marno21 wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-newest-train-station-could-move-because-of-major-shortfall-in-passengers-36916197.html The NTA are proposing moving Docklands station further south as part of DART Expansion. Hugh Cregan said yesterday that it's in a poor location and would be more beneficial elsewhere.
budhabob wrote: » Obviously, that's why DU had a station there. The NTA are just spin doctoring now, as always.
MarkoP11 wrote: » Once again Iarnrod Eireann have shafted the public the goal posts have been moved again, its possibly the worst case scenario possible. The dream of a proper integrated system are well and truly dead 1) Station north of Sheriff Street not south of as originally planned 2) IT DOES NOT intergrate with Luas 3) Only accessible from the Midland line 4) Not accessible from Drogheda or Kildare 5) Only 2 platforms not 3 as was originally planned
ongarboy wrote: » Is it really only 1500 passengers a day? 100s get off my train alone each morning that arrives in at 8:48am. And any of the departing trains in the evening before 6:30pm are standing room only. I'd have thought many more were using it daily.
markpb wrote: » The problem isn't the location. The problem is that Irish Rail built a station on a terminating branch of a low-frequency line with no connections to anywhere else. The only people who would use it are people who live on the between Clonsilla and Ashtown and who work at the eastern side of the IFSC. For everyone else, there's Connolly with its better level of service and better connections. It's not even useful for people west of Clonsilla because of the need to transfer. If you have to transfer, it's probably easier to go to Connolly and walk. DU in the same location would be a much more attractive offering for customers because it would be on a high-frequency dart line and would be an easy transfer from the commuter lines. Moving the existing station 500m will probably help but only slightly. The only thing it offers is bringing it a tiny bit closer to the IFSC and making connections to Luas easier but it's hard to see the profile of a passenger transferring between the two. There's no reason for an eastbound Luas passenger to go to Docklands to go west. There's not much benefit in a west-bound passenger changing at Docklands to go west because Connolly offers more services. This station was a waste of money from the very start. It was built because most of the infrastructure existed already, not because it served a customer need. This shouldn't come as a surprise:
LXFlyer wrote: » To be fair without the station being there, the extra peak services on the Maynooth line wouldn’t really have been possible due to conflicts at Connolly. On that basis I don’t agree that it was a waste of money, given that they are pretty much jammed. It also serves the south Docklands via the Samuel Beckett Bridge. My understanding is that the NTA are talking about moving the station east and south to a site adjacent to Spencer Dock LUAS stop on Mayor Street. This also would facilitate a connection to the Northern Line and the line through Drumcondra, but would mean people heading south of the river would have a longer walk. Again DU being shoved further back sadly.
marno21 wrote: » The NTA are pushing ahead with a €7bn investment between now and 2027 including Metro, DART extensions and BusConnects. I'd imagine they are fairly aware that all of that may not make it through so are doing what they can with limited resources until then. Sweating the current GDA rail network until it breaks makes reasonable sense and expanding DART services to the point that the DART tunnel becomes a total necessity until then.
LXFlyer wrote: » Well I think it’s fairer to say that they potentially are investing that much. Until I see physical work starting, I’m afraid I’ll be bound by the maxim that paper never refused ink. We’ve had so many false dawns at this stage. I remain to be convinced that BusConnects will happen in the scale the NTA think - when the reality of having to change instead of having a direct bus to the city centre actually sinks in with people, I think you could see significant opposition. Similarly the scale of the CPO that they’re hinting at I suspect will end up being bogged down in the courts for ages. So I don’t share your confidence I’m afraid. Where I think it will work is in developing orbital options.
blanch152 wrote: » Is there no possibility of taking it across the river on a new bridge to put it within walking distance of Grand Canal Dock station?
LXFlyer wrote: » blanch152 wrote: » Is there no possibility of taking it across the river on a new bridge to put it within walking distance of Grand Canal Dock station? Zilch.
LXFlyer wrote: » Zilch.
Grandeeod wrote: » Funnily enough, prior to the Interconnector/DU idea, IE did consider a bridge across the river towards GCD. It was in the 90s and before the Google HQ.
Sam Russell wrote: » I think they were going to divert the Dart down it as well.
roadmaster wrote: » Had a meeting in IFSC at 9am so got the 7:40am train in from Dunboyne to docklands. When it left the park and ride it was packed with no seating. When we got to Castleknock we where packed in like sardines. Friday would usually be a slow day for communting and the train was wedged as i said. There is something odd about the number they are usuing
markpb wrote: » Maybe the trains are very empty at rush hour and deserted the rest of the day?
D Trent wrote: » A rail project with no funding or timeline has stopped construction of a Dublin office blockhttps://fora.ie/dart-underground-office-sandwith-4049084-Jun2018/ "It added that the location will be an “extremely critical hub” for the transport project because it would house a tunnel to link all rail, Dart and Luas services in the capital." How would a station on Sandwith street link with Luas? Are there plans for a tram line in this area? Or does it simply mean link with Luas via another public transport service?
Officials from Irish Rail met with the developers to discuss modified plans for the office block that would potentially safeguard the future of the Dart Underground project, but a compromise was never reached.
MJohnston wrote: » Sounds like a load of CIE waffle. I can almost visualise just how unhelpful IR were likely to have been in this meeting.
Grandeeod wrote: » Its not CIE waffle. The site was an integral part of the original DU project which was well advanced. Had the Government funded the CPO aspect of the project, it wouldn't be an issue. The developer jumped on the opportunity to build, after this particular site was a victim of the Governments failure to proceed with a fairly cheap next stage of the project. There are lots more examples coming despite the so called "redesign" of DU.
MJohnston wrote: » I meant the "house a tunnel to link all rail, Dart and Luas services in the capital" bit sounded like waffle. Honestly, I'm glad we didn't get to the CPO stage, because then we'd be left with a bunch of permanently (or as permanent as can be while waiting for a project like DU to never happen) derelict sites around the city - something Dublin doesn't need more of.
lucernarian wrote: » That's a pretty myopic approach - the size of these sites are fairly small. Unlike MetroLink's need to acquire a large site somewhere for the tunnel portal(s), CIE already has access to the land required for this and simply needs land access for station boxes. CIE do have bad examples of derilict land, like beside Conyngham Road but I'd take a small derilict site near Pearse Station over hamstringing the most important rail project in the country's history.
