DAY 2 Spaces cars present on arrival on - on - Overall Malahide Full Portmarnock Full Total Occupancy at Clongriffin vacant Connolly vacant Note: All present prior to 7am are not considered in the percentage of users during the peak morning hours of 7am. Tables 2 & 3 (above): Occupancy levels during 7am and (Day 1 & 2)

5 27-28th August 2015 Over the two mornings observed, Malahide averaged 93.5 and Portmarnock averaged 57.5 of arrivals during 7am and, both, reaching capacity by 8:30am. Clongriffin averaged 70.5 of arrivals during and over both mornings. Connolly was more varied over the two mornings, with 53 of arrivals during 7am and on day one, and 53 during and on day two. Both Clongriffin and Connolly failed to reach capacity during 7am and on both mornings. All four facilities retained their levels of occupancy throughout the day up till 12pm. Figures 6, 7, 8 & 9 (above): User frequency levels at all four locations (Day 1 & 2) Portmarnock and Connolly have the largest capacity of spaces, yet Malahide and Portmarnock are the most heavily used during the peak morning hours, and were the only two to reach full capacity at any stage day. All four facilities show a similarity in retaining user levels throughout the day, with no facility dropping in numbers between 7am and 12pm.. DAY 1 2. Gender Breakdown and Number of Persons per Vehicle Male Female Male - Female - Male Female Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly DAY 2 Male Female Male - Female - Male Female Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly Tables 4 & 5 (left): Gender breakdown of users during 7am and (Day 1 & 2 The gender breakdown of users recorded in Portmarnock and Clongriffin was relatively split with a 50/50 split of male and female users. Day one in Connolly did show a greater number of male users at 61, but was more evenly split on day two. Malahide did show a greater level of female users on day two at 60, but it was more evenly split on day one (See tables 3 &4 below)

6 27-28 th August 2015 DAY 1 Vehicles Vehicles with 1 person Tables 5 & 6 illustrate that the breakdown numbers of per vehicle is dominated by single person vehicle occupancy in all four facilities, with an average of 90 of all recorded over the two days at each location being occupied by only one person. 3. Additional Observations with 2 with 3 with 1 person with 2 with 3 Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly DAY 2 Vehicles Vehicles with 1 person with 2 with 3 with 1 person with 2 Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly with 3 Tables 6 & 7 (left): Number of per vehicle (Day 1 & 2) drop offs made day 1 drop offs made day 2 cyclists between day 1 cyclists between day 2 Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly n/a n/a n/a n/a Note: Additional observations of drop offs and cyclist was not possible at Connolly P&R due to its location being over 300mtrs away from the station itself. The additional observations revealed that Malahide had the greatest number of drop offs during the morning peak hours with an average of 142. Portmarnock was the second highest with an average of 104. Clongriffin had far fewer; however, the free parking and availability of spaces throughout the day could be a rational assumption for this. Malahide was the only station that boasted a substantial number of cyclists, and average 34 cyclists during 7am and. Results from User Survey Research: 1. Purpose of Trip and Frequency of Use per Week Work Education Shopping Recreation Other Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly Table 8 (left); Number of drop offs & cyclists observed during 7am & (Day 1 & 2) Table 9 (left): Purpose of trip for users of P&R The dominant use of all four P&R facilities during week days (Monday to Friday) is by commuters travelling to work, with only 1 using the services for an alternative purpose. Figure 10 (left): Levels of daily use comparison for all four facilities

7 27-28th August of users surveyed at Malahide use the P&R facility Monday to Friday every week, with 92 at Portmarnock and 88 at Clongriffin. Connolly was the only facility with a varying level of users, with only 16 of respondents using the facility Monday to Friday on a weekly basis. 2. Propensity for Transfer Walk Cycle Bus Luas Other Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly Table 10 (left): Mode of transport used to complete final leg of trip 95 of all users surveyed would complete the final leg ir trip by walking to their final destination, with only 1 transferring to another public transport. The remaining 4 had an alternative not provided within the questionnaire. 3. Alternative Travel Arrangement with Absence of P&R Walk to the Station Cycle to the Station Get Dropped Off at Station Seek Alternative Public Transport Use Car for Entire Trip Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly of Retained Ridership Table 11 (left): percentages for alternative travel arrangements with absence of P&R Each user was queried as to what their travel arrangements are likely to be if the P&R service was not available to them at the station. The results yielded that Malahide DART service would retain 68 of its ridership numbers by means of walking or being dropped off, whilst 24 would seek alternative public transport. Only 8 would choose to use a private car for their entire trip. Clongriffin yielded similar results with 60 ridership retention, the only difference being the 32 seeking public transport alternatives. Portmarnock would retain the highest levels of ridership retention at 72, as 52 would get dropped and 16 would walk, however, it also had the highest levels of private car use alternative at 20. Connolly would have the lowest ridership retention at 8; however, 88 users said they would seek alternative public transport if the parking was not an option. Of all one hundred surveys only 12 said they would choose to cycle, with 4 at Portmarnock and 8 at Clongriffin, and 0 at Malahide and Connolly. 4. Service Satisfaction of P&R 1 Very Bad 2 Bad 3 Satisfactory 4 Good 5 Very Good Malahide Portmarnock Clongriffin Connolly Table 12 (left): Service satisfaction comparison of all four facilities At each station the P&R users were queried how they would rate their overall satisfaction of the service. The overall perceptions of service satisfaction scored highly at all four locations, with 7 scoring it 3 out of 5, 46 scoring it 4 out of 5, and 46 scoring it 5 out of 5. Only 1 Malahide respondent scored the overall service less than 3 out of 5, with a score of 1. Connolly station P&R scored the highest in this instance with 96 scoring the service 4 or higher.

8 27-28 th August Catchment Analysis Note: Two catchment maps are provided for Connolly station, as the catchment area was substantially greater in scope. Figure 11 (above): Malahide P&R Catchment Area Figure 12 (above): Portmarnock P&R Catchment Area Figure 13 (above): Clongriffin P&R Catchment Area Figure 14 (above): Connolly P&R Catchment Area 1 Figure 15 (left): Connolly P&R Catchment Area 2 Malahide: Only one trip origin was within the 1,000 metre walking catchment band. Overall 60 trip origins are within a 2 kilometre radius station, most of which come from the east and western direction station. 17 trip origins were from Swords,

9 27-28th August 2015 approximately 4.5 kilometres from the station. 11 of trip origins are from Kinsealy, approximately 3.17 kilometres, and one from Drinan, approximately 2.75 kilometres from the station. 92 of trip destinations were for the city centre. Portmarnock: 83 of all trip origins are within a catchment band of 3 kilometres, primarily from the north east direction station. One trip origin was within the 500 metres station. 17 trip origins were from Malahide approximately 3 kilometres from the station. 88 of trip destinations were for the city centre. Clongriffin: 14 of trip origins are within the 1,000 metre catchment band, three of which are within Clongriffin itself, with one from Grange Abbey adjacent to Clongriffin. 89 trip origins are within a catchment band of 2.10 kilometres, with the remaining 11 having a trip origin of 5 kilometres or greater. Majority trips are from the western side station, with two from the south and three from the north. 92 of trip destinations were for the city centre. Connolly: 61 of all trip origins are 11.5 kilometres or less; with 39 of trip origins having greater distances than 11.5 kilometres. This was the most widely dispersed catchment of all the locations, with users traveling from all directions to access this P&R service. There was only one trip origin that was less than 1 kilometre. 84 of trip destinations are for the city centre. Summary of Interviews: Details participants from the three agencies are as follows: I. Stephen Jones. Contracts Manager Railway Undertaking, and assistant Sineád Gilligan. Irish Rail (IR). Interview conducted on the 18 th of March II. Owen Shinkwin, Transport Planner, National Transport Authority (NTA). Interview conducted on the 28 th of March III. Edel Kelly. Senior Executive Planner Roads and Traffic Planning Division. Dublin City Council (DCC). Interview conducted on 11 th of March Note: The questionnaire and transcripts from the interviews are available in the BSc Spatial Planning dissertation for which the initial research was conducted [18]. The respective agency members revealed both similar and contrasting points of view on the role the P&R services play along the northern DART corridor, and the responses given are based on their professional opinions, as there was no available data for them to reference. All agreed they would like to see more use DART service, and see availability, security and cost as the key factors that influence commuter s choice to use the service, with Shinkwin (NTA) also stating how surrounding development can accommodate easier accessibility, or act as a barrier to deter use. There seems to be a lack of consensus amongst the different agency members interviewed for this study when asked for their opinion role P&R services currently play for the northern DART corridor. From the point of view of Shinkwin (NTA) and Kelly (DCC) P&R services along the northern DART corridor is limited, and in most instances should not be promoted, or at least the demand for such service should be investigated. They were however, more in favour of strategic P&R service further out from the city, where access is more difficult for commuters, and would see the promotion of cycling, walking and drop offs as a more viable option for local DART stations. Both representatives from Irish Rail view the role P&R service as essential for local DART stations, as there is a substantial demand for access by car to the stations, and can impact positively on catchment areas, and ultimately ridership numbers. Both members NTA and DCC respectively, said, although they can increase catchment and ridership numbers in some capacity, there is a need to judge each location on their own merit, as some P&R services can influence locals to drive to the station. These are points that Kelly (DCC) believes may be the case only in certain instances, and that they can also influence locals that previously walked or cycle to drive instead. There was a similar difference in opinion when each interviewee was asked for their opinion on the future role of P&R services for the northern DART corridor. There was a consensus

10 27-28 th August 2015 between Kelly (DCC) and Shinkwin (NTA) that they can have some role to play for commuters in certain locations, and more consideration needs to be given to walking, cycling and how the area around the stations is likely to be developed in the future, as this will impact significantly on the catchment areas for each station. Both Jones and Gilligan (Irish Rail) see a bright future for the role P&R can play for the northern Dart corridor, based on the levels of demand they would increase their capacity, if it wasn t for the restrictions of available lands to do so. Conclusions: The main conclusions drawn from the research are as follows: The results research found P&R ride facilities along the northern DART corridor are predominantly used for all day parking by single vehicle occupancy, both female and male, to access the city centre for work purposes. This relegates these lands inactive for most day outside morning and evening peak hours, as three four sites are surface car parks, with the fourth subterranean. P&R facilities further out from the city centre have a greater frequency of repeat users, with 90 using the service weekly Monday to Friday. These P&R facilities proved more likely to reach and retain full capacity. In contrast, the city centre P&R at Connolly was found to have a more inconsistent frequency of use, with only 16 repeat daily usage. Outlying suburban DART stations are not so heavily reliant on the P&R service for ridership retention. It was found that in most instances P&R appears to induce unsustainable travel behaviour. Most car journeys to the stations are relatively short, with 77 (average) of users within a 2.4 kilometres catchment band stations; yet 67 (average) would still choose to use the DART service in the absence of parking, with walking or drop offs the most popular alternatives. Locating P&R facilities within close proximity to one another can induce negative car based travel patterns, as well as being counter-productive with regard to the natural catchment area of a station. For instance, in Portmarnock 17 of users began their trip in Malahide; in contrast, 8 of users in Malahide had begun their trip closer to Portmarnock. In reality, this means people are passing each other in opposite directions on a daily basis, in order to park at a rail station further away from the one nearest their trip origin. The traditionally adopted 1 kilometre walking catchment band is not a sufficient bench mark for all DART stations. The location station relative to town centre can be a deciding factor for users choosing to walk. At Malahide and Clongriffin, where the stations are located in the heart town centre, almost half respondents would walk if there was no parking, even though 0 users in Malahide are within the 1 kilometre catchment band, and only 14 at Clongriffin. In contrast, Portmarnock is situated on the periphery town and only 16 would choose to walk. Only 4 of users at Connolly would choose to walk as an alternative, however, considering 84 of trip destinations are the city centre, and only 1 of trip origins are within 3 kilometres facility, it would be unrealistic to expect commuters to walk such a substantial distance.. The city centre P&R at Connolly would appear not to increase ridership numbers for Irish Rail. 90 of users at the suburban stations are using P&R as an interchange to access the train, whereas 81 of respondents at Connolly had arrived at their final destination, or the IFSC was their final destination - with only 4 there to access the train service. The city centre P&R at Connolly appears to reduces public transport ridership, and induces traffic congestion and private motor car use. When users at Connolly station P&R were asked what their alternative travel arrangements would likely be if there was no car parking, 88 said they would seek alternative public transport. It was

11 27-28th August 2015 also found that 84 of users work in the city centre, with only 4 there to access the rail service. This suggests that Connolly P&R is not acting as a P&R, but is instead functioning as a surface car park, encouraging traffic into the city centre. Both the NTA and DCC very much advocate cycling and walking as an alternative that should be given priority, however, the study in this instance would suggest that there may not be as great of a demand for cycling amongst suburban rail commuters. Recommendations and Scope for Further Research: 1. Introducing stronger policy initiatives to support existing policy for city centre parking that will have a bigger impact on congestion. The initiatives adopted in Oxford have worked well in reducing congestion in the city centre, whilst also increasing public transport use, by incorporating policy that introduces higher cost and lower availability of parking in the city centre. Using the revenue generated to finance more sustainable transport modes. Authorities therefore would be less reliant on central government funding to retrofit outlying urban areas to cater for improved accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. 2. Current policy is focussed primarily on reducing short car trips, with a particular emphasis on work based trips to the city centre. Perhaps more emphasis should be put on reducing short car based trips to the centre of suburban centres too. Based on the evidence expressed in this study most se trips are not necessary. One way to achieve this is to explore in greater detail the potential for stations to accommodate TOD on the lands surrounding stations, which could facilitate greater accessibility for more sustainable mode shares, whilst adding potentially more users to the rail service, and greater activity to the lands surrounding the station. 3. As this research was relatively small in scope, and was restricted by the timescale, it is important to further this research in greater detail, to determine how great the demand for cycling is in the outlying suburban areas, prior to developing infrastructure for a cycle mode share. Similar research should also be carried out on the southern Dart line to use as a comparable case study, as demand for cycling may be significantly greater along this side Dart corridor. 4. Based on the evidence put forward in this paper, Connolly station P&R is functioning effectively as a car park for commuters working in the city centre, encouraging car use and discouraging public transport use. Consideration should be given to the opportunity these lands can provide for the city as a whole. A change in use se lands to function as a bus terminal, could create a multi modal interchange point for the city centre, by linking Dublin Bus with Connolly Station and Luas. It could also act as a bus layover reliving city centre streets of buses, creating a more pedestrian and cycle friendly city centre environment. 5. A larger and more in-depth study of each individual P&R site could yield sufficient data that would give a clearer understanding role P&R can play in the future for the operators and policy makers. References: [1] Cervero, R. (1998). The Transit Metropolis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp [2] Dublin Transportation Office, (2004). Rail Park & Ride Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area. Dublin: The Dublin Transportation Office, pp.4, chapter 2.

12 27-28 th August 2015 [3] Engineers Ireland, (2014). The State of Ireland 2014 A Review of Infrastructure in Ireland by Engineers Ireland Briefing Note on the Transport Aspects. [Online] Dublin: Engineers Ireland. Available at: briefing-note-on-2014-engineers-ireland-state-of-irelands-infrastructure.html [Accessed 24 Feb. 2015]. [4] Tumlin, J. (2012). Sustainable transportation planning. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, pp [5] Langston Lai, L. (2006). Cellular Automata Simulation of Vehicle Dynamics in Park-and- Ride Facilities. Master of Applied Science in Transportation Engineering. University of Toronto. [6] Walker, J. (2012). Human transit. Washington, DC: Island Press. [7] Dijk, M. and Parkhurst, G. (2014). Understanding the mobility-transformative qualities of urban park and ride polices in the UK and the Netherlands. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 14(3/4), pp.246. [8] Ison, S. and Rye, T. (2008). The implementation and effectiveness of transport demand management measures. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. [9] The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, (2009). Smarter Travel, A Sustainable Transport Future A New Transport Policy for Ireland Dublin: The National Transport Authority of Ireland, pp.28, chapter 3. 17, chapter 1. 43, chapter 5. 14, chapter 8. [10] The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, (2015). Investing In Our Transport Future: A Strategic Framework for Investment in Land Transport Background Paper Twenty Spatial Planning and Transport Policy. Dublin: Economic and Financial Evaluation Unit Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. [11] The National Transport Authority, (2011). Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy vision. Dublin: The National Transport Authority, pp.14, chapter 8. 25, chapter 10. [12] O'Connor, D. (2015). Oxford P&R. [ ]. [13] Jaffe, E. (2014). The Case for Tearing Down Park-and-Ride Lots. [Online] CityLab. Available at: [Accessed 18 Jan. 2015]. [14] Black, W. (2010). Sustainable transportation. New York: Guilford Press, pp.3. [15] Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport. London: Routledge. Black, W. (2010). Sustainable transportation. New York: Guilford Press, p.3. [16] The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, (2009). Smarter Travel, A Sustainable Transport Future A New Transport Policy for Ireland Dublin: The National Transport Authority of Ireland, pp.28, chapter 3. 17, chapter 1. 43, chapter 5. 14, chapter 8. [17] Harrison, O. and O'Connor, D. (2012). Measuring Rail Station Catchment areas in the Greater Dublin Area. [Online] Dublin: Irish Transport Research Network. Available at: [Accessed 5 May 2015]. [18] Desmond, Gary. 'The Effectiveness of Park and Ride as a Strategy for Sustainability, a Case Study Northern Dart Corridor. BSc Spatial Planning Graduate. Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT), Print.