DART+ (DART Expansion)

@gjim what do you think of this solution? It's cheaper and easier, and less likely to cause disruption in future projects. The station could also be retained for additional intercity capacity to Sligo / Limerick / Cork etc on busy weekends for concerts and gigs etc.

Not to forget that passengers will have other options to get into the city centre by switching at Broombridge / Glasnevin.

Definitely worth considering I think...

Irish Rail weren't keen on the Spencer Dock station idea, they wanted an enhanced docklands station until DU was built, with the short walk to the connecting luas and far lower cost.

The NTA insisted that Spencer Dock station be included in Dart West and then when they got that informed Irish Rail that that was the end of DU. Creegan(NTA) is dead set against DU, not for any logical reason, some sort of personal grievance.

DU simply won't be built, at least until there's regime change at the NTA or a competent minister of transport/Taoiseach insists on it but that's even further away.

This is not true (that the Luas stop would need to be relocated during the DU works).

Please just read the Jacob's report - it's really short - if not the 2014 RO, because it seems you're just imagining things about the plans for DU construction. Believe it or not, to get to RO, you need fairly detailed plans and NOT disrupting the Luas is/was a factor in their plans for the Eastern tie-in and the DU docklands station.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I don't see how this could be true given that the Jacob's report was commissioned by the NTA after the plans for Spencer Dock were added to DART+W and it allows for the construction of the original 2014 DU plans with very minor adjustments even with Spencer Dock in place.

What evidence would you expect on an anonymous Internet forum?

The Jacobs report is very high level route optioneering it doesn't deal with any specific design issues so don't be shocked when the disruption to SD is either a total show stopper or a major engineering issue. Remember how metrolink got all the way to prelim design before anyone told the consultant that there a trunk sewer directly under the grand canal.

It's also not the first report commissioned by the NTA, or its predecessors, to be forgotten on a shelf. Remember Swiftway? Or what about metro west?

Your alternative to a station being closed for a prolonged period is to propose building a station which would have to be demolished - which is a condition a bit more permanent than "prolonged". And it would still result in disruption.

If DU or any other major infrastructure project will never go ahead because it will cause disruption, then we're f*cked.

ML will never go ahead as it will cause disruption. Bus Connects will never go ahead because it will cause disruption. On-street Luas extensions will never happen because of disruption. Cycle lanes, pedestrianisation, etc. all involve disruption.

Disruption is a cost that has to be paid for any and all infrastructure improvements.

I don't get you? How is the Jacob's report "ageing" - it's from late last year? It includes passenger models of interactions with ML and Bus Connects and references DART+

I'm also confused by what you mean by "DU is at drawing board stage" - you can't submit (and be granted) an RO with vague/drawing board plans? The preliminary design phase predates being able to submit an RO by years?

We're 100% on the same page here, just FYI. I'm so tired of discussing this with @gjim . They keep using our points against us then focusing on different points later and omitting another key point later which goes against their own argument they were making in a previous post. It's pathetic.

It is clear to me that Spencer Dock, as currently proposed, hobbles DU to such degree that it will never happen.

I will restate my opening argument. "DU is un(officially) dead".

It's as if you're refusing to comprehend the point. The DU that got an RO is gone, out the window Long with Metro North, which was replaced with metrolink (which is designed to provide some of the benefits of the former DU project).

DU will probably also get a replacement because its in the GDA strategy, but at the minute it's drawing board stuff. And now there's a station being put in the way of the now cancelled DU (and perhaps soon to be redesigned with new glossy brochures) at Spencer dock. The Jacob's report has no technical solution for the Spencer Dock issue

The canal/midlands line and the GS&WR (Drumcondra) line present very different challenges during DU construction.

There will be NO WAY to accommodate terminating GS&WR (Drumcondra) trains in the docklands during the construction of DU. Regardless of rumours of skullduggery within the NTA.

It doesn't matter where you build a terminus - the line comes into the docklands meters from where the northern spur is and where the portal is to be built and there is no scope to relocate it. Just look at the map around Ossary Rd.

This is why I don't think agree with the idea of building a temporary wind-swept pair of platforms with poor access in the middle of brown-field no-mans-land to be used for the next 20 years (before DU is started) to serve trains coming via Drumcondra. The proposed Spencer Dock will provide a a modern, covered, integrated and well located station in the middle of a built up area with good access from north and south, which will still be there and useful AFTER the DU disruption finishes.

On the other hand, to my eye, it would be possible to continue to use the canal (MGWR) line during DU construction. So I agree that there is a case for maintaining (in a shuttered state) the platforms of the current Docklands station ("temporary" since 2007) to service the canal line for this future eventuality.

But using the current dockland station for the next 20 years as a terminus for DART+ trains is no way to sell the benefits of S-Bahn type public transport to people in the west and southwest of the city. It's a horrible wind-swept cheap and nasty job that was only ever intended to be kept around for 5 or so years. It would represent the worst sort of penny pinching after spending more than 1-2 billion on the other components of DART+ W and SW.