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

Have to say, I think people are being overly dismissive of the safety issue of having tracks running through a single sports facility. It really isn't comparable to crossing on urban streets, be they with trafficked lanes and/or tracks. If there is to be fences along the tracks, that just gives credence to claims about splitting the club in half - not only will there be tracks but also two physical barriers. I'm not saying it's a show stopper but there's enough there to warrant further consideration and not just the dismissive attitude of some here.

Having said all that, there does look to me to be a fairly simple solution. As I said before, move the rugby training pitch parallel to the main GAA pitch, including using the triangular section of unused land on the GAA side of the fence (most of which is down for CPO anyway). That should (I'm guessing) leave enough room for the tracks to be routed around south of the training pitch, leaving the pitch connected to the rest of the rugby grounds without having to cross the tracks.

TII could also offer to rebuild the main rugby pitch, rotated 90° along the north edge of their grounds. No issues with impinging upon the pitch then. That would also allow parking be provided in a bigger space south of the pitch (north of the school grounds). I'd be pretty sure a single car park with a rationalised layout would yield at least as many spaces as there at present, even allowing for some loss of land for the Luas.

"Have to say, I think people are being overly dismissive of the safety issue of having tracks running through a single sports facility"

People are acting like games are played across both pitches with kids blindly running over and back constantly. It's not hurling over fields or 1800s soccer they are playing.

It will be a very small number of large movements and the same back around 100 minutes later.

They are acting like complete cnts with the language they are using and it's clear this is just a NIMBY excuse to have the whole thing cancelled.

It has to be a massive gain for the GAA County Board. These two venues can have proper traffic management plans pretty much for the first time ever and that must surely help reduce cost of events (traffic management) and increase the possibility of accepting new events.

When they eventually build a hotel on their "centre of excellence" (lol!) at PuC, that tram stop will be basically a transport subsidy for the hotel. In fact just getting permission for that hotel will be a lot easier with a tram stop because they won't need to worry as much about parking and transport management. They'll have a reasonably high-quality conference centre and adjacent accommodation with high-quality public transport linkage.

As others have said "[other organisations] should take note". There's serious opportunity here to get TII to pave the way for your sports facility to generate sustained ongoing revenue at times that the sports elements of the facilities are not in use. Which is generally work days, evenings, winter etc.

These sports organisations provide use of their facilities for exams, for events, etc. Some of these organisations are literally running bars on-premisis right now. It's alright to assume that because almost everyone arrives by car right now that everyone who ever wants to get there will drive, but the reality is that running any kind of business in a city becomes a whole lot easier when a mass transit system is at your door.

I know it'd be pain for Bishopstown and Highfield now but it's short-term pain and long-term gain surely. IMO the question should be around how best to work with the designers to achieve the optimal result, rather than trying to fight it.

It would have been enough to say "we don't want to have to fight against this, but we have serious concerns about the design and are urgently waiting to sit with the project team".

Overall risk would be reduced if the car park was permanently closed. The reduced risk from the cars would more than cancel out the increased risk from trams. As a mitigation measure, TII should propose that back to the club.

In response to the objections from the club. The club are claiming an increased risk to children, that can be mitigated by closing the car park and reducing the risk to children. Makes sense all round, the club see reduced risk to children, TII get their Luas.

It was in the link provided earlier.

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

""Access to these areas would require crossing a high-frequency twin-track Luas line, creating a physical and logistical barrier."

It cited health and safety concerns. Its large group of under-age players would be forced to cross the twin-track Luas lines, something which “may result in the termination of our underage offering”."

As I said, the car park is much more dangerous to the kids, so it should be closed as a mitigation measure.

The “may result in the termination of our underage offering” is obviously nonsense, I mean any decision to do so would come from the club and wouldn't honestly have anything to do with Luas. The "may" is the important word, basically makes it meaningless. It's hysterical nonsense but certain people will buy it, others will know it's nonsense but will nod along to those repeating it. It'll be resolved fairly easily anyway. Your suggestion on the other other hand would only unite more people against the project and would be more likely to kill it completely.

These comparisons with the car park achieve nothing. If anything, they'll just entrench people further again the project. Luckily, TII won't be engaging in that.

You have replicated the GAA pitch in your sketch. Highfield play rugby and a rugby pitch is 30m shorter and 20m narrower. With a rugby pitch, there's a lot more space to work with than what you've drawn. The turn on the western side would be tight but there are tight turns elsewhere on the route.

Running the tracks south of the pitch looks like a perfectly good solution to me. The curve radius could probably be tightened at the south east corner of the pitch that less landtake is required from the school. I'd also think the tracks could cut the corners on the overrun area on the southern side without impinging on the distance from the playing surface which would help the geometry. In any case, the engineers would have to look at it and determine what is possible. It wouldn't surprise me if something like that was the eventual solution.

Loss of land for the rugby club is irrelevant at that stage. Anything they lose isn't particularly usable anyway and they remain with two pitches and new need for them to cross the tracks, giving them what they want. That's how you resolve these issues, offer them a solution which resolves their concerns and if they still aren't happy, they will be in a weaker position if they drag it to court.

And I'm not being snotty. I don't accept that I am being an arse to everyone or that my responses have been pretty ****. Civil debate involves people offering an alternative view and that's all I am doing. I'm actually being impartial and seeing all sides, as TII will approach it. Others are going with a spiteful "well then take away their car park" response which would only cause more gnashing of teeth on all sides. I've acknowledged that some of the claims are nonsensical but that doesn't mean they don't also have concerns which will be considered.

Highfield's main issue is that the Luas divides their facility, which is true, there would be one pitch on one side and another pitch on the other side. Everything stems from that. The best way to kill off their complaint is to offer them a solution which resolves their complaint, if they still complain then it shows them up as being disingenuous. It'll also undermine their arguments if they take it to court. Telling them to fcuk off or punishing them by looking to remove their parking will only strengthen opposition, including from people not currently siding with the club, and weaken TII's whole consultation.

Posters here seem to want to punish the club which is not what TII will be doing. The approach of posters here would likely result in the whole project getting scrapped.

Imagine getting punished with a tram line. Only the third line in the country at that.

God I wish the government would come punish my local club.