Luas A1

Red Alert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

egan007

err...isnt that why they exist?

trellheim

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

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

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

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

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

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

gjim

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

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

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

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

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.

Victor

bigi wrote: »

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?

There are substantial changes. Essentially it goes to An Bord Pleanala instead of a public inquiry (ABP are still likely to hold an Oral Hearing) and the ABP Inspector makes a recommendation to the ABP board, whose decision is final, except on points of law (planning matters can't be appealed). It is then for ABP to issue the Railway Order if it sees fit, instead of the Minister.

The Clonsilla-Pace inquiry was held last week, under practically the same rules, although there were some minor procedural differences - no fees for submissions, no application form and a few other bits.

paulm17781

Victor wrote: »

There are substantial changes. Essentially it goes to An Bord Pleanala instead of a public inquiry (ABP are still likely to hold an Oral Hearing) and the ABP Inspector makes a recommendation to the ABP board, whose decision is final, except on points of law (planning matters can't be appealed). It is then for ABP to issue the Railway Order if it sees fit, instead of the Minister.

Hypothetically that is good Is it likely to save time? I find the public enquiries can be useful but getting the projects done faster is the real importance.

trellheim

It was a kneejerk response to the Carrickmines and impending M3 doom ... to avoid getting held up by the unwashed public.

AlekSmart

Gjim is astute enough to see beyond the PPP PR puff thereby allowing a discerning observer to get the presently faint whiff of sulphur seeping from the concept.

The meld between Public and Private is always going to be a fraught one in a society such as the Modern Irish one,which has never really come to terms with wild European Protestant concepts such as "The Greater or Common Good".

Our upbringing has always taught us to value our independence of mind and spirit above all else and bejapers we are sure not going to abandon our Traditions now ,are we ??

Very shortly now we will see the the Dublin Transport Authority Bill brought forward for debate and I believe it may well have one MAJOR alteration to what was proposed by former Minister for Transport Martin Cullen.

At the launch of the DTA Implimentation Group`s report Mr Cullen began by rejecting the Groups First recommendation on having a statutory role in Dublin`s Land Use and Planning Policies.
Not alone did he reject it,but he made it clear that rejection was a CABINET decision,albeit one which rendered any DTA virtually redundant as an integral tool of Public Transport progress.

Interestingly it`s now rumoured that the NEW Bill WILL include the Land Use provision which puts a totally different complexion on things...not least from the PPP perspective ...so we may yet get to live in interesting times....thanks to Noel Dempsey...although it could also be seen as a relative weakening of the "Traditional" friendly bonds between Fianna Fail and the Building/Development industry....

Victor

Luas Line A1 Railway Order Application

About Luas Line A1

Victor

bigi wrote: »

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?

The RPA have an explanation here: http://www.rpa.ie/luas/railway_orders

strassenwolf

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.

Indeed.

I was passing through Prague during the week. Around 1.3 million inhabitants.

3 excellent metro lines and 26 tram lines, serving all parts of the city.

The various bodies in Ireland still haven't managed to get their heads around the idea of a network, where there are lines serving many parts of the urban area, allowing people to travel easily between these areas.

Instead, the priority over recent years has been, largely, to facilitate developers. This usually means extending lines, as these developments are more likely to happen on the periphery rather than in already built up areas.

Hopefully the current credit squeeze will slow down the sprawl somewhat, so that the various authorities will get a chance to take stock.

Hopefully it will. But I'm not very hopeful.:mad:

bigi

Victor wrote: »

The RPA have an explanation here: http://www.rpa.ie/luas/railway_orders

Thanks Victor

Victor

So, it goes on public display today, they've fixed a few glitches on the website. Go comment!

1. This link leads to a zero-sized file with no content. This may cause a procedural issue with An Bord Pleanála if not corrected by the date (2 January 2008) of the formal submission of this documentation.

Citywest Road to Carrigmore Way - (11-LA1000GA19009A) http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=493

Fixed

2. The following drawing is badly digitised and illegible.

Cheeverstown Stop - (30-LA1000TO19003A) http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=515

[EDIT] Not fixed

3. Draft Railway (Dublin Light Rail Line A1 -Belgard to Saggart) Order 2007 http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=454

Note difference in preamble compared to Dunboyne Railway application.

CIÉ: Section 43 of the Transport (Infrastructure) Act 2001
RPA: section 43 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 (No. 55 of 2001)

CIÉ: Regulation of Railways Acts, 1840 – 1893
RPA: Regulation of Railways Acts 1840 to 1889

4. Draft Railway (Dublin Light Rail Line A1 -Belgard to Saggart) Order 2007 http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=454

Irregular titles on schedules (check agaisnt contents page).

"SEVENTH SCHEDULE
EIGHT SCHEDULE <

---

spelling
NINTH SCHEDULE
SCHEDULE 10 <

---

format
SCHEDULE 11" <

---

format

5. There is no draft explanatory note (no legal meaning anyway, but it would be useful).

6. Draft Railway (Dublin Light Rail A1 - Belgard to Saggart) Order 2007 - Book of Reference http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=521

Check for stray Asian characters in text - they appear intermittantly on pafes 97 and 99.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

[EDIT] Not fixed

So they eventually put the last drawing up, but as an image, not a vectored drawing.

The are building a completely new stop at Belgard. Because the new track layout can't be done until after the existing south platform is demolished, it looks like Belgard stop will have to close for a time and this will mean severe restrictions from Belgard to Tallaght or even Red Cow to Tallaght.

As I read programme of work

1 Adjust service connections as necessary for the duration
2 Construct new technical cubicle
3 Make adjustments to columns for the OHLE
4 Build Tallaght platform including the lower part of the canopy structure
5 Construct western end of Tallaght track and connect new points to existing
6 Demolish existing southern platform
7 Construct eastern end of Tallaght track and connect new curve to existing, disconnecting existing track
8 Tallaght platform becomes live
9 Remove surplus track
10 Finish Saggart/Tallaght platform
11 Construct Saggart track and connect new points to existing tracks at west end with new curve and points
12 Construct Saggart/City platform
13 Finish canopy
14 Demolish existing northern platform
15 Finish hard and soft landscaping

Close southern platform - 1 week? Close line - 1 weekend?