Luas A1

Victor · 27-02-2006 12:24am #1

Very imaginative, rather than run it through ares where people live, they run it next to a quarry.

http://www.rpa.ie/?id=20

Press Release

Citywest Link – Line A1

The Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen T.D. was in Tallaght today to receive the first copy of the public consultation document on the proposed Luas branch to Citywest. Railway Procurement Agency, in partnership with a group of developers, proposes to develop a 3.2km Luas spur from Belgard to Citywest.

This document will form the basis for discussion and consultation with residents, business and commercial interests, Luas customers, stakeholders and the general public.

Luas line A1 will deliver top quality public transport services to established communities and will facilitate the rapidly developing Citywest business area. Details of an Open Day will be announced shortly. It is estimated that 3.5 million extra Red Line passenger journeys will be made as a result of this spur.

The Department of Transport’s strategy for investment in public transport Transport 21 provides for the Citywest line.

"A novel and welcome feature of this project is the fact that a large proportion of the works are being delivered by our private-sector partners - Davy Hickey Properties and Harcourt Development Limited", said RPA Chairman, Padraic A. White.

"When Luas was launched in 2004 we estimated that we would be carrying 60,000 passengers daily at this point. We are, in fact carrying in excess of 70,000 passengers daily", Mr. White added.

Details of the route-which serves the growing areas of Fettercairn, Cheeverstown and Citywest Campus terminating at Fortunestown-, are included in the Newsletter that will be distributed locally and are also available here.

For further information contact Tom Manning, at +35387410199.

Newsletter: http://www.rpa.ie/content.asp?id=288

Zaph0d · 27-02-2006 1:37am

Victor wrote:

Very imaginative, rather than run it through ares where people live, they run it next to a quarry.

Better to build through virgin land that can be redeveloped at high density than through sprawling housing estates. Development of a quarry depends on how much is left to excavate. Old quarries always get planning permission as they have sod all other future.

Slice · 27-02-2006 10:55am

Was line A1 not originally meant to be built as a spur - in other words commuters travelling from the city would have to get off at the stop where it connects with the Tallaght line and change for some sort of shuttle service to Citiwest?

If that's the case why don't they just connect the extension to the Tallaght-bound route of the Red line and have two lines terminating at tallaght instead?

daymobrew · 27-02-2006 12:13pm

It's quite a walk from the proposed CityWest Campus stop to some of the businesses in CityWest. This might discourage some people. It's a quite spread out business park.

impr0v · 28-02-2006 12:58pm

There was an article in the Times yesterday about a public inquiry opening into the green line extension to Cherrywood. Does anyone know where it's being held?

EDIT: Seems it's in Fitzpatrick’s Castle Hotel, Killiney. No publicity whatsoever from the RPA, i found it on a FF councillor's website.

EDIT2: Seems it finished yesterday, but it according to the same councillor's website it was just a preliminary hearing and the real thing is starting in a weeks time.

Victor · 03-03-2006 4:11pm

I've done a bit of looking and apparently the Roadstone site is zoned agricultural and I suspect it would be easy enough for it to have that zoning changed. The land east of Belgard Road (and between the N7 and Embankment Road) is zoned Green Belt.

The pink areas are where the map understates current development, yellow is where it overstates current development. At least one estate agent is saying it is going to extend to Saggart.

dmeehan · 17-02-2007 10:54am

THE LUAS will be extended to serve the growing commuter communities in south Co Dublin as far as Saggart.

The extension was confirmed after the Railway Procurement Agency and a group of south Dublin businessmen reached agreement yesterday.

Citywest Luas Ltd signed a binding agreement with the RPA yesterday to extend the Luas from Connolly Station to Saggart via Citywest under a public private partnership arrangement.

Construction work should begin early next year, and the consortium of businessmen will provide land, certain infrastructure and €39m in part-funding.

The RPA will provide the remainder of the infrastructure, funding and trams to allow the 4.2km extension to be built. The line should be open for business in 2010.

The new line will have stops at Fettercairn, Cheeverstown, Citywest Campus, Fortunestown and Saggart, and will connect to the existing Luas Red Line between the Cookstown and Belgard stops.

Linky

philologos · 17-02-2007 11:04am

Lucan not till 2013 but yet Saggart in 2010, doesn't make sense (population wise)

uberwolf · 17-02-2007 11:15am

it is being by private funding to suit private needs. Makes perfect sense, it just highlights how quickly things can be done if the will exists

Sarsfield · 17-02-2007 12:52pm

What will this do to red line traffic? Will it be able to cope?

Red Alert · 17-02-2007 2:04pm

Now there's an example of why the the RPA/Luas/Dublin Bus is a shambles. The private guys have showed them up. Money, target, everything's in place. Why can the public sector not behave more like them.

Maybe we should have bought the Rathgeber trams that munich sold to budapest to use as extra capacity. That's what would happen if there was private involvement in the system. More trams needed, more trams available now, not sometime, and voila we have trams.

strassenwolf · 17-02-2007 2:51pm

Jakkass wrote:

Lucan not till 2013 but yet Saggart in 2010, doesn't make sense (population wise)

It may not make sense, but it is perfectly in line with the previous policies which this Government has pursued.

Whether or not these particular developers have eaten lobster and quaffed Champagne in the FF tent at the Galway races, it is quite obvious that the only projects seriously being pursued in Dublin, with the possible exception of the metro north project, are those where developer payments can be levied.

Lucan has already been built. There therefore remains only very limited opportunity for new development, limited opportunity for those who break bread in the tent, and limited opportunity for development levies.

As with other areas of the city which have already been built, including areas which have considerably higher density than Lucan, the message is basically: as we can't get developer levies from this area and, as this area is already developed so we can't help out our friends who wish to develop, you can go and F**k yourselves.

2013 for Lucan. I wouldn't bet on it.

mackerski · 17-02-2007 3:13pm

Sarsfield wrote:

What will this do to red line traffic? Will it be able to cope?

That depends on what proportion of the Saggart commuters gets off at Citywest.

MLM · 17-02-2007 3:59pm

Sounds like another planning disaster in the making!

Zoney · 17-02-2007 4:17pm

Red Alert wrote:

The private guys have showed them up. Money, target, everything's in place. Why can the public sector not behave more like them.

In this instance. The private sector is just as capable of being inefficient and wasting money, and it's not even the case that such companies always go out of business (as if that isn't an inefficient and undesirable thing anyways).

Look at the privatised rail service in the UK. It actually uses *more* of taxpayers money (subvention) now that private companies run it, *and* ticket prices are higher, safety lower, and maintanance suffering. There are more and newer services in some places (and of course, congestion) - but it's not as if this couldn't have happened under public service.

dRNk SAnTA · 17-02-2007 4:42pm

Whats with all the cynicism.

This extension has been in the pipeline for years, perhaps private sector has ensured that it has happened but I cant see how it is evidence of things 'moving faster' when the private sector wants it done.

Originally Posted by Jakkass
Lucan not till 2013 but yet Saggart in 2010, doesn't make sense (population wise)

This line extension has been in planning for years, as far as I know the Lucan line was only officially announced in T21, and I don't think the RPA have even started planning on that line yet.

Chris_533976 · 17-02-2007 5:43pm

I still think such a fuss over a paltry 4.2km section is silly. Lets face it, longer (or several concurrent) sections in more integrated projects are needed.

MiniD · 17-02-2007 8:39pm

With the line separating at Belgard, does this mean a reduced frequency between Tallaght and Belgard? Similar to Howth/Malahide?

As someone who relies on the Red line in zones 1 and 2, the idea of adding thousands more passengers is crazy. it's already overstretched.

Victor · 18-02-2007 1:45am

MiniD wrote:

With the line separating at Belgard, does this mean a reduced frequency between Tallaght and Belgard? Similar to Howth/Malahide?

As someone who relies on the Red line in zones 1 and 2, the idea of adding thousands more passengers is crazy. it's already overstretched.

Well hopefully trams will take care of some of that.

Zoney · 18-02-2007 2:00pm

Victor wrote:

Well hopefully trams will take care of some of that.

Aren't they a bit stuck for the ability to run the trams at greater length or frequency? I.e. Power requirements (this is pretty major is it not?), signalling and at-grade junctions with road traffic (the platform length is a lesser, though not inconsiderable, problem too with the former).

I can't think that the extension to the red line will be anything other than a disaster, and the same too for the green line unless it gets its upgrade to Metro (and boy is that likely to cost a bit to surmount the aforementioned problems, nevermind any underground bit closer to the city).

Not trying to be doom and gloom, but we need trams where there are currently relatively frequent buses, and need metro where there are high frequency buses and Luas at present. Why? Because people will start using the services like mad once they start, nevermind development taking place to take advantage of the new connections. Any major infrastructure we do needs not only to cope with short-term increases (which in the case of the Luas, have pushed it to capacity) but need to be good for at least 10 and probably 20 years or more.

Hey, even our motorways are not planned to be futureproof - the M7 already needs three lanes along the Naas Bypass and Newbridge bypass to M9 junction - going by 2006 traffic levels. And that will be even more terrifying once the traffic increase/jump due to N9 DC occurs. OK this section of M7 has lasted some time, but there are no plans yet for an upgrade despite the fact it should have been done the same time as the Naas DC upgrade. I.e. it should be finished and ready this year, not completely lacking even plans!!

MLM · 18-02-2007 3:53pm

One major problem with this country is that planning and infrastructural decisions are made by politicians representing business interests and not the common good. Planning and infrastructural development needs to be completely independant of political interference.

DerekP11 · 19-02-2007 10:05pm

strassenwolf wrote:

It may not make sense, but it is perfectly in line with the previous policies which this Government has pursued.

Whether or not these particular developers have eaten lobster and quaffed Champagne in the FF tent at the Galway races, it is quite obvious that the only projects seriously being pursued in Dublin, with the possible exception of the metro north project, are those where developer payments can be levied.

Lucan has already been built. There therefore remains only very limited opportunity for new development, limited opportunity for those who break bread in the tent, and limited opportunity for development levies.

As with other areas of the city which have already been built, including areas which have considerably higher density than Lucan, the message is basically: as we can't get developer levies from this area and, as this area is already developed so we can't help out our friends who wish to develop, you can go and F**k yourselves.

2013 for Lucan. I wouldn't bet on it.

Best post on the thread.

DerekP11 · 19-02-2007 10:09pm

MLM wrote:

One major problem with this country is that planning and infrastructural decisions are made by politicians representing business interests and not the common good. Planning and infrastructural development needs to be completely independant of political interference.

Second and nearly best post on the thread.

The DTA will not be politically independent and will not work. Hence its already a waste of time. DTO PT 2. "transport strikes back".

Its like a soap opera.

markpb · 19-02-2007 10:37pm

DerekP11 wrote:

The DTA will not be politically independent and will not work. Hence its already a waste of time. DTO PT 2. "transport strikes back"

It might well be politically independant but it makes not a difference... the government will still control the purse strings.

Slice · 20-02-2007 9:31am

Will it be a shuttle service from the Red Cow or will this spur feed into city-bound services?

D'Peoples Voice · 20-02-2007 2:35pm

strassenwolf wrote:

It may not make sense, but it is perfectly in line with the previous policies which this Government has pursued.

Whether or not these particular developers have eaten lobster and quaffed Champagne in the FF tent at the Galway races, it is quite obvious that the only projects seriously being pursued in Dublin, with the possible exception of the metro north project, are those where developer payments can be levied.

to be fair, SDCC sanctioned a few thousand appartments in the previously quiet village of Saggart only a few years ago. The manner in which these appartments were granted permission, is that they lie relatively close to the proposed new luas line. The government to date would not build the line, obviously because they don't think there is enough demand, or put another way their priorities lie elsewhere. So developers have stepped in and offered to build this line that politicians think is loss making.
And to think that people are criticizing this?
Lads, in the west of ireland, where we have the proposed Western Rail Corridor, if county councils were granting planning permission for appartments along the line, and if developers were offering to retore the line, do you think we'd be complaining?
Has no-one even thought about the spin-offs for a park'n'ride at city west to relieve some of the traffic from Newlands Cross?

mackerski · 20-02-2007 4:08pm

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

And to think that people are criticizing this?

Having private money pay for the infrastructure to service private developments is, of itself, laudable. Until that infrastructure attempts to piggyback on an already overloaded resource and put that resource under strain. That's when you want to get cautious about the idea.

strassenwolf · 21-02-2007 12:08am

mackerski wrote:

Having private money pay for the infrastructure to service private developments is, of itself, laudable. Until that infrastructure attempts to piggyback on an already overloaded resource and put that resource under strain. That's when you want to get cautious about the idea.

You do indeed want to be cautious. It'd be interesting to know how SDCC identified this particular route as a priority route for public transport development, over other possible routes which might enhance transport in developed areas of SDCC which do not currently have trams (or other such services) serving them.

Have we arrived at the stage where public transport development is to be based on criteria which maximise private investment in the transport system and minimise public investment in the system?

If this is the case, I believe there is a poor lookout for Dublin. There are well developed areas of the city where future private investment in property development, on a large scale, is going to be very difficult. If the criteria which appear to be being applied to the citywest extension are to be applied to such developed areas, then the private investment won't happen and the public investment consequently won't happen in these areas either.

If those criteria were to be employed, areas which are currently well developed, and have been for many years, with large amounts of taxes being paid from them, would thus never see anything like a LUAS in their area.

If the criteria for such areas are going to be different, then why are these criteria not, apparently, being applied now, at a time when the potential for public investment in the transport system is as high as it has ever been, and as high as it may ever be?

Victor · 21-02-2007 12:22am

strassenwolf wrote:

You do indeed want to be cautious. It'd be interesting to know how SDCC identified this particular route as a priority route for public transport development

Cash from developer.

It also happens to be where SDCC are building a road and the alignment is both straight and clear.

strassenwolf · 21-02-2007 12:30am

Victor wrote:

Cash from developer.

Victor, I had grasped that that was a factor.:D

It also happens to be where SDCC are building a road and the alignment is both straight and clear.

Are there no other locations in SDCC where there is already an alignment which is both straight and clear, but along which no LUAS could be proposed?

strassenwolf · 21-02-2007 1:33am

I mean, compared to, say, the Firhouse-Knocklyon option.

Was it ahead on the cost-benefit analysis.

Any figures available?

Red Alert · 21-02-2007 9:29am

As a matter of interest, what payback or benefits do the developers get for putting up the cash for this? There must be something in it for them, not saying it shouldn't go ahead but we should at least be aware of it.

strassenwolf · 21-02-2007 10:09am

Red Alert wrote:

As a matter of interest, what payback or benefits do the developers get for putting up the cash for this? There must be something in it for them, not saying it shouldn't go ahead but we should at least be aware of it.

The payback for the developers is that they get to sell the apartments and houses that they develop. If there were no "public" transport being put in place, it would be harder to sell these units. If public transport into the city is, however, readily available, the units get sold very quickly.

That, as far as I'm aware. is the payback.

markpb · 21-02-2007 10:16am

IIRC One of the reasons An Board Pleanala wouldn't grant permission for Mansfields conference centre in Citywest was the lack of mass transport facilities. The Luas extension will definitely help with that.

MarkoP11 · 21-02-2007 10:35am

Its a totally private venture, Jim Mansfield and his mates are paying for the whole gig on the condition that the RPA handle the construction and operation

It wouldn't happen otherwise

strassenwolf · 21-02-2007 10:37am

markpb wrote:

IIRC One of the reasons An Board Pleanala wouldn't grant permission for Mansfields conference centre in Citywest was the lack of mass transport facilities. The Luas extension will definitely help with that.

It will undoubtedly help.

It remains to be seen, however, whether delivery of more people to Mr Mansfield, who is currently ploughing a fairly lonely furrow out in citywest, is the best option for the city.

Not only will considerable resources within the RPA be on the case for the next couple of years, planning the line. There will also be considerable amounts of manpower employed building the line. Manpower which might, or might not, be better employed elsewhere.

It remains to be seen.

dowlingm · 21-02-2007 7:52pm

The same Jim Mansfield running an illegal point of entry at Weston Aerodrome, the same one with serial run-ins with the county councils and An Bord Pleanala, where were it not for the intervention of the Belgians 6m euro of drugs would have been shipped into?

This shared LUAS is a bad deal because, in my view, it is impeding the govt and county councils from regulating this man's activities in a proper manner and closing Weston while opening Baldonnel to civil general aviation traffic.

strassenwolf · 21-02-2007 11:20pm

dowlingm wrote:

The same Jim Mansfield running an illegal point of entry at Weston Aerodrome, the same one with serial run-ins with the county councils and An Bord Pleanala, where were it not for the intervention of the Belgians 6m euro of drugs would have been shipped into?

One and the same.

Victor · 18-12-2007 7:15pm

The RPA have newspaper notices announcing their application for a railway order.

egan007 · 18-12-2007 7:19pm

err...isnt that why they exist?

trellheim · 18-12-2007 7:25pm

Well - it's an indication that things are moving along. An application for a railway order requires some serious amount of work to put together.

bigi · 18-12-2007 7:40pm

good news! I see its the first project to be use the new Strategic Infrastructure planning act. I know the intention of this is to speed things up, but how exactly?

paulm17781 · 18-12-2007 7:42pm

Victor wrote: »

The RPA have newspaper notices announcing their application for a railway order.

It mentions that this is under the new 2006 infrastructure framework. How will this differ? Will there still be route selection, station design etc. or can it be built as as soon as the order is received? How much is the new framework expected to speed up the planning process?

DWCommuter · 18-12-2007 9:38pm

Does anyone else think that the RPA should be concentrating on speedily linking up the existing lines and building new ones in other parts of the city, instead of playing best buddies with developers on extensions to existing lines. It looks to me that the current extensions will do feck all for traffic congestion, where as new lines could make some difference. Priorities look a little compromised.

paulm17781 · 18-12-2007 10:20pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

Does anyone else think that the RPA should be concentrating on speedily linking up the existing lines and building new ones in other parts of the city, instead of playing best buddies with developers on extensions to existing lines. It looks to me that the current extensions will do feck all for traffic congestion, where as new lines could make some difference. Priorities look a little compromised.

This is true. I would think it comes down to funding. This is entirely privately funded (I think) where as they have to get money from the Government for the other routes. As usual, where do the Governments priorities lie???

DWCommuter · 18-12-2007 11:43pm

PPP is good for the investor. But what has it actually done for communities and our quality of life?

gjim · 19-12-2007 3:28am

It's actually worse than doing nothing.

Rather than adding utility to the system it just shifts the benefits. The original beneficiaries of the system end up losing out.

On the green line, for example, currently the line is useless for commuting at rush hour for anyone who lives closer to town than Cowper as the trams are so jammed. Once B1 is completed the line will probably be useless for anyone closer to town than Dundrum.

The result is that this 7km of extra tram line leads to no real increase in useful capacity in the system; the exact same number of commuters get to ride the Luas into work in town each morning. I will be surprised if the number of passengers carried by the extended green line increases by 40% even though the amount of track will have nearly doubled.

Constrast with the situation where 7km of Luas was built from the centre of town through Harold's Cross, Kimmage, etc. In this case, the number passenger journeys would have doubled.

Effectively the utility of the system, which was original built completely with public funds, is being hijacked by PPP projects at the fringes. The RPA are either complicit in this development or stupid.

It's not like this phenomena is unknown. Every DART user knows how it works: if you live in Dalkey, then it's sometimes possible to get a seat into town in the morning; if you live in Blackrock, then you can squeeze onto the DART, if you live in Sandymount then forget about it.

markpb · 19-12-2007 10:31am

trellheim wrote: »

Well - it's an indication that things are moving along. An application for a railway order requires some serious amount of work to put together.

It also makes it easier for journalists to pin the blame if a minister sits on it for a year without approving it. Lots of PR makes it clear where the buck rests now.

stovelid · 19-12-2007 11:27am

gjim wrote: »

On the green line, for example, currently the line is useless for commuting at rush hour for anyone who lives closer to town than Cowper as the trams are so jammed.
.

gjim wrote: »

if you live in Sandymount then forget about it.

I agree with the lack of vision re: resources, but surely if you live in any of these places, you shouldn't be prioritized over commuters that live much further out?

If I lived closer to town than Cowper or Sandymount, I'd walk or cycle.

paulm17781 · 19-12-2007 11:44am

stovelid wrote: »

If I lived closer to town than Cowper or Sandymount, I'd walk or cycle.

It's a shame you're in the minority. You should see the salad dodgers who rush to get seats at Stephen's green in the mornings and then get out at Harcourt. I'm sure they then get the lift to their first floor office.

trellheim · 19-12-2007 11:48am

On the green line, for example, currently the line is useless for commuting at rush hour

Only if you're inbound... if you're outbound 3 days a week as I am Charlemont->Stillorgan it's fine

But I agree with the general point made above that when the Cherrywood extension comes on stream it's going to be vile inbound unless they get a serious amount more trams.

prob. ditto for Citywest.

Luas A1

Comments