DART+ (DART Expansion)

bk

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I like your "Connolly North" idea. It's certainly an engineering challenge!

It would mean ripping Ballybough apart, somehow getting over the Tolka as well as Annesley bridge to then cut through Fairview Park (without touching a single tree of course), knock down the DART maintenance shed and have enough of an acute angle to join the northern line before Clontarf station.

Yes, I was just looking at it. I don't think any of that will happen.

I suspect what is planned is the following:

I think the plan will simply be to terminate some trains from the Maynooth and Kildare lines at an expanded Docklands. People from these trains who want to go south change at Whitworth Road for trains that continue south.

Yes that would suck for those coming from the West and wanting to go up the Northern line, they would need to make two changes. But I can't see any way of avoiding that.

bk

Grandeeod, are you sure about that property development?

I'm talking to about the land directly East of the Docklands platform.

I can't find any planning applications for that area or any news about it. It is also outside of the Docklands special development zone.

I can only find planning apps and articles about the Spencer Place development, which is to the south of it.

I could be totally wrong on this, but I just want to make sure we are talking about the same place?

roadmaster

bk wrote: »

Grandeeod, are you sure about that property development?

I'm talking to about the land directly East of the Docklands platform.

I can't find any planning applications for that area or any news about it. It is also outside of the Docklands special development zone.

I can only find planning apps and articles about the Spencer Place development, which is to the south of it.

I could be totally wrong on this, but I just want to make sure we are talking about the same place?

It may of being part of this a long time ago

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/report-backs-treasury-on-docklands-site-contract-with-cie-1.1123857?mode=amp

This development which had being delivered in the main was treasury holdings while the new developments there are being carried out by Ronan real estate among others

Grandeeod

MJohnston wrote: »

Sure - my point is that trains continually use the tracks that pass north of Docklands station to reach that part of the yard. Docklands station is also in full active use. So where exactly is Spencer Dock North supposed to go?

Right next to Docklands station. Originally Docklands station was to be demolished and replaced further east on the site as a DU station.

roadmaster wrote: »

Surely they could expand docklands platforms and then simply build over them with the station below. You get a bigger station and more apartments/offices and every one is happy

All possible alright.

bk wrote: »

Grandeeod, are you sure about that property development?

I'm talking to about the land directly East of the Docklands platform.

I can't find any planning applications for that area or any news about it. It is also outside of the Docklands special development zone.

I can only find planning apps and articles about the Spencer Place development, which is to the south of it.

I could be totally wrong on this, but I just want to make sure we are talking about the same place?

Apologies BK, my original statement wasn't concise enough. I'm drawing my conclusion based on the latest re-emergence of Johnny Ronan and his association with CIE. He is currently involved in the Tara street project and the last remaining site in Spencer Dock south. He was also in the running for the Boston sidings project until another developer won out. CIE are also looking for a partner to develop the car park at the back of Connolly station. Considering CIE still own the site we are talking about, it stands to reason that it will be developed sooner than later. With DU out of the picture for now and with CIE's poor record in maximising rail infrastructure, there is a very credible possibility that development will take place at the expense of expanding rail facilities in the area.

murphaph

I wonder should all CIE lands be transferred to TII for a modicum of safekeeping. CIE, especially Irish Rail have a terribly track record (pun intended) in this regard.

Khuitlio

Unlikely but is there any chance that they could build a station similar to the one proposed for Spencer Dock in DU as part of DART Expansion? That way, the land can be developed and you have the first underground station for DU already in place.

Grandeeod

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder should all CIE lands be transferred to TII for a modicum of safekeeping. CIE, especially Irish Rail have a terribly track record (pun intended) in this regard.

A good idea. However as you know its was successive Governments that encouraged CIE to sell off land and also get involved in property speculation.

Grandeeod

Khuitlio wrote: »

Unlikely but is there any chance that they could build a station similar to the one proposed for Spencer Dock in DU as part of DART Expansion? That way, the land can be developed and you have the first underground station for DU already in place.

Considering DU has gone backwards into a redesign scenario, that particular question is up in the air.

bk

Grandeeod wrote: »

Apologies BK, my original statement wasn't concise enough. I'm drawing my conclusion based on the latest re-emergence of Johnny Ronan and his association with CIE. He is currently involved in the Tara street project and the last remaining site in Spencer Dock south. He was also in the running for the Boston sidings project until another developer won out. CIE are also looking for a partner to develop the car park at the back of Connolly station. Considering CIE still own the site we are talking about, it stands to reason that it will be developed sooner than later. With DU out of the picture for now and with CIE's poor record in maximising rail infrastructure, there is a very credible possibility that development will take place at the expense of expanding rail facilities in the area.

No bother and thanks for the info.

Hopefully with the emergence of this new plan, the government will tell CIE to cop themselves on and prioritise public transport needs.

Not that I'm against the idea of building on or near stations. It is very common in Europe and Asia to build big shopping centers and offices over stations. It can help fund public transport and can lead to more useful overall locations for the public.

But, of course the needs of public transport need to come first and then only secondary the property.

The problem with the way we do it here, is that there seems to be a total disconnect from the property development and the public transport needs. All they seem to want to do is sell off the land and then plunk a building down on it with little or no connection with the station.

And then there is the question of if it is sensible for CIE to simply sell off the land. Would it not be better for them to develop it themselves, hire a builder to build it, but keep it themselves and rent it out and use the proceeds of the rent for the next 50 years or whatever to help subsidise public transport.

Sorry about the rant, this sort of nonsense just pisses me off.

BTW I think they may find it hard to develop this land. It seems to be outside the docklands SDZ, which means it would have to go through the regular planning process and think much lower height restrictions would apply. Plus there are houses just behind this plot which would complicate things. So I don't think this area would be a straight forward development.

Of course those houses would also complicate expanding Docklands station.

BTW this video might interest some here, it is about the Hudson Yard development, building a massive new district in New York City over a massive Rail Yard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewSjmhCD5ew

The proceeds of this the MTA have used to build new subway extensions.

sdanseo

roadmaster wrote: »

Surely they could expand docklands platforms and then simply build over them with the station below. You get a bigger station and more apartments/offices and every one is happy

The existing space immediately surrounding docklands is plenty for a station and portal for DU. They can build away on Spencer Dock - and should, sinc Dublin is in dire need of office space and the whole reason for building these infrastructure projects is to stimulate exactly this sort of developments among others.

The only limitation I would put on it is an absolute minimum of 12 storeys with preference for 16-24 storeys, but that's a debate for a different thread.

bk wrote: »

Grrhhh... Mad stuff. So what is happening with the current Docklands station?

Crazy to throw away such vital land for transport infrastructure like that!

bk wrote: »

Not that I'm against the idea of building on or near stations. It is very common in Europe and Asia to build big shopping centers and offices over stations. It can help fund public transport and can lead to more useful overall locations for the public.

But, of course the needs of public transport need to come first and then only secondary the property.

It would appear that in any event, govt have at least promised to preserve the DU route, which is only a good thing. Your suggestion re building it in tandem with private development is a great idea, the problem is that it stymies private development until the DU project can proceed (although with developmer contributions, that process could be sped up maybe?).

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I like your "Connolly North" idea. It's certainly an engineering challenge!

It would mean ripping Ballybough apart, somehow getting over the Tolka as well as Annesley bridge to then cut through Fairview Park (without touching a single tree of course), knock down the DART maintenance shed and have enough of an acute angle to join the northern line before Clontarf station.

Ballybough is in need of regeneration anyway. Could be a good excuse to kill two birds with one stone, perform a Ballymun-esque hosuing project around the improved infrastructure. Lots of references in this thread and that regarding Metrolink to examples of where improved infrastructure has improved entire districts for the better. (For those interested, La Défense in Paris is a great case in point).

bk wrote: »

BTW this video might interest some here, it is about the Hudson Yard development, building a massive new district in New York City over a massive Rail Yard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewSjmhCD5ew

The proceeds of this the MTA have used to build new subway extensions.

Always thought that massive area of Manhattan was so badly wasted. Didn't know it was being redeveloped, excellent to hear.

Grandeeod

bk wrote: »

BTW I think they may find it hard to develop this land. It seems to be outside the docklands SDZ, which means it would have to go through the regular planning process and think much lower height restrictions would apply. Plus there are houses just behind this plot which would complicate things. So I don't think this area would be a straight forward development.

Just to clarify. This land was part of the development run by the Spencer Dock Development Company (a joint venture between CIE, Ronan and Harry Crosbie) since 2001 up until the crash. It was going through public consultation when the crash happened. While it may not be currently part of the SDZ, it wouldn't take a lot to change that. It does appear that uncertainty over DU has stalled plans due to the existence of Docklands station which was meant to be temporary anyway. (and dumped in an area based on commercial rather than transport requirements.) The link below will take you to the crowd I dealt with many moons ago. You can see the plans to develop the entire Spencer Dock site. I fully expect that in this current upturn the site will or already is a target for development. My only concern is that rail infrastructure on the site should be considered first and to the absolute max in the context of any development.

http://www.stwarchitects.com/project-information.php?p=00076

loyatemu

bk wrote: »

Yes, I was just looking at it. I don't think any of that will happen.

I suspect what is planned is the following:

I think the plan will simply be to terminate some trains from the Maynooth and Kildare lines at an expanded Docklands. People from these trains who want to go south change at Whitworth Road for trains that continue south.

Yes that would suck for those coming from the West and wanting to go up the Northern line, they would need to make two changes. But I can't see any way of avoiding that.

hadn't thought about people wanting to go from (say) Leixlip to Malahide. I guess they could alternate Kildare and Mayooth line trains going to Docklands or GCD, so there's still a 1 change option for those journeys, just not from every service. I think moving all Maynooth services to Docklands would be a hard sell.

MJohnston

loyatemu wrote: »

hadn't thought about people wanting to go from (say) Leixlip to Malahide. I guess they could alternate Kildare and Mayooth line trains going to Docklands or GCD, so there's still a 1 change option for those journeys, just not from every service. I think moving all Maynooth services to Docklands would be a hard sell.

Is Leixlip to Malahide not a massive edge case of a trip that isn't really necessary to satisfy directly though? It certainly doesn't seem like something there are going to be a lot commuters needing served. I think we need to focus on the common trips first!

sdanseo

MJohnston wrote: »

Is Leixlip to Malahide not a massive edge case of a trip that isn't really necessary to satisfy directly though? It certainly doesn't seem like something there are going to be a lot commuters needing served. I think we need to focus on the common trips first!

I live in Malahide and worked in Blanchardstown, which is only a couple of stops before Leixlip on the same line, in 2015 when my car threw in the towel. Had to commute by bus and train for three weeks with a good journey time being the sad side of an hour and a half.

The train, when the times worked out, was faster and much more comfortable. Was a quick 5/7 minute bus connection at each end.

The physical route of that trip wouldn't change (much if at all) with a DART upgrade, but the frequency would. I was only able to use the train for certain shifts, due to Maynooth line's 1hr frequency off peak and the Northern DARTs being every 30/45 mins.

loyatemu

MJohnston wrote: »

Is Leixlip to Malahide not a massive edge case of a trip that isn't really necessary to satisfy directly though? It certainly doesn't seem like something there are going to be a lot commuters needing served. I think we need to focus on the common trips first!

Eastpoint is a fairly big trip generator - there would be a good number of people transferring from Maynooth line trains onto the Dart to go to Clontarf Rd.

But you could probably put on a shuttle bus from Docklands (there may already be one).

Maynooth University would be another significant location - I assume some students travel to college from northern line stations.

antoinolachtnai

Well, could they still go via Tara St? You have to do the math to see if higher frequencies of a smaller number of services will give you better service than having lots of different services, but at low frequencies.

It would be three steps, but it's only going to be a one-minute wait for a metro link and a 5 minute journey. Higher frequencies on the other two lines could bring the waiting time for the other two trains to maybe 5 minutes for DART and 10 minutes for the Maynooth line. It's not terrible.

bk

loyatemu wrote: »

Eastpoint is a fairly big trip generator - there would be a good number of people transferring from Maynooth line trains onto the Dart to go to Clontarf Rd.

But you could probably put on a shuttle bus from Docklands (there may already be one).

Yes, there is already a free shuttle bus (actually double decker) running between East Point and Docklands Train station and the Point Luas stop.

This and the East Point - Clontarf Dart station shuttles are probably some of the best examples in Dublin of what local bus routes serving a rail station can look like.

Fast, frequent and very easy to use, incredibly popular. They've had to go from mini buses, to single deckers to full Double Deckers as the demand has grown.

The Clontarf one even has a dedicated access road.

The fact that it is free to the users really helps with dwell time.

They even have a bus tracker app that actually shows the location of the buses!

loyatemu

bk wrote: »

Yes, there is already a free shuttle bus (actually double decker) running between East Point and Docklands Train station and the Point Luas stop.

This and the East Point - Clontarf Dart station shuttles are probably some of the best examples in Dublin of what local bus routes serving a rail station can look like.

Fast, frequent and very easy to use, incredibly popular. They've had to go from mini buses, to single deckers to full Double Deckers as the demand has grown.

The Clontarf one even has a dedicated access road.

The fact that it is free to the users really helps with dwell time.

They even have a bus tracker app that actually shows the location of the buses!

nice - I worked in East Point many years ago and at the time the bus was, let's say, less than reliable.

bk

loyatemu wrote: »

nice - I worked in East Point many years ago and at the time the bus was, let's say, less than reliable.

It has improved greatly, but still not perfect. It can get badly caught at peak times in the traffic congestion entering/leaving the park.

Ideally the bus lane at Clontarf Road would be wider and two way. That Alfie Byrne Road and Bridge would be wider and have a dedicated bus lane.

In some ways it is an interesting microcosm of what is possible, but also the importance of dedicated infrastructure to support it. Lots of lessons there for BusConnects, etc.

cgcsb

looks like the cabra station on the enhanced DART service now won't happen because the site now has permission for housing:

https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/marlet-gets-green-light-for-420-homes-in-dublin-36739436.html

I'm reminded of the apartment block in Smithfield that was built over the route of the proposed bus lane. I wonder have the powers that be copped on to this one yet? ? it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

Colonel Claptrap

Does anyone know anything about the office space in the white Crosbie Yard building?

The apartments have been occupied for years but the office space looks untouched.

loyatemu

cgcsb wrote: »

looks like the cabra station on the enhanced DART service now won't happen because the site now has permission for housing:

https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/marlet-gets-green-light-for-420-homes-in-dublin-36739436.html

I'm reminded of the apartment block in Smithfield that was built over the route of the proposed bus lane. I wonder have the powers that be copped on to this one yet? ? it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

except that the rail line through Cabra is already there, so I don't see how this would prevent the building of a station (which is just adding platforms and a lift.)

Sierra Oscar

loyatemu wrote: »

except that the rail line through Cabra is already there, so I don't see how this would prevent the building of a station (which is just adding platforms and a lift.)

There's also a derelict twin rail track on the site which gives additional space for construction.

jd

Here is the site plan submitted to ABP

CatInABox

Pretty sure that the developers would be delighted to have a Dart station on their doorstep, would only add value to it.

Sierra Oscar

CatInABox wrote: »

Pretty sure that the developers would be delighted to have a Dart station on their doorstep, would only add value to it.

True. The apartment block development has been on the cards for many years and the NTA would have been well aware of this.

I'm guessing the plan is to have the station entrance located here. Judging by the site plan there will be space left for a station entrance with further development where the derelict track is currently located.

Shedite27

Niall Finnegan wrote: »

At this stage in time there is no way DU will be built in any reasonable time, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make use of the current infrastructure to build a great DART system. The routes suggested in DU are definitely the most preferable (Maynooth/M3 - Bray/Greystones & Celbridge- Balbriggan (Drogheda?) ) and in order to maintain a proper system these are the only way to go in terms of connectivity. I’m no expert and don’t have a definite solution but to make this work some kind of ‘Connolly North’ will need to be built to facilitate trains coming from the Drumcondra line to continue onto the Northern line. This would be a large scale engineering product in order to reverse the direction of tracks coming into Connolly and would likely involve lots of CPO’s but this is the way forward in the absence of DU. As part of these proposals, all Maynooth/M3 trains would use the current docklands branch and skip Drumcondra and enter Connolly using an upgraded to dual track link already present and continue south. There is always the concern of northern line congestion but a solution such as this largely emulates DU and I’ll leave it up to the experts to smoothen this out!

I assume it wouldn't be the end of the world to just have that line go Heuston - Tunnel - Drumcondra - Grand Canal - Clontarf. Would just require the driver to walk to the other end of the train yeah?

Obviously if they could redesign the place as you outline above that would be ideal.

You'd figure out fairly quickly how many people from Kildare need to go north of Clontarf, and vice versa

lucernarian

bk wrote: »

At 90 minutes it isn't really a commuter service. Hour max would be considered maximum for regular commuting.

I'd expect hybrid trains operating to Drogheda to have toilets and overall more comfortably specced then pure commuter trains.

I really hope so, and that they can learn from international experience too. There was some nonsense posted earlier about the "space savings" from a toilet earlier in the thread. a non-wheelchair accessible one takes up the space of four seats which is a negligible gain compared to installing more foldable seats like on some of the 29ks. I don't know how commuter services are defined, but the large majority of heavy rail commuter services in the world have toilets in their stations (like the RER/Yamanote line)

There's extremely few examples of toileted services being replaced with toiletless ones, but some took place in the Netherlands about 10 years ago on Amsterdam suburban services - they came in for a lot of criticism for that and was debated in the Dutch Parliament as an attack on vulnerable train users and as incompetence on the part of NS for ordering them that way. The subsequent Sprinter trains ordered since then and currently, all have toilets fitted. And many of those services are comparable to existing DART distances and times and so on.

Irish Rail need a lot of things and efficiencies to be realised, but toilet space taking up 1% of available capacity shouldn't be one of them.

bk

lucernarian wrote: »

a non-wheelchair accessible one takes up the space of four seats which is a negligible gain compared to installing more foldable seats like on some of the 29ks.

If you put toilets in any new train today you most put wheelchair accessible ones, so they now take up far more space.

MJohnston

Yeah, there's absolutely no chance any toilets on a train would be non-wheelchair accessible. That's more like a third of a carriage loss of seating, in my experience.

citizen6

Any idea how the Heuston West station shown on the Metro map would work? Darts from Hazelhatch to go Parkwest-Heuston West-PPT, with feeder busses from Heuston West to Heuston and on to City Centre?

Grandeeod

citizen6 wrote: »

Any idea how the Heuston West station shown on the Metro map would work? Darts from Hazelhatch to go Parkwest-Heuston West-PPT, with feeder busses from Heuston West to Heuston and on to City Centre?

Most likely. And a Platform 11 at Heuston West.:D

lucernarian

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah, there's absolutely no chance any toilets on a train would be non-wheelchair accessible. That's more like a third of a carriage loss of seating, in my experience.

Did some maths based on the 4-car sets which have 185 seats. I think the wheelchair accessible toilet is in a section where 16 seats could normally be. I think 3 seats remain out of the 16, and one allows for wheelchair usability. So in a set with 185 seats, there could have been 13 more if there wasn't an accessible toilet. That's not even 1/4 of the max possible seating in a non-cab 29k carriage, never mind a 4-car set?

With this in mind I don't get why there's opposition to losing about 6% of the max seating available in a 4 car heavy rail commuter set to provide a toilet.

cgcsb

Heuston west to Heuston can be done with travelators/walkways like in airports. There are much larger stations in Europe with similarly distant platforms, HW will need it's own entry/exits around Clancy Quay and Kilminham. I wonder should it be branded as 'Kilmainham'

sdanseo

A few have mentioned new stations being mentioned on maps / plans. Is there new propaganda (to steal a phrase from the now decade-old OP) for the DART expansion, other than the Metrolink website?

marno21

sdanseo wrote: »

A few have mentioned new stations being mentioned on maps / plans. Is there new propaganda (to steal a phrase from the now decade-old OP) for the DART expansion, other than the Metrolink website?

Nothing yet

Priority is being given to Metrolink given its longer planning process and longer construction timeline. DART Expansion to Balbriggan is planned to start in 2020/1. The rest hasn't been announced yet

sdanseo

marno21 wrote: »

Nothing yet

Priority is being given to Metrolink given its longer planning process and longer construction timeline. DART Expansion to Balbriggan is planned to start in 2020/1. The rest hasn't been announced yet

Thanks, was wondering for a moment there if I'd inadvertently been living under a rock!

cgcsb wrote: »

Heuston west to Heuston can be done with travelators/walkways like in airports. There are much larger stations in Europe with similarly distant platforms, HW will need it's own entry/exits around Clancy Quay and Kilminham. I wonder should it be branded as 'Kilmainham'

I would have thought "Islandbridge" since it's very close to the bridge itself. Walkways could be very easily provided to Conyngham Road, Islandbridge Road (and from there to the Con Colbert Road/St. John's Road). Moving walkway to Heuston proper sounds about right too.

Stephen15

lucernarian wrote: »

I really hope so, and that they can learn from international experience too. There was some nonsense posted earlier about the "space savings" from a toilet earlier in the thread. a non-wheelchair accessible one takes up the space of four seats which is a negligible gain compared to installing more foldable seats like on some of the 29ks. I don't know how commuter services are defined, but the large majority of heavy rail commuter services in the world have toilets in their stations (like the RER/Yamanote line)

There's extremely few examples of toileted services being replaced with toiletless ones, but some took place in the Netherlands about 10 years ago on Amsterdam suburban services - they came in for a lot of criticism for that and was debated in the Dutch Parliament as an attack on vulnerable train users and as incompetence on the part of NS for ordering them that way. The subsequent Sprinter trains ordered since then and currently, all have toilets fitted. And many of those services are comparable to existing DART distances and times and so on.

Irish Rail need a lot of things and efficiencies to be realised, but toilet space taking up 1% of available capacity shouldn't be one of them.

Toilets on trains were good on older trains when you slip in a tiny little toilet beside the gangway taking up very little room. Also on older trains toilets require little maintence as are un-tanked with waste going directly onto the track. So a cheap passenger convience that doesn't cause inconvience by getting in the way.

Nowadays by EU regulations mean toilets have to be wheelchair accesible and tanked with baby changing facilities. They are costly for operators to maintain and large wheelchair accessible toilets with baby changing tables take up too much room for standing and seating passengers.

Toilets in stations would make far more sense than toilets on trains as they don't take up any space.

sdanseo

Stephen15 wrote: »

Toilets in stations would make far more sense than toilets on trains as they don't take up any space.

Toilets should be mandatory in every station. They have to pay for cleaning services anyway. With high frequency routes a toilet in every station is as good as having it on the train, if needed, quick stop, by the time you're doing another train has arrived.

murphaph

sdanseo wrote: »

A few have mentioned new stations being mentioned on maps / plans. Is there new propaganda (to steal a phrase from the now decade-old OP) for the DART expansion, other than the Metrolink website?

I'm ten years older and none the wiser ;-)

L1011

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder should all CIE lands be transferred to TII for a modicum of safekeeping. CIE, especially Irish Rail have a terribly track record (pun intended) in this regard.

The substantial subvention of the operating companies by CIE parent company in recent years has been funded by the property arm. Moving it to TII would require a huge increase in apparent subsidy and likely fall foul of EU rules

bk

sdanseo wrote: »

A few have mentioned new stations being mentioned on maps / plans. Is there new propaganda (to steal a phrase from the now decade-old OP) for the DART expansion, other than the Metrolink website?

There was a bit of an overview given in the National Development Plan 2018 - 2027, which included:

- 2 Billion to be spent on Dart Expansion
- Electrification of Maynooth/M3
- Electrification to Hazelhatch
- Electrification to Droghea.
- New station at Heuston West, Cabra and Whitworth Road.

The Metrolink plans gave us a look at what the Whitworth Road station might look like.

No other details beyond the above. I'd suspect we will get a future launch of the DART Expansion plans similar to the Metrolink launch last week.

Seemingly Irish Rail will be placing a large order for new trains in the coming months, including a big expansion in DARTs so we will probably learn more by then.

murphaph

L1011 wrote: »

The substantial subvention of the operating companies by CIE parent company in recent years has been funded by the property arm. Moving it to TII would require a huge increase in apparent subsidy and likely fall foul of EU rules

That's kind of my point. Selling off the family silver to pay for the butler you can't afford rather than letting him go.

loyatemu

thread title should say (not incl Dart Underground), as it's pretty clear it's gone in it's most recent incarnation and won't be returning in the forseeable future.

marno21

loyatemu wrote: »

thread title should say (not incl Dart Underground), as it's pretty clear it's gone in it's most recent incarnation and won't be returning in the forseeable future.

DART Underground is currently in active planning with the NTA performing studies of a redesigned tunnel. The route will be finalised and protected as part of the National Development Plan.

loyatemu

marno21 wrote: »

DART Underground is currently in active planning with the NTA performing studies of a redesigned tunnel. The route will be finalised and protected as part of the National Development Plan.

Will we see this revised plan before 2027?

marno21

Further details beyond my original post haven't been published yet

Ben D Bus

Any suggestion of a new station at Kylemore Road?

There's a huge opportunity to develop a substantial new urban area to the south of the tracks in addition to the population already to the north.

There can't be many other rail connected areas so close to the city that offer such a chance to address both the transport and housing issues we face.

BonnieSituation

The lack of access to rail in Ballyfermot has Always been criminal really given the proximity of the works. I grew up backing on to them and it always annoyed me.

Obviously park West has improved matters somewhat but if dart was to get a proper going on the Kildare line it would be imperative that a station is placed somewhere like at the Kylemore Road Bridge.

The original DU had an Inchicore station in the works at seven oaks i think.

There's justification for both in my eyes.

citizen6

The Lucan Luas was due to have a station at Kylemore Road bridge. If there was a Dart station there too (with DU connections to Christchurch and SSG/Metro) it would almost make the rest of that Luas redundant. It was to join the red line from Blackhorse to Fatima and then run down Thomas St and Dame St. It would be a lot easier to run it to Kylemore road only. Win win? Would an expanded Dart have capacity to take luas-fuls of people getting on at Kylemore Road? I'm assuming Thomas St to City Centre can be handled by busses.