Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Luas Finglas

12931333435

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    I would imagine the CPOs for the demolition of buildings plus the construction of a park and ride are a big part of the costs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,604 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    there appears to be cycle tracks along most of it.

    the planning website up now -

    and the info website (where the animation is from)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Telchak


    I think between the emerging preferred route and preferred route stages, if memory serves correct, there was a reduction in the amount of cycle lanes in the project.

    I vaguely remember some comments from TII receiving advice about them being outside the scope of the project and wanting to make the planning process more straightforward.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,557 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    FoR example , the luas line from say Dundrum to city centre, its a total straight line, surely they could have fit in a 1.5m cycle track?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,433 ✭✭✭markpb


    That line was built along an old heavy-rail line so “all” they had to do was lay new tracks. Widening it to add a cycle lane could possibly have involved CPOing gardens from a lot of houses and pushed up the timeframe and budget significantly. I think it would have been worth it, cycle infrastructure in that area is very poor, but sadly it didn’t happen.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,247 ✭✭✭Daith


    It would be nice to have a cycle lane from Charlestown to Broombridge, but hopefully the planned improvements to the Ratoath Road and Finglas Road (bus corridor?), it will help regardless.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,235 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Nice video but some very sloppy spelling of the locations captioned along the line.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,247 ✭✭✭Daith


    40 mins to get from Finglas West to Broombridge on the 40E. Ok, it's 8am and prime commuting time, but still, this Luas extension can't come soon enough



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    According to page 60 in the non technical summary, construction will take 3 years.

    Enabling works will take 1 year, and commissioning 9 months.

    https://www.luasfinglasro.ie/media/kambr4hl/luas-finglas-non-technical-summary-accessible-version.pdf



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,247 ✭✭✭Daith


    And we still have ABP to go through which won't be straightforward.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 transfer90


    Extract from non-technical summary:

    It is intended that the proposed Scheme will be operational in 2035
    (the opening year).
    A copy of the draft RO and documentation including the EIAR and
    the Natura Impact Statement may be inspected free of charge
    during public opening hours from 22th November 2024 until 20th
    January 2025 at the following locations:
    § The Offices of An Bord Pleanála, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin
    1, D01 V902;
    § The Offices of Dublin City Council, Civic Offices, Wood Quay,
    Dublin 8, D08 RF3F;
    § The Offices of Fingal County Council, County Hall, Main Street,
    Swords, County Dublin, K67 X8Y2;
    § Transport Infrastructure Ireland offices at Parkgate Business
    Centre, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8, D08 DK10; and
    § National Transport Authority offices at Haymarket House,
    Haymarket, Dublin 7, D07 CF98; (9.15am – 4pm Monday to
    Friday).
    Copies or extracts from the documentation accompanying the
    application for the RO may be purchased on payment of a fee not
    exceeding the reasonable cost of making such copy or extract from:
    § Transport Infrastructure Ireland, Parkgate Business Centre,
    Parkgate Street, Dublin 8, D08 DK10, Ireland
    Such purchase requests may be sent to Transport Infrastructure
    Ireland, Parkgate Business Centre, Parkgate Street, Dublin 8, D08
    DK10 or info@luasfinglas.ie or by calling Freephone 1800 666 888.
    The application may also be viewed / downloaded on / from the
    following website: www.luasfinglasro.ie from the 15th November 2024.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,604 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    how can it take 11 years? Surely that date is a hangover from the old plan.

    Even if you allow 2 years for ABP, plus 5 for construction and commissioning, they should aim to have the tendering and detailed design done in parallel.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,785 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Capacity, more than anything else, I'd assume. TII/NTA don't have the ability to run multiple major projects, so Metrolink and Dart+ would be prioritised before the Finglas Luas.

    Once they're most of the way through planning, and into construction, then they'd free up enough to deal with Finglas.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,023 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    2 years in planning?
    Ha!
    The optimism is strong here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 310 ✭✭danfrancisco83


    Would you just have to factor in 2 years for JRs and another 2 years for delays? I mean it's inevitable, so why not just plan for it?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    There is no way a decision should be taking more than 6 months, but what do I know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭Bsharp


    Its not in the current NDP for funding so can't start until after 2030 based on that.

    They need to agree a revised NDP to give it an earlier start date.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,023 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    I agree but ABP is completely not fit for purpose and is what’s holding this country back.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,648 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    There should be lots of funding available given how few major transport projects have commenced in the last 4-5 years



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,604 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    OK, that's probably the real explanation. I expect the NDP will be revised under the new govt and Fingluas could be moved up the list, as the planning has gone in ahead of schedule.

    Dart+W took 2 years to get through ABP (judicial review notwithstanding), I'd be hopeful with the new planning bill and extra resources being thrown at the system that this project could get through quicker.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I think the only reason Luas Finglas went to ABP was to stop a future government cancelling Metrolink and putting the airport link on the end of Luas Finglas.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,247 ✭✭✭Daith


    It would be great if the Finglas Luas did end up connecting with the Metrolink. Not that I'd be alive to see it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭Bsharp


    the NDP is restrictive for major projects above €200m. It provides a fixed strategy that can't be altered easily on a political whim.

    Downside is if it can't be easily changed then the likes of planning delays can't be countered to make use of funding available.

    Conclusion, fix the planning system so the strategy can be delivered as intended.

    Post edited by Bsharp on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,360 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    The Non-Technical Summary saying "operational in 2035 (the opening year)" is meaningless. TII have no control over what happens between now and then. They just need to get it into the planning system (done now) and see how things stand with whatever makes it out the other side, whenever that may be.

    If NDP is well behind spending profile (which it likely will be as most of the roads intended to be built this decade haven't even started their multi-year stint in planning), a fully approved Luas Finglas would be a good candidate to step in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 263 ✭✭specialbyte


    I wouldn't worry about the "Opening Year" terminology in the EIAR. They need to pick a somewhat plausible year for doing their environmental modelling. Construction durations in the planning application also tend to lean towards the more pessimistic scenarios as they need to screen, model and mitigate for the slight pessimistic scenarios. They can't get accused of overly optimistic numbers in the planning process underestimating the construction impacts of traffic, noise, dust etc on the local population. They would get skewered by the board if they did that.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    I know all of you will laugh at this but there really is no way a decision on such a small scheme should take more than six months.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Not laughing at it, absolutely a symptom of an utterly broken and under resourced planning system.

    Even in some other anglophone countries (not Britain, lol) like Canada there are projects proposed, planned, constructed and in operation in the time since Metrolink and D+ was announced.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Well, a few RO decisions have been announced. Maybe things are changing at ABP.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,023 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Even if things change at ABP and we get ROs delivered within 6 months, a JR should only be available in very exceptional circumstances.
    Im not sure if the new planning laws make that happen?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The courts should be more willing to not allow a JR to proceed unless it cannot be satisfied with a financial solution if successful or some other solution that could be satisfied by the project going ahead, with perhaps small modifications to the project.

    For example, the Bus Connects case of the unwanted bus stop outside the complainant's house could be satisfied by just omitting the errant bus stop - case closed.



Advertisement