An Bord Pleanála gives Metro North go ahead

Van.Bosch · 28-10-2010 12:01pm #1

ThanksI also see that they can only commence enabling works and cannot go past that point until the amended order is submitted for the new depot etc. I assume this can be done by the time enabling works/utility diversions are completed. I thought I read this would take 2 years.All they need now is the government to approve the spending...

LeinsterDub · 28-10-2010 12:06pm

The multi-billion-euro Metro North project in Dublin has been given the green light by An Bord Pleanála.

Metro North - Two stops have been eliminated

The multi-billion-euro Metro North project in Dublin has been given the green light by An Bord Pleanála.
The rail link from St Stephen's Green to Swords now faces final approval from the Government on a cost benefit analysis.
The infrastructure project is described as the biggest in the history of the State and the ruling from An Bord Pleanála runs to 1,700 pages.
The board has given permission for an underground track from St Stephen's Green to north of Ballymun where it will cross the M50 on a flyover.
It will go underground at Dublin Airport stopping at a centralised transport hub before going overground again to Swords with some of the line on stilts due to the undulating landscape.
The board has eliminated two stops at Belinstown and Seatown and ordered the relocation of a depot and park-and-ride facility.
It wants the park-and-ride facility and depot moved from Belinstown, which is north of Swords, because of the risk of flooding.
The overall 18km line has therefore been shortened by 2.3km.
The final plan for the underground section at Ballymun and the stop at O'Connell Street also need to be finalised.
But it is the proposed 'big dig' in the city centre, involving moving statues like the O'Connell monument and closing off part of St Stephen's Green, that is causing concern to some businesses.
Enabling works on underground utility lines is due to start next spring, while the construction itself is scheduled to last from 2012 to 2016.
The overall estimated cost has varied from €5bn at the height of the boom to €3bn now with reduced construction costs.
Supporters point out that because it will be a public-private partnership the initial cost will be taken by the private operator. The Rail Procurement Agency will have to make a final decision between two consortiums - Celtic Metro Group and Metro Express - in coming months.
A number of economic studies have been carried out by the RPA with the latest showing that for every €1 spent on the Metro there will be €2 back in terms of overall economic benefit.
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore has said the Metro North project should be postponed while Transport Minister Noel Dempsey has said it will go ahead subject to a final cost analysis.
The RPA says the line will be able to carry 20,000 passengers an hour with 10km underground providing a journey time of 20 minutes from Dublin Airport to the city centre.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1028/metro.html

A other step a long the long and winding roads to MN .

Bluetonic · 28-10-2010 12:10pm

Van.Bosch wrote: »

but was the park and ride not meant to be at lissenhal? I thought this was one of the key aspects of the plan?

From RTE.ie

The board has eliminated two stops in the Swords area - at Belinstown and Seatown - and has ordered the relocation of a depot and park and ride facility.

The board wants the park and ride facility and depot moved from Belinstown, is north of Swords, because of the risk of flooding. It wants the park and ride moved to near the Malahide estuary and the depot to Dardistown near Dublin airport.

So the P&R will just be relocated in the general area of Hertz where there is lots of space available, or the Swords Business Campus area.

GizAGoOfYerGee · 28-10-2010 12:46pm

Great news, but only half the battle.

Another article from the Irish Times

ÉANNA Ó CAOLLAÍ

An Bord Pleanála has approved plans to build a light rail system from Dublin's city centre to Swords.

The scheme is approved from the Estuary stop in Swords to St Stephen’s Green. However, significant conditions have been attached. The depot, stop and strategic park and ride facility at Belinstown and the stop at Lissenhall will not be developed.

An Bord Peanála said it considered a depot and headquarters at Lissenhall "would not perform well in strategic transport terms compared with other alternatives available in the vicinity of the airport". It said the fact it would be at the end of the line meant it was "more likely to result in inefficient empty running of metro vehicles and extended travel for staff".

It said Belinstown is at a "considerable distance" from Dublin airport or Swords and "would not represent the optimal location for long term efficient economic and environmentally sustainable operation of the rail service".

Permission to build a stop at Seatown was refused as the stops serving Swords "provide an adequate level of service to the town without compromising the service levels of Metro North or future development of the town".

In the interests of visual amenity and public safety, the Drumcondra stop has to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority before starting the development of this element of the scheme. Some elements of the stop at Swords and O'Connell St are to be reviewed "in the interests of pedestrian safety and free-flow".

The detailed designs of each stop within the administrative area of Fingal County Council are to be submitted to that planning authority for written agreement.

Several city businesses have called on the Government to cancel the project or postpone it until the economy recovers.

Businessman Colm Carroll, who owns nine gift shops in the city centre, has recently launched No To Metro North, a campaign to stop the project that he said would “rip the whole city apart”, costing thousands of jobs and closing firms.

Did they really need to include this? :rolleyes: There is only one Irish person that cares about Colm fecking Carrol and his plastic leprechaun franchise, and that is Colm Carrol.

Mint Sauce · 28-10-2010 12:50pm

I thought An Bord Pleanála all ready gave the go ahead.

Amtmann · 28-10-2010 12:55pm

The route has been shortened by 2.3km according to that RTE report. This will further reduce construction costs.

GizAGoOfYerGee · 28-10-2010 1:04pm

irish-stew wrote: »

I thought An Bord Pleanála all ready gave the go ahead.

Nope. We were expecting an announcement in June, July and then August, and then APB wanted another 3 months :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's approved now. Now we have to wait another few months for the government to either go ahead with it or defer it. If they defer it, we can forget about any Metro North until 2020.

Sponge Bob · 28-10-2010 1:10pm

Where the **** are the Park and Rides going if Lissenhall and Belinstown are both scrappaged ???? :eek:

GizAGoOfYerGee · 28-10-2010 1:21pm

RPA response

This order provides sufficient clarity for RPA to now proceed to the final stage of the PPP procurement process. This is due to be complete by the end of 2011, by which time we would expect the conditions attached to the order to be satisfied.

In the meantime, the order also permits RPA to proceed with the enabling works as planned. These works, involving diversion of utilities in the city centre and heritage works are due to commence in March 2011.

dynamick · 28-10-2010 1:23pm

What happens now? Will the RPA have to reapply to the board for permission for things like the relocated depot and p&r? Can the bidders make their final offers before they know the exact spec of what is permitted by Bord Pleanala?

GizAGoOfYerGee · 28-10-2010 1:24pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Where the **** are the Park and Rides going if Lissenhall and Belinstown are both scrappaged ???? :eek:

Plenty of room either side of and north of Estuary. Perhaps the stop with be shifted north.

dowlingm · 28-10-2010 1:36pm

Jeez, I guess ABP missed the memo from the government that they should deny and then give dept of finance clean hands on the deferral

As for the shortening of the line - those 2.3km would probably have been the cheapest on a per-km basis. The cost per km just went up, something that will doubtless be seized upon by some parties.

noelfirl · 28-10-2010 1:55pm

dowlingm wrote: »

Jeez, I guess ABP missed the memo from the government that they should deny and then give dept of finance clean hands on the deferral

Well let's get the new conspiracy theory out of the way then:

The government via their swarthy subservient Darth Dempsey encouraged ABP to grant a railway order (for publicity and feel good purposes) whilst ensuring additional conditions that would delay the start in the main construction. An election unsuprisingly gets called in Jan/Feb 2012 thus eliminating the need for FF to commit to the start date, and laying the cancellation order at the feet of the incoming FG/Lab government.

Now that that's done with, I don't honestly think it will be started due to the above scenario, either deliberately or due to time just running out. Neither of the incoming parties will commit and it'll be off the table forever. The winner of the two consortiums will kick up a stink and a PPP of this size and nature will never happen again with Ireland having a good reputation of being foosterin incompetent eejits in this regard. DART underground will probably be taken down aswell. No commitment to taking roadspace for BRT, or bus priority junctions, but more buses anyway. City descends into another quagmire of inefficient public transport until the next moderate growth phase in 10-15 years, signalling a return to the reports of crippling traffic gridlock on Dublin's main arteries. New strategy - Transport 52.

Pete_Cavan · 28-10-2010 2:05pm

The government via their swarthy subservient Darth Dempsey encouraged ABP to grant a railway order (for publicity and feel good purposes) whilst ensuring additional conditions that would delay the start in the main construction.

Main construction cant start until the enabiling works are completed so any conditions that the government did or did not instruct ABP to attach will not delay the project at all. Some people will come up with a conspiracy theory from anything.

senordingdong · 28-10-2010 2:07pm

And is it still going over all that land owned by the corrupt developers?

Pete_Cavan · 28-10-2010 2:17pm

senordingdong wrote: »

And is it still going over all that land owned by the corrupt developers?

No, it was never going near Carrickmines.

noelfirl · 28-10-2010 2:19pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Main construction cant start until the enabiling works are completed so any conditions that the government did or did not instruct ABP to attach will not delay the project at all. Some people will come up with a conspiracy theory from anything.

Not my theory, I could just see someone on here coming up with it. Anyway, I was posting under the wrong opinion, I misremembered an article recently that the main construction would begin in early 2012 (thus that the "end 2011" revisions would infringe on that timetable) rather then in mid-2012 when it is actually supposed to be. In light of that, I am wrong and the ABP specifications havn't at first glance put any delay on main construction. I still have my doubts seeing the main construction start date near to the last possible date for an election.

monument · 28-10-2010 2:19pm

irish-stew wrote: »

I thought An Bord Pleanála all ready gave the go ahead.

There was some misleading newspaper headlines and intros about the RPA saying when it could start work on the project which only stated that approval was still pending later in the articles. And some radio reports missed this small print at the time.

DWCommuter · 28-10-2010 2:29pm

senordingdong wrote: »

And is it still going over all that land owned by the corrupt developers?

Yes.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/mar/01/bailey-brothers-sitting-on-a-pot-of-metro-gold-in-/

AngryLips · 28-10-2010 2:38pm

What does everyone on here make of the requirement for a new CBA given that the original return on investment radio of 2:1 has been bandied as a stick to beat down any dissenting opinion on the case for MN?

senordingdong · 28-10-2010 2:40pm

So will it still go through the land owned by those dodgy developers?

Why does the bord not think the other stops and depot are not needed?

monument · 28-10-2010 2:47pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

Yes.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/mar/01/bailey-brothers-sitting-on-a-pot-of-metro-gold-in-/

Err... Lissenhall and Belinstown have been cut by ABP as one of the conditions. There's no permission for it.

senordingdong · 28-10-2010 2:48pm

monument wrote: »

Err... Lissenhall and Belinstown have been cut by ABP as one of the conditions. There's no permission for it.

I wonder if that's a good sign.

Doubht it's for the reasons we would hope though.

DWCommuter · 28-10-2010 3:38pm

monument wrote: »

Err... Lissenhall and Belinstown have been cut by ABP as one of the conditions. There's no permission for it.

They still have land near Airside retail park along the alignment.

monument · 28-10-2010 4:02pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

They still have land near Airside retail park along the alignment.

Missed that as it was so far down the article.

I think the difference there is that the route near Airside and the Pavillion was a given as makes sense given the shopping and employment around there. But north of Swords there was the question as why the line was turning away from Donabate and towards open fields. Opening that area towards the previously proposed park and ride to development would have been a bit crazy and ABP may not have been been able to do that much to stop development up there in the mid to long run.

Transportuser09 · 28-10-2010 4:14pm

senordingdong wrote: »

So will it still go through the land owned by those dodgy developers?

Why does the bord not think the other stops and depot are not needed?

I think the depot is being relocated as opposed to not being built at all.

BluntGuy · 28-10-2010 6:31pm

Good to see the unnecessary part of the scheme being cut away, with the bits that make sense being maintained. There is no way ANY major development should be allowed anywhere near where those proposed outer stops were for at least another 10-20 years.

Now what's required is a convincing and more importantly transparent business case so that those of us who would lend our support to the project - if we were given all the facts, can actually get behind it.

More importantly, if this is to go ahead, the government should commit to it in THIS budget. If they hold it off, we'll know for almost certain they're not serious. They have the majority of the planning permission, the enabling works are allegedly starting early next spring, we're told the PPP procurement is making good progress AND the government is preparing an overall four-year budget submission. In short, we should know by the end of the year if they're serious about this.

dynamick · 28-10-2010 6:52pm

Only 75m needs to be allocated in the December budget for enabling works for Metro North for next year. In July, capital expenditure for 2011 was estimated at 5,500m by the DoF. So there is no question of the Metro allocation being cut in the budget. The capital repayments only start in 2018 or whenever the Metro is operational. At that stage the amounts will be approx 150m per year which is affordable no matter what size of capital budget we have.

dRNk SAnTA · 28-10-2010 7:10pm

I really don't understand some peoples hostility to this line, it seems to tick a lot of boxes for me. The line will last over 100 years, this is the type of spending that the government should be borrowing for. Now that it has planning permission, it's something that can begin relatively quickly and help create some employment.

noelfirl · 28-10-2010 8:02pm

Hmmm...

Fine Gael Transport Spokesman Simon Coveney welcomed the approval, but warned of a huge ‘information deficit’ about its business plan.

“For some time Fine Gael has been in favour, in principle, of the Metro North project. It makes sense to dramatically upgrade public transport infrastructure on the northside of the city.

“We look forward to the Railway Procurement Agency publishing the revised business case so that the public can see the full costs, and benefits, associated with this project. At such a critical time for the economy, it is essential that taxpayers know exactly how much major projects will cost, and what they will gain from them."

http://www.build.ie/national_news.asp?newsid=118494

I thought FG were for the kicking it into the long grass/redirecting funds to the Knock branch.

Cool Mo D · 28-10-2010 9:00pm

Well, better late then never. Now, let's see if it's built.

dowlingm · 28-10-2010 10:25pm

Having the depot at Sillogue (MW site) or nearer the alignment will entail more deadheading from the depot to the start of Swords service every morning/end of every evening. If at Sillogue that will mean a km or two of non-revenue track and potentially the start of MW towards Blanchardstown since the triangle and most of the depot will be built in MN's budget.

They could consider a branch service from Swords to Blanch (preferably not using the drunken-stagger Emerging Preferred Route - pdf), getting MW started with minimum additional investment and without taking up too many depot tracks - Porterstown/Coolmine would be better but with the rail line south of the Liffey that means a big ticket item to get across.

Carawaystick · 28-10-2010 11:53pm

Not having the park and ride near the Lissenhall M1 junction will reduce the amount of custom from existing M1 traffic as well as reducing the catchment from Donabate.
Also traffic leaving a more southerly P&R wil cause more conjestion getting from the R132 onto the M1N, as there is no slip road to allow this movement when the traffic lights are allowing traffic off the M1N onto the R132.

BluntGuy · 29-10-2010 7:24am

*sigh*

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/government-signals-end-of-line-for-metro-north-2399465.html

I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that this has been scrapped but it does highlight exactly what I've been saying.

BluntGuy wrote: »

More importantly, if this is to go ahead, the government should commit to it in THIS budget. If they hold it off, we'll know for almost certain they're not serious.

Transport Minister Noel Dempsey yesterday said a formal decision would be made at the end of next year.

Mr Cowen also refused to commit to the project.

Again, putting it off. No commitment in 2008, none last year, none this year.

As I said on another thread;

BluntGuy wrote: »

We shall see what they're up to once the railway order is granted, they can't hide behind planning forever. Their current attitude is very suspicious though. It feels like there is no intent, no commitment, no genuine desire for this metro beyond soundbites and PR.

The mixed message the government is sending out is very disconcerting. Back in July when they chopped the NDP in half and presented it as an excellent new capital investment plan, the money for MN (and Dart Underground) was allegedly allocated. They secured a 500 million loan from the EIB. The PPP process is supposed to be going well. Costs have plummeted allegedly. So the if-ing and but-ing and maybes and putting off of decisions is not indicative of a project the government have genuine confidence in.

We shall have to see what happens in the budget.

Jervis · 29-10-2010 8:34am

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I think the depot is being relocated as opposed to not being built at all.

It has to be - you can't operate a service without a depot. Therefore the whole thing is effectively on hold for say another year whilst the RPA plans and submits another Railway Order to ABP for the depot and possibly another park and ride. It would be extremely risky to commit to building the rest of the infrastructure without having the necessary planning approval for a depot.

In the meantime the business case will have to be re-evaluated taking into consideration the fact that the line no longer serves the proposed high-density development north of Swords. Whilst track construction and operating costs may come down as the line is shorter, the future demand (which drove the need for this line to have a 'metro' capacity of 20,000 rather than a 'Luas' capacity of say 8,000) will be significantly affected.

Fingal's vision for north Swords, based on greenfield development around the Metro line has been given the thumbs down, at least for the time being, by ABP's decision.

Bluetonic · 29-10-2010 8:51am

Jervis wrote: »

In the meantime the business case will have to be re-evaluated taking into consideration the fact that the line no longer serves the proposed high-density development north of Swords.

The Estuary stop will more than serve that purpose.

Have you actually read the main reason why the depot and final stop were left out? It's on a flood plain.

bg07 · 29-10-2010 10:21am

BluntGuy wrote: »

*sigh*

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/government-signals-end-of-line-for-metro-north-2399465.html

I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that this has been scrapped but it does highlight exactly what I've been saying.

Again, putting it off. No commitment in 2008, none last year, none this year.

As I said on another thread;

The mixed message the government is sending out is very disconcerting. Back in July when they chopped the NDP in half and presented it as an excellent new capital investment plan, the money for MN (and Dart Underground) was allegedly allocated. They secured a 500 million loan from the EIB. The PPP process is supposed to be going well. Costs have plummeted allegedly. So the if-ing and but-ing and maybes and putting off of decisions is not indicative of a project the government have genuine confidence in.

We shall have to see what happens in the budget.

No surprise that a politician of the calibre of Mary Coughlan is not backing this project. She would be more in favour of projects like this Link. I wonder what the cost benefit ratio worked out as for this project. I suppose that FF would be able to save more seats by building a number of schemes like this and WRC around the country rather than building useful infrastructure projects in Dublin or other large urban centres.

dubhthach · 29-10-2010 8:54pm

Here's a render of the layout of O'Connell bridge station. It stretches from Fleet Street to Abbey street. Came across these two images on archiseek.

lods · 29-10-2010 10:07pm

Bluetonic wrote: »

The Estuary stop will more than serve that purpose.

Have you actually read the main reason why the depot and final stop were left out? It's on a flood plain.

That's even more scary that the RPA didn't see that as an issue

Carawaystick · 29-10-2010 10:14pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Here's a render of the layout of O'Connell bridge station. It stretches from Fleet Street to Abbey street. Came across these two images on archiseek.

The fact there's only access from the west side of Westmoreland st shows the appalling planning of this transport system.

Telchak · 30-10-2010 12:34am

Carawaystick wrote: »

The fact there's only access from the west side of Westmoreland st shows the appalling planning of this transport system.

You couldn't fit decent size escalators on the other side. You'd have to close the whole street if you even found the room to create a small entrance

I respect the opinion of people that don't agree with this project for decent reasons, but finding something to attack out of every little detail...

dubhthach · 30-10-2010 11:36am

Carawaystick wrote: »

The fact there's only access from the west side of Westmoreland st shows the appalling planning of this transport system.

Looking at the map it's clearly visible that there is a pedestrian crossing/traffic lights planned for beside the esclator. Nice that they also included the track of the Luas in the layout.

Roryhy · 30-10-2010 12:15pm

Is there an entrance on O'Connell St? I dont see it...

Telchak · 30-10-2010 1:45pm

Roryhy wrote: »

Is there an entrance on O'Connell St? I dont see it...

It's just not on this particular cross section, you can see it on other documents (:

Carawaystick · 31-10-2010 12:28am

Telchak wrote: »

You couldn't fit decent size escalators on the other side. You'd have to close the whole street if you even found the room to create a small entrance

I respect the opinion of people that don't agree with this project for decent reasons, but finding something to attack out of every little detail...

Westmoreland street is four wide traffic lanes wide, the eastern lane has parking which hardly blocks the eastern lane which only serves traffic turning back to d'Olier st.

It's hardly beyond the bounds of possibility to have entrances and exits on that side of the street.

the attached map shows the taxi bays for the westin, which are about 2m in from the kerbline. With the busgate, there is much less traffic on westmoreland st than previously, so closing a lane is not a huge obstacle.

There should probably be access to college street also, there's a large number of bus routes served there and reducing the number of pedestrians crossing the roads there would allow the throughput of road traffic increase.

I'm not just knocking this aspect of it, every city centre station has restricted access, same with the dart underground. Gettin people to cross a street to go underground was thought a bad idea in many cities long before now. Look at the Fosteritos in Bilbo for an example.

JohnC. · 31-10-2010 11:13am

That map only appears to show two traffic lanes, not four. A third is taken by Luas and perhaps the present fourth is taken by the underground access(?), with bus stops either side of where it sticks out.

Telchak · 31-10-2010 1:22pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Westmoreland street is four wide traffic lanes wide, the eastern lane has parking which hardly blocks the eastern lane which only serves traffic turning back to d'Olier st.

It's hardly beyond the bounds of possibility to have entrances and exits on that side of the street.

the attached map shows the taxi bays for the westin, which are about 2m in from the kerbline. With the busgate, there is much less traffic on westmoreland st than previously, so closing a lane is not a huge obstacle.

Perhaps this map with BXD will show that there is absolutely no room, the street will already be closed to two lanes. Maybe we could raze the old EBS building and build one there, do we own that now? :P

jd · 31-10-2010 1:34pm

There is a report in the Sunday Business Post that the Metro Express consortium may withdraw from the project

"For us, the planning body appears completely incompetent.
..
There is a lot of ill-considered talk about the costs of the metro..
..
It will operate the same as the Luas, which is currently making a surplus forthe Government"

The Celtic Metro confirmed the group was still committed to the project

Telchak · 31-10-2010 1:59pm

Metro Express has AIB as it's bank if I remember correctly, wonder could that be causing problems

jd · 31-10-2010 2:05pm

Telchak wrote: »

Metro Express has AIB as it's bank if I remember correctly, wonder could that be causing problems

Yip AIB id the bank involved in Metro Express

Mitsui provides funding for the other consortium

senordingdong · 02-11-2010 10:44am

dubhthach wrote: »

Looking at the map it's clearly visible that there is a pedestrian crossing/traffic lights planned for beside the esclator. Nice that they also included the track of the Luas in the layout.

What this city needs is more over/underpasses and less pedstrian crossings.

An Bord Pleanála gives Metro North go ahead

Comments