The document provides details of a study assessing the effectiveness of Park and Ride (P&R) facilities along the northern DART corridor in Dublin as a strategy for sustainability. Four P&R locations were examined: Malahide, Portmarnock, Clongriffin, and Connolly City Centre stations. Observational research found Malahide and Portmarnock were most heavily used during peak hours and reached capacity earliest. User surveys found most trips were weekday commutes by car and most would walk the final leg. While satisfaction with P&R was high, alternative travel without P&R varied between locations, with Connolly having the lowest ridership retention rate. Catchment area mapping showed trip origins varied in distance between

1. 1 | P a g e
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING
B.Sc. (Honours) in Spatial Planning
DT106/4 Final year Dissertation: Spatial Planning
‘The Effectiveness of Park and Ride as a Strategy for Sustainability, a Case Study of
the Northern Dart Corridor’
By Gary Desmond C11723171
DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (DIT)

2. 2 | P a g e
ABSTRACT
Many cities use 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 of their journey by means of public transport.
Research for this project found very few studies are available in an Irish context. 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. Each of
the four P&R facilities was examined individually in order to gauge their compatibility
with sustainability.
The research includes; sampling usage and occupancy levels, whilst also recording
the number of persons per vehicle and gender of users. Twenty five user surveys
were carried out at each station, 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 used to develop a spatial analysis using the
Geographical Information System (ArcGIS) to illustrate catchment areas for all four
facilities.
A number of the key findings of this research found that P&R facilities can in certain
circumstances improve access to DART services for some commuters. Overall, all
four facilities displayed characteristics that negatively impact on commuter behaviour
and travel patterns, whilst in some instances adding to traffic congestion and
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 cars in the city. However,
P&R are also argued by some commentators to contribute to short, convenient and
unnecessary car based journeys (Cervero, 1998). According to the review, “The
State of Ireland 2014 - 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
(Engineers Ireland Briefing Note on the Transport Aspects, 2014).
When P&R are located on the lands surrounding rail stations it can render those
lands unusable for other activities (Tumlin, 2012) outside of the morning and evening
peak hours (Lai Langston, 2006). Priority in most instances of P&R is for cars, which
can act as an obstacle discouraging pedestrian access to the station. Walker (2012)
adds how developing P&R on lands around rail stations can also force future
development further away from the station, adding to urban sprawl.
A study in the UK revealed lack of parking and traffic congestion in the city centre as
the most important factors in users choosing to use a P&R service (Dijk and
Parkhurst, 2014), however, there is still a need to address how effective P&R’s are in
generating a mode shift away from car usage, with some suggesting road user
charging as the most suitable way of improving their effectiveness (Ison and Rye,
2008).

3. 3 | P a g e
Transport policies in Ireland set out to ensure a more effective and efficient transport
system to meet the needs of the 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 of the 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 (The Department of Transport, Tourism and
Sport, 2009). P&R is considered as a viable option to assisting a more sustainable
transport network where urban centres have efficient connections to the city (The
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, 2015), and only where they can have a
role in facilitating a reduction in car-based travel (The National Transport Authority,
2011).
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
(Dijk and Parkhurst, 2014). Oxford is considered one of the most established P&R
schemes in the UK, and is said to intercept around 1.3 million car journeys to the city
centre annually (O'Connor, 2015). 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 (Dijk, M. and
Parkhurst, G. 2014) .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 (2014) 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 (Cervero, 1998).
INTRODUCTION:
Ireland is widely regarded as a car-dependant country, with almost 68% of trips
being made by car. Ireland currently ranks as the 3rd largest users of cars in the
European Union (EU), and the 6th lowest users of public transport. Transport is
recognised as 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” (Black, 2010).
P&R is now seen as a common transport and planning solution for alleviating traffic
congestion and air pollution (Banister, 2005). 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 (2009-2020) policy document in an Irish
context (The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, 2009).

4. 4 | P a g e
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 along the northern DART corridor are maximising their
potential to facilitate sustainability objectives. The study also focuses 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 of the research for this study on P&R, four locations were identified as
appropriate case studies, where all sites can be measured on equal grounds. These
locations are; Malahide suburban Dart station, Portmarnock suburban Dart station,
Clongriffin suburban Dart station, and Connolly City Centre train station.
Figure 1 (Above): 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 9am, on either, a Monday, Tuesday or
Wednesday, as these are considered the busiest days of the week for commuter
travel. The primary focus for this element of the research was to record the levels of
usage during this time period, whilst also recording the number of persons, and
gender, per vehicle. On the same two days a record was taken on the daily

5. 5 | P a g e
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.
User survey questionnaires were carried out to gain a greater understanding of the
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 9am. The primary
focus for this element of the research was to gauge:
 The purpose of trip.
 Days of the week facility is used by commuters.
 The start and end locations of their 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 (Harrison and O'Connor, 2012).
SITE LOCATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS:
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

6. 6 | P a g e
RESULTS FROM OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH:
Note: All vehicles present prior to 7am are not considered in the percentage of users
during the peak morning hours of 7am – 9am.
Malahide averaged 93.5% and Portmarnock averaged 57.5% of arrivals during 7am
and 8am, both, reaching capacity by 8:30am. Clongriffin averaged 70.5% of arrivals
during 8am and 9am over both mornings. Connolly was more varied over the two
mornings, with 53% of arrivals during 7am and 8am on day one, and 53% during
8am and 9am on day two. Both Clongriffin and Connolly failed to reach capacity
during 7am and 9am on both mornings.
Figures 6, 7, 8 & 9 (above): User frequency levels at all four locations
(Day 1 & 2)
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 of the day. All four
facilities show a similarity in retaining user levels throughout the day.
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
Bike
Parkin
g
Bike
Lockers
Malahide 0.36Hectares 79 4 2 €4 €3 Yes Yes Yes
Portmarnock 0.52Hectares 280 10 2 €4 €3 No Yes No
Clongriffin 0.44Hectares 169 10 0 Free Free No No No
Connolly 0.75Hectares 223 N/A 0 €10 €9 No No No
Table 1 (above): Breakdown of each P&R’s size, number and types of
available spaces, cost, and alternative travel mode infrastructure

7. 7 | P a g e
Gender Breakdown and Number of Persons per Vehicle
Portmarnock and Clongriffin were relatively split with 50/50 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.
Numbers of persons per vehicle is dominated by single person vehicle occupancy in
all four facilities, with an average of 90% single person vehicle occupancy recorded
at all four locations.
RESULTS FROM USER SURVEY RESEARCH:
Purpose of Trip and Frequency of Use per Week
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.
88% 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 frequently Monday to
Friday.
Propensity for Transfer
95% would complete the final leg of their 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.
Figure 10 (Above): Levels of daily use comparison for
all four facilities

8. 8 | P a g e
Alternative Travel Arrangement with Absence of P&R
Malahide DART station would retain 68% of its ridership numbers by means of
walking or drop offs, 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 at
72%, with 52% drop offs and 16% walking, 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% of the 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.
Walk to
the
Station %
Cycle to
the
Station %
Get
Dropped
Off at
Station %
Seek
Alternative
Public
Transport %
Use
Car
for
Entire
Trip %
% of
Retained
Ridership
Malahide 44% 0% 24% 24% 8% 68%
Portmarnock 16% 4% 52% 8% 20% 72%
Clongriffin 44% 8% 8% 32% 8% 60%
Connolly 4% 0% 4% 88% 4% 8%
Service Satisfaction of P&R Users
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.
Connolly P&R scored the highest in this instance with 96% scoring the service 4 or
higher.
Catchment Analysis
Note: Two catchment maps are provided for Connolly station, as the catchment area
is substantially greater in scope.
Malahide: Only one trip origin was within the 1,000 metre walking catchment band.
Overall 60% of the trip origins are within a 2 kilometre radius of the station. 17% of
the trip origins were from Swords, 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. 92% of trip destinations were for the city
centre (See figure 11).
Table 2 (Above): percentages for alternative travel arrangements
with absence of P&R

9. 9 | P a g e
Figure 11 (above): Malahide P&R Catchment Area
Portmarnock: 83% of all trip origins are within a catchment band of 3 kilometres,
primarily from the north east direction of the station. One trip origin was within the
500 metres of the station. 17% of the trip origins were from Malahide approximately
3 kilometres from the station. 88% of trip destinations were for the city centre (See
fig 12).
Figure 12 (above): Portmarnock P&R Catchment Area

10. 10 | P a g e
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% of the 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 of the
trips are from the western side of the station, with two from the south and three from
the north. 92% of trip destinations were for the city centre (See fig 13).
Figure 13 (above): Clongriffin P&R Catchment Area
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 (See fig 14 & 15).

11. 11 | P a g e
Figure 14 (above): Connolly P&R Catchment Area 1
Figure 15 (Above): Connolly P&R Catchment Area 2

12. 12 | P a g e
CONCLUSIONS:
The main conclusions drawn from the research are as follows:
 The results of the 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 of the day outside of
the morning and evening peak hours, as three of the 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 the P&R’s
appeared to induce unsustainable travel behaviour. Most of the car journeys
to the stations are relatively short, with 77% (average) of users within a 2.4
kilometres catchment band of the 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 location of the station relative to town centre can be a deciding factor for
users choosing to walk. At Malahide and Clongriffin, where the stations are in
the heart of the town centre, almost half of the respondents would walk if
there was no parking, even though 0% of the users in Malahide are within the
1 kilometre catchment band, and only 14% at Clongriffin. In contrast,
Portmarnock is on the periphery of the 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 of the facility, it would be unrealistic to
expect commuters to walk such a substantial distance.
 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 – adding only 4%
ridership to Connolly rail service.
 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 also found that 84% of users
work in the city centre, with only 4% there to access the rail service. This

13. 13 | P a g e
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES:
1. Introducing stronger policy initiatives to support existing policy for city centre
parking. 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. The revenue generated is used 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. Greater emphasis could be put on reducing short car based trips to suburban
centres, by exploring in greater detail the potential for stations to
accommodate TOD, perhaps facilitating 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. 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. A change in use
of these 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.
Additional findings from the research are also available in the BSc Spatial Planning
dissertation for which the initial research was conducted (Desmond, 2015).
References
 Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport. London: Routledge.
 Black, W. (2010). Sustainable transportation. New York: Guilford Press, p.3.
 Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
pp.226. 227.
 Desmond, G. (2015). The Effectiveness of Park and Ride as a Strategy for
Sustainability, a Case Study of the Northern Dart Corridor. BSc Spatial
Planning Graduate. Dublin Institute of Technology.
 Dijk, M. and Parkhurst, G. (2014). Understanding the mobility-transformative
qualities of urban park and ride polices in the UK and the Netherlands. IJATM,
14(3/4), p.246.
 Engineers Ireland Briefing Note on the Transport Aspects, (2014). The State
of Ireland 2014, a Review of Infrastructure in Ireland. [online] Dublin:
Engineers Ireland. Available at: http://www.cilt.ie/press/cilt-briefing-
documents/doc_download/304-briefing-note-on-2014-engineers-ireland-state-
of-irelands-infrastructure.html [Accessed 24 Feb. 2015].
 Harris, O. and O'Connor, D. (2012). Measuring Rail Station Catchment areas
in the Greater Dublin Area. [online] Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

14. 14 | P a g e
Available at: http://www.itrn.ie/uploads/PAPER%201.pdf [Accessed 5 May
2015].
 Ison, S. and Rye, T. (2008). The Implementation and Effectiveness of
Transport Demand Management Measures. Farnham: Ashgate Pub.
 Jaffe, E. (2014). The Case for Tearing Down Park-and-Ride Lots. [online]
CityLab. Available at: http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2014/06/the-case-for-
tearing-down-park-and-ride-lots/372558/ [Accessed 18 Jan. 2015].
 Lai Langston, L. (2006). Cellular Automata Simulation of Vehicle Dynamics in
Park-and-Ride Facilities. Master of Applied Science in Transportation
Engineering. University of Toronto.
 O'Connor, D. (2015). Oxford Park and Ride. [Email].
 The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, (2009). Smarter Travel, A
Sustainable Transport Future A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 - 2020.
Dublin: The National Transport Authority of Ireland, pp.28, 17, 43, 14.
 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.
 The National Transport Authority, (2011). Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport
Strategy 2011-2030 2030 vision. Dublin: The National Transport Authority,
pp.14, 25.
 Tumlin, J. (2012). Sustainable transportation planning. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley,
pp.228-231.
 Walker, J. (2012). Human transit. Washington, DC: Island Press.