Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Cork - Light Rail [route options identification and initial design underway]

13133353637

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Capture.PNG

    Some serious guff going up on the Highfield RFC Instagram page. Comments roughly 50/50 bots/nimbys and people giving out about Nimbys.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭jimbob955


    There's actual a lot of pushback on this post, which I am surprised about really, maybe the silent majority can start pushing back on all the NIMBY negativity



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭Corkladddd!!


    I will say (and with transparency I had/have connections to Highfield) that the comment on cutting the club in half does have some merit. The main pitch 1 is normally a match pitch and 2 is the main training location, the proposed route in red essentially bisects the overall site. The normal use of the club will require players/patrons to cross the track, something that is doable no doubt but given the high level of underage activity there is considerable merit to the fact that there is a risk to having active trams and children in close proximity.

    image.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,834 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Weird to use a picture showing an unobstructed playing pitch. It looked lovely going by the picture.

    Saw a load of school kids heading into Collins Barracks recently from the Memorial park.

    Don't know how they are still alive to be honest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭Corkladddd!!


    I was just illustrating the point, I'm in favour of the Luas, in fact you'll see above a suggestion that we actually rationalise the playing pitches and give a better community asset. If you cannot see a genuine risk with kids crossing the Luas then you need to review your own approach to these things.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Not buying it. It's a theoretical risk, not a "genuine" one. The tram has a driver, who has a clear line of sight, the driver can stop if a kid runs out in front of this, the only vehicle using the tracks. How is this a greater risk to children than crossing a road where cars are driven - something they do every day to get to and from training.

    This is not about child safety. If it were, the club would have led their complaints with that. They haven't. So far they've said nothing at all about why they're against the line, only that if the line is built, it will somehow bring an end to the club.

    This campaign is nonsense: the board needs to decide between supporting their community or supporting the club car park.

    @Corkladddd!! ...you have the tracks in the wrong place on your picture. First, the path is not that wide, and second the route does not touch the grass of Pitch 1 at all; the school field to the south provides land here..

    image.png

    You can download the real plan from corkluas.ie. It shows the field boundaries and the path of the tracks and cycleway

    Post edited by KrisW1001 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,834 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Kids cross tram lines every day in Ireland. Way more will cross them in central Cork than at these pitches. So no I can't see a genuine risk.

    I know plenty of clubs that have a pitch either side of a road but cars going "up and down" never gets the same scrutiny.

    If it's about child safety just put traffic lights. Job done and I'm sure the clubs will have no more complaints.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭jimbob955


    I see where you are coming from. I didn't realize pitch 2 was the rugby club either. But as you said maybe there could be a rationalising of the rugby pitches/GAA/school pitch. Something could be figured out surely and PAID for!!!

    My issue is the club/patrons have a right to have concerns. But not control the narrative. Instructing members to say NO to the Luas without any alternative proposed, an acknowledgment that the LUAS will bring positives to the communityy. Not all bad, Luas bad say no to Luas. Dictating the media reports on the issue, creating fear.

    Perhaps there could be a work around, a tunnel to connect both pitches, or move the line further south maybe.

    I see it so often around Cork, no to this, no to that. No to a greenway or cycle lane or bus lane, all no, never any solutions or alternatives



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭Corkladddd!!


    I was only illustrating the background to "cut in half" comment. I'm aware the real drawings are available but not everyone is able to read a technical drawing, I was hoping to illustrate the point and help others understand both sides.

    The concern I have (and only me, I do not speak on behalf of the club) is around how the club functions with the connectivity, plenty smarter than I can figure this out (in fact Jimbob has some suggestions that merit exploration!) but I do think it needs to be segregated as there's a genuine risk at all times with pedestrian tram interaction, I would suggest it's elevated here as people would unconsciously see a sports club as a safe space for kids to run around unattended (I was one of these kids and hopefully so will my kids), not at all comparable to a road. The fact that the risk exists in other clubs does not mean that we should be okay with increasing it here without full debate.

    I'm all for this project, I will be submitting in favour of this as on balance I think that there are issues but that they can be resolved and it can deliver greatly for the Cork area.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,299 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Well, let’s close those car parks in the respective clubs.

    And the roads outside…..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭JohnDoe2025


    Great points, but they are also a clear argument for closing the car parks too. If kids are running around unattended, they are at greater risk from distracted drivers in car parks than from trained Luas drivers. There would also be more cars coming and going in a couple of hours than trams in a week.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    I don’t have the injury rates for Dublin in front of me, but I would bet that far more children have been struck and killed by cars than trams. To be honest I can’t think of a single child being seriously harmed by a Luas since it opened in 2004. Cars on the other hand…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    True, not everyone is able to read a technical drawing, but I would have expected the Rugby Club to find someone — I cannot believe that this the only Rugby club in the country without any engineers in its membership! And it’s not as if these are particularly complex - TII has put a lot of work into making these clearly readable, and marking exactly what lands are to be taken; there are even pictures of how the line will look at various points along its length.

    The plans for here are at this link: luas-cork-map-book-2-cork-city-west-a3-web-1.pdf, Maps 26 and 27 cover the two clubs.

    Regarding child safety, Map 26 includes a cross-section drawing that shows that the way through here will be fenced off (reproduced here, fences circled). Note that there’s a cycleway between the footpath and the trams. There’s no reason for a child to run onto the tracks here, because there is nothing reachable beyond the tracks, and they would also have to cross a cycleway first. I expect this layout to continue all the way through the green-laned section here.

    image.png

    Around this area there are two places where pedestrians and vehicles can cross the lines, so these are the only areas where I expect the side fences will be absent. They are:

    1. Entrance to Bishopstown GAA car park - full vehcile and pedestrian access.
    2. Link between upper and lower pitches at Highfield RFC - mainly for pedestrians, with access for club vehicles, same as at present.

    Highfield RFC is the biggest loser in terms of land, but the biggest winner in terms of service. In exchange for the bottom of their car-park, the club gains a new pedestrian entrance to the Club grounds below the clubhouse, that puts the clubhouse a mere 120 metre walk from the proposed Bishopstown Avenue stop:

    image.png

    For this to be useful as a match-day entrance, a turnstile or booth needs to be put there, but this isn’t expensive, and is something I’m sure the Luas project can pay for. Where it really benefits the club is for functions using the clubhouse - they will have a venue with a tram stop basically outside the door.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭jimbob955


    Fantastic detail here @KrisW1001, I don't have this skill to decipher maps!!

    @Corkladddd!! thank you for engaging here, and for highlighting legitimate concerns that you and the club have. I think this is all we want on here, fair and balanced engagement and debate.

    @Corkladddd!! is there a way you can communicate this to the club. Yes there will be changes, a loss in car spaces, an impact to a pitch but the benefits completely outweigh the negatives. It can't just be all NO from Highfield and other NIMBY groups, it has to be a fair and balanced look at things.

    I also agree re risk to kids, in that case all cars should be banned in all GAA/sports clubs in Ireland, a flawed argument in my book.

    Thanks to all today, I enjoy the debate and learning a bit more about the Luas.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41856474.html

    Would you look at that, another anti-Luas article in De Paper…

    Highfield warns that expecting children to cross a tram route is so dangerous they would have to stop offering underage rugby, and also that losing a few parking spaces would imperil a “vital revenue stream”, which as others have noted is probably the only real objection they have.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74 ✭✭Hailtothethief


    Job for tomorrow. Check the planning permissions granted to the GAA and the rugby club to see if they could run a commercial carpark rather than a carpark to support a sporting club.

    It wouldn't be the first planning breach I've reported.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 706 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    Interesting thought, but does a club need planning permission to rent out its spaces? I’m not sure it would.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭JohnDoe2025


    I think it does, there was a problem with Lansdowne Rugby Club and car parking for a car dealer.

    https://extra.ie/2024/09/06/news/irish-news/rugby-club-planning-row

    I think there was also an issue with another club over parking for events in the RDS.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    There’s definitely a problem if they were to offer car parking to all comers at a daily rate, as that’s basically running a public car-park - an activity that requires planning permission, public liability insurance and so on. However, the arrangement used by both clubs is more like a private sub-letting contract - payment in advance for the right to use a space, same monthly rental fee is payable whether or not you actually use it. It's a subtle difference in practice, but I suspect that it makes a big difference in terms of planning conditions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,834 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    You are right it's not at all comparable to a road.

    Because it's far safer than a road.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭Corkladddd!!


    No worries, same, I thought I was balanced and trying to present as so but still getting concerns across.

    I'm not involved with the club to make any representations being honest, former player sometimes visitor.

    I'm in agreement, fair and balanced is the way to go!

    FWIW for anyone discussing this with someone that is anti Luas, I didn't feel my views were given any credence here and were dismissed out of hand, if I was already in a negative mindset this would harden my view.

    To get the general Cork community behind this I think we need to be careful we don't let our views (one way or the other) make us disregard the point of views of the other side, we need solutions not problems @jimbob955 thought you did this well with a suggestion of a Bridge for pedestrians



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭Corkladddd!!


    I get it, but to my point above, your constant dismissal of a point of view is having the opposite effect you are trying to achieve.

    This is not quantitative, I'm aware of the statistics and aware they are inherently safer. But the current risk of a child getting hit by a Luas is zero, no matter how little it is you need to concede that the risk increases but when you do suggest a way we mitigate it so it becomes tolerable to Joe Soap and bring them to meet you in the middle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,834 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    You are not being dismissed you are being disagreed with. People heard you, listened and think your ideas are wrong.

    Its always the same these cries for meeting people halfway even if half way is a stupid idea.

    I think it's telling that you don't believe the general Cork community are already behind this.

    Also the tram will increase safety by getting kids out of dangerous cars and getting dangerous cars off the road.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭jimbob955


    Echo with a now daily negative article on the Luas

    @Corkladddd!! I think to be fair to you, you were open and balanced and totally correct to highlight concerns. And you are correct, maybe this page has jumped on you a bit too easily.

    From my perspective, I just get frustrated when I see NIMBY (not you!!) groups, controlling the narrative, scare mongering, never acknowledging any positives, maybe you took the brunt of that here yesterday, apologies and maybe some influence can be made on the club or ex-players or whatever, that the Luas can't be all bad!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I think the design team should have done a 3D mockup/rendering of this section, as it was always going to come under scrutiny. That would have shown the fencing and headed off the concerns about pedestrian safety. The design also allows space for a fence between the cycle/footpaths and the tramways, but honestly this is not necessary: we do not fence off footpaths from roads where cars drive.

    The problem is that this is still not a final design - it’s effectively a request for feedback - and if you put too much into early design proposals, you can end up with stuff that nobody needed, or worse, the project gets derailed by an argument over something trivial.

    I can’t help but feel that Highfield are so scared of the loss of parking revenue that they have not fully considered how this will benefit the club in the long run. If I were them, I’d be looking for “compensation” which I’d use to extend the clubhouse and function facilities - can’t let Cork Con have all the bookings!

    Actually, on that topic, did anyone else notice just how many rugby grounds this line serves? The line starts a mile east of Ballincollig RFC, serves MTU, Highfield, Pres (Dennehy’s Cross), Mardyke, and Cork Con…and I may have missed one too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,183 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    It's basically a rugby train. Or a sports train, given all the GAA facilities also linked up.

    PuC or PuR match days just got infinitely easier for Bishopstown people. The club could even bring groups of kids to the game etc…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭JohnDoe2025


    That is the issue that Lansdowne Rugby Club had, they were renting the spaces on a full-time basis to a motor dealer. They ended up needing planning permission.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭jimbob955


    Ya, rugby really seems to have done well with the proposed Luas, for any sports club, it can only be a good thing, move players and supporters easier around the city and get to training and matches easier, have a few pints in the clubhouse on the way home, more money for jam



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    If any of these clubs wanted to push to hold bigger matches, the presence of the Luas makes it a lot easier to do so. Without it, there’s no way the likes of Highfield could ever get a large event through planning, because the only access is by car into a residential area.

    There’s a huge opportunity here, but it comes at the cost of a no-work money-spinner that the club has been using for decades. It’s not just the loss of the spaces being taken by the line that will hurt them; the Luas itself will reduce the demand for the remaining spaces, and thus the income that can be achieved for each. Honestly, if you’re coming from outside the city to work in CUH, your commute is going to be a lot calmer if you use a P+R at the edge and get the Luas to the hospital than if you battle all the way in to Bishopstown; even if you do have a parking space when you get there.

    Right now Highfield have fallen into the old category of “car-park operator opposes measures that will reduce demand for car parking”, and that’s a shame, because I’m fairly sure they didn’t set out to become a car-park operator - they ended up that way by chance, and now they’ve forgotten any other way to raise money.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74 ✭✭Hailtothethief


    Just relooking at the design and thinking about the pedestrian crossing aspect.

    As there's going to be fences, what about having the gaps in the fence at or before the station? That way, the tram is stopped in the station or moving very slowly (braking to a stop or moving away from a stop). Wouldn't the risk be greatly reduced by the lack of speed in the tram?

    I imagine an underpass would take more ground due to needing ramps (along with potential anti social activities) and an overpass would be the same (with the extra risk of items being dropped on the moving tram). If there was an underpass/overpass, would it be actually used a whole lot in reality?

    Or am I talking out of my arse?



Advertisement
Advertisement