DART+ (DART Expansion)

You'll get your hole in the wall at Preston St and you'll like it

I'm not sure [i]need[/i] is too important, plenty of things are desirable even if not strictly needed. A nice station building with proper toilets (seeing as there won't be any on the trains), a cafe, some convenience retail, maybe even some community/event space which is not uncommon in train stations elsewhere, are all desirable. I'm sure you'll say what is proposed under the arches will be fine but it would be nice to go beyond fine sometimes. It may be aspirational but I think that is allowed from time to time.

Toilets, cafés and a shop are all available a 2-3 minute walk away along platform 4 in Connolly Station already.

I think you’re losing the run of yourself a bit. This isn’t a new station. It’s just another entrance to an existing one, Connolly, which already has full facilities.

As someone who works in the area, and taking previous history and my own experiences into account, I would strongly be of the view that a straightforward entrance with minimal facilities is exactly the best strategy for this entrance.

Am I missing something? The new entrance at Preston Street includes space for 6 new retail outlets under the arches, as well as a staffed ticket office. There are no toilets that's true but there's more than enough space for them.

What's clear that this isn't just an additional back entrance to the platforms, but a new entrance concourse, with lifts, staircases and escalators to all DART platforms.

Thanks! There seems to be a lot of anger in Ashtown about the stables and underpass based on tonight's webinar.

I'm wondering would the same people oppose a bridge over the railway?

It's an interesting conundrum. I can understand the fear of an underpass and the worry that lifts to a pedestrian bridge will frequently be out of order. I can imagine that dropping the railway below the canal for a kilometre or two is safe though. I'm guessing a road+pedestrian bridge will be the outcome but I'm betting that will raise hell with property owners not wanting their view spoiled.

Does anyone have a link to the option selection for the Ashtown level crossing/station?

Not sure if you are referring to the Phoenix Park or not but I'm sure there would be resistance to giving anyone a piece of it. If you are referring to Dunsink, I think that would work. The land is unused now and has limited use potential for a very long time. They could have a much bigger facility there. Teagasc lands could be another option.

If nothing is going to be good enough for the owner, I think closing the LC with only pedestrian/cyclist bridge being provided is the only option. The road on the northern side is a couple of metres below the canal and a bridge would be several metres above due to clearance for the rail cables, I seriously doubt it will be possible to make the bridge levels work without obstructing the car park and delivery entrances at the back of the block containing Supervalu. I'm pretty sure that this is the only place they proposed going under the canal/rail line because going over just doesn't work.

And sorry for double-posting, I'm also trying to make sense of this table... no sign of any weighting in the documentation. How does more green in the Option column end up meaning green for the Do Minimum?

Interesting that it looks like Pointy are primarily in the front of the building (numbers 102-103) as opposed to the back (104). That's not to say they haven't merged the two sections internally.

I'm being lazy here - asking instead of googling - but thinking of the Connolly quarter development - will the Preston St. entrance work continue right under the tracks/platforms to accommodate an entrance on the other/eastern side?

There's going to be huge amount of residential in the Connolly quarter and presumably even more in future as the North docks fills out. I'd have thought having a convenient eastern entrance would be even more pressing need than having another one on Amiens st - albeit closer to the DART platforms?

Sorry, I'm no longer willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the storage of private property on public land.

Those residents are in the center of the city immediately next to an intercity and commuter train station, multiple bus routes, a tram line an intercity coach station, several bike hire stations and soon one of the most high-quality cycle routes in the country.

I'm not going to listen to complaints about cars having to be parked across the road. Those vehicles are at much more risk of vandalism on a side road with less passive surveillance t hen next to a main thoroughfare.

So yes, I will not be listening to complaints about "What will happen to my car". It is not my nor the cities responsibility to accommodate the storage of private vehicles in probably the most well connected location in the country.

Well I still happen to think that, living in a democracy, people are entitled to put their views forward and for them to be heard as part of the planning decision.

FYI I am not talking about anyone holding the process to ransom, but their views are as entitled to be heard as yours and mine are.

Throwaway comments such as your initial one really don’t help.

I've no time for time wasting NIMBYs than anyone else, but I also have no time for some of the zealots out there who feel that the planning laws and processes of the country should not be followed, because that's what you seem to be suggesting here.

For the record I'm 100% behind DART+, but I do think that the planning laws need to be followed.