IFSC companies lobby ministers on Luas extension

jubbly

IFSC companies lobby ministers on Luas extension
Arthur Beesley, Senior Business Correspondent




A group of IFSC-based companies has lobbied Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Tánaiste Mary Harney and three other Ministers in its campaign against plans to build an extension to the Luas on the main thoroughfare through the financial centre.

The companies, represented by the IFSC Steering Committee, fear that their communications networks will be damaged during construction work on the Tallaght line extension to the Point Depot from Connolly Station, exposing them to significant financial losses.

Some senior political sources believe the inevitable outcome of the committee's dispute with the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA), which runs Luas, will be a postponement of the project, which was first mooted in 2003.

An extension of the Dundrum line to Cherrywood is now considered likely by some observers to be the next Luas development.

While the ultimate decision rests with Minister for Transport Martin Cullen, a spokesman for his Department said it had an "open mind" on the issue.

The RPA has rejected the committee's claims about the risk to their business.

A spokesman said it offered in June to pay the cost of building failsafe back-up systems, where appropriate, and to use new equipment to detect the presence of underground cabling before digging begins.

But the committee remains unhappy that its members could be liable for multimillion-euro losses in the event of a breakdown in their systems during construction work.

There is no list available of the IFSC committee members, although the body is said to include most of the biggest companies in the centre.

The committee is chaired by Brendan Timbs of IIU, the vehicle that manages the interests of financier Dermot Desmond, who wrote to the Government last March to say that "an overwhelming majority" of IFSC companies opposes the Mayor Street route.

In letters sent to Mr Ahern, Ms Harney and the Ministers for Finance, Transport and Environment, he proposed an alternative route to the Point along North Wall Quay.

This option has already been rejected by the RPA, whose spokesman said such a route would disrupt the flow of traffic behind the Custom House on Beresford Place.

The spokesman also said that use of the North Quays route would reduce the catchment of the service.

However, the IFSC committee letter said: "There are well-founded concerns that the competitiveness and reputation of the IFSC could be seriously affected if Luas works interrupted business communications or services.

"While we have grave reservations about the physical inconvenience of turning Mayor Street in to a building site for two to three years so soon after the completion of the recent building programme, the risk to business continuity remains the key issue."

The letter said the North Quays route was technically feasible and said the risk to business continuity would be "significantly mitigated" if that alignment was selected.

"An alignment along the quays would facilitate access to the south quays where significant residential and office accommodation is coming on stream.

"The North Wall Quay line poses fewer engineering challenges and could therefore be built more quickly, and perhaps as cheaply, as the proposed Mayor Street route," the letter added.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2005/0820/3808988766BZLUASYARN.html

© The Irish Times

I cant belive the IFSC are trying to re route the LUAS by leaning on TD's. The LUAS has to go ahead.

vinnyfitz

These IFSC guys reheat this stupid argument every few months,

I wonder what do their staff, the schmucks who might use the Luas rather than the company Jaguar think about their position?

Which makes me wonder - is it possible the bankers are really more worried about the Luas limiting access to their executive carparks that any risk of telecoms disruption?

Zaph0d

I worked on business continuity for an IFSC company. Everything was redundant, power telecoms, internet. We even had a spare building on the southside for key staff in the event of total prolonged loss of power to the northside of the city. Plus overseas live copies of all critical computer systems. So I would guess this is nonsense.

I'm amazed Dermot Desmond could oppose building public transport up to his property. This can only increase its value. I guess he knows something I don't.

murphaph

Indeed, IBM provides business continuity for many of these IFSC companies in the even of a prolonged power cut. IBM has it's own rather large generator on site in NW Dublin.

It's more to do with the Luas gettin in the way of the jag, but given the RPA's history they can make an easy case against their competence. The Luas was made for an environment like the IFSC, it'd finally tie the area into the rest of the city.

Thomond Pk

Phillip has a point when this route is cleared it will interfere with the exit of the underground carpark exit of IFSC phase one and a set of traffic lights will be required.

The RPA have only themseleves to blame in relation to the way they handled the construction works the last time; particularly on Harcourt St. Many of the larger IFSC companies had offices on Harcourt prior to moving to the IFSC as Harcourt St was one of the main Financial districts in Dublin post 1975. The major occupiers in the IFSC would be more aware of the RPA's incompetence than your average manager in this regard.

Having said all that this; the line must go ahead and the RPA must put contracts in place that reward an early completion and reduced disturbance but conversely penalise punatively late completion and Harcourt St type completion.

If I were advising IFSC companies I would not agree disturbance compensation until after the works have been completed it is only then we will know if the leopard has changed its spots.

Sarsfield

While I agree the business continuity argument is a smokescreen, isn't it reasonable to argue that running Luas along North Wall Quay would provide better access to the South Docklands?

It certainly won't reduce the catchment north of the river as the IFSC is basically 1 street wide!

murphaph

Sarsfield wrote:

While I agree the business continuity argument is a smokescreen, isn't it reasonable to argue that running Luas along North Wall Quay would provide better access to the South Docklands?

It certainly won't reduce the catchment north of the river as the IFSC is basically 1 street wide!

I tend to disagree with the north quays route. The south docklands are included in PFC Luas and the Interconnector station at Spencer Dock is rumoured to be constructed under the Liffey with station entrances on both sides of the river. The idea of routing a Luas along the north quays sounds ok in theory, but in practice it means running the trams through what can be a very inhospitable place, especially in winter when the cold east wind gets up and comes straight in off the bay with no protection from the surrounding buildings. Running the Luas along Mayor street between fairly tall buildings would provide a more pleasant environment for waiting passengers. The North quays in this part of the city are likely to remain an important traffic artery as part of the orbital system, so keeping them tram free would seem prudent.

It should also be noted that the Mayor street route is a more direct extension from Connolly, which IMHO could lose the spur and the stop for it and Busaras could be incorporated in a new stop, just to the east of the existing Busaras stop on the other side of Amiens Street. It's app. 1 min on foot from this point to both Busaras and Connolly main enterances and I've seen much further 'connecting' walks before in other cities. This idea will be unpopular though because it's well known how much the ramp at Connolly cost to demolish!

Metrobest

I also disagree with the North Quays route. The whole point of bringing luas into the IFSC would be to offer an attractive alternative mode of transport to the car; and there is no doubt that a large percentage of motorists will switch when they have access to quality, high-frequency fast transport. Running Luas alongside the river would, by default, sever its catchment area - and I'd prefer to see the North quays turned into a Paris-style riverside park with artificial beaches in summer, boat tours and whatnot.

SeanW

God I wish those muppets would just dry up and blow away ...

Victor

Putting it along the quays, while making it "closer to the southside", puts it proportionately more away from "the northside". Having buildings on both sides of the route maximises availibilty and usage.

SeanW

Putting it along the quays would - as stated previously - expose waiting passengers to more harsh cold in wintertime. It would also add a bunch of curves and about 1/2 line km to the tracks, slowing down journey times.

Don't forget about IEs new Spencer Dock terminal - shifting Luas onto the quays would create a stupid gap between the RPAs Spencer Dock station and IEs. Not very integrated ...

But some muppet wants to keep easy access to the executive carpark or hold the taxpayer to ransom, which would seem to be more important to those muppets than delivering high-quality, integrated public transport.

Thomond Pk

I believe the expression is 'unduly severed catchment' when describing the route via the Quays.

MarkoP11

This is a complete mess, been down Mayor Street god knows how many times and its perfect for Luas, Mayor Street Square is a excellent spot for a station. Its the DTO route and the RPA route and strangely enough its one of the few RPA backed routings I actually approve of

Now it is true the RPA screwed up on the Luas project, clearly they have learned there lesson. As we all know we do know what is under Mayor Street with a huge level of detail, compare that to virtual archaeological dig process on Harcourt Street

Running down the quays is awfully messy route just getting from Connolly to the Quays is an awful mess. Slight issue with the opening up of South Quays, kinda need a bridge to do that and the only bridge in planning is the Macken Street bridge which is designed to carry a Luas line which ensure a proper coverage not some token gesture

casey jones

I think the main concern the IFSC has is that the area will be a building site for 2 years. The RPA argument about reducing the catchment area if the alignment is moved less than 100 metres along the quay is clearly nonsense. (The DART runs along the coast). Also the quays are being linked by Macken Street bridge and the new footbridge. If anything the quayside route would improve the visibility of the LUAS from the Grand Canal dock and I believe a riverside tram would be an addition to the docklands. The problem with a lot of these arguments is that the core issue gets lost in the battle of egos.

Bluetonic

casey jones wrote:

I think the main concern the IFSC has is that the area will be a building site for 2 years.

It's not that the main concern is that the IFSC will be a building site for 2 years it all down to the worry that comms will be affect and that blackouts and brownouts will occur ad hoc.

If your trying to trade something you can't have one second of outage for risk of missing out on a few PIPS. This is difference between making 000k and loosing 000k.

For a start the NFA (governing body in the states), who govern the marority of trades coming out of the IFSC, wouldn't probably grant a trading licence if the the work was to begin becasue of the risk of being unable to trade (and this is even with a mirror office in place on a seperate grid).

D'Peoples Voice

Bluetonic wrote:

If your trying to trade something you can't have one second of outage for risk of missing out on a few PIPS. This is difference between making 000k and loosing 000k.

Lets not kid ourselves, as most of us down here in the IFSC will tell you,
the level of trading undertaken here is often exaggerated,
many of the companies here are back offices of their British or German parent, i.e they simply do the administration of the trades/funds here.
There are notable exceptions where trading does go on, but don't think for a minute that it's even as much as 7.3% of the trading that is undertaken in London.
But yes life would be hell for every company regardless of whether they are a front or back office if the ESB/Telecomms cannot guarantee that their lines will not be cut.

Zaph0d

Bluetonic wrote:

For a start the NFA (governing body in the states), who govern the marority of trades coming out of the IFSC, wouldn't probably grant a trading licence if the the work was to begin becasue of the risk of being unable to trade (and this is even with a mirror office in place on a seperate grid).

Is this really true?

The NFA adopted these fairly minimal rules on business continuuity in 2003:

NFA wrote:

(a) Each Member must establish and maintain a written business continuity and disaster recovery plan that outlines procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency or significant business disruption. The plan shall be reasonably designed to enable the Member to continue operating, to reestablish operations, or to transfer its business to another Member with minimal disruption to its customers, other Members, and the commodity futures markets.

(b) Each Member must provide NFA with the name of and contact information for an individual who NFA can contact in the event of an emergency, and the Member must update that information upon request. Each IB, CPO, and CTA Member that has more than one principal and each FCM Member must also provide NFA with the name of and contact information for a second individual who can be contacted if NFA cannot reach the primary contact, and the Member must update that information upon request. These individuals must be authorized to make key decisions in the event of an emergency.

The IFSC was only built a few years ago so the locations of all power and telecoms circuits are surely well known and ducted.

Bluetonic

Zaph0d wrote:

Is this really true?

The NFA adopted these fairly minimal rules on business continuuity in 2003: The IFSC was only built a few years ago so the locations of all power and telecoms circuits are surely well known and ducted.

Even with them being fairly well known, given the standard of workmanship there's a risk that unplaned disruption will still occur.

As for the NFA, having compiled some of the technological material for a Disaster Recover Plan which was present to the NFA from my compnay I can tell you they are extremely strict on detail.

Victor

MarkoP11 wrote:

Now it is true the RPA screwed up on the Luas project, clearly they have learned there lesson.

I'm sure you'll agree, just because the RPA did a bad construction phase doesn't make Luas "bad".