DUBLIN LIGHT RAIL LINE C1 CONNOLLY STATION TO POINT DEPOT · dublin light rail line c1 connolly...
77
DUBLIN LIGHT RAIL LINE C1 CONNOLLY STATION TO POINT DEPOT FINDINGS OF INQUIRY JULY 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE STATIONERY OFFICE DUBLIN To be purchased directly from the GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS SALE OFFICE SUN ALLIANCE HOUSE, MOLESWORTH STREET, DUBLIN 2 Or by mail order from GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS, POSTAL TRADE SECTION 51 ST, STEPHEN’S GREEN, DUBLIN 2 (Tel: 01 6476834/35/36/37; Fax: 01 6476843) or through any bookseller. Prn. A6/1239 Price: €5.00
Transcript of DUBLIN LIGHT RAIL LINE C1 CONNOLLY STATION TO POINT DEPOT · dublin light rail line c1 connolly...
DUBLIN LIGHT RAIL LINE C1
CONNOLLY STATION TO POINT DEPOT
FINDINGS OF INQUIRY
JULY 2006
PUBLISHED BY THE STATIONERY OFFICE DUBLIN To be purchased directly from the
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS SALE OFFICE SUN ALLIANCE HOUSE, MOLESWORTH STREET, DUBLIN 2
Or by mail order from GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS, POSTAL TRADE SECTION
51 ST, STEPHEN’S GREEN, DUBLIN 2 (Tel: 01 6476834/35/36/37; Fax: 01 6476843)
or through any bookseller.
Prn. A6/1239 Price: €5.00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 - 2 2. NEED AND VIABILITY 2.1 The LUAS 3 - 4 2.2 Conclusion 4 - 5 3. CONSULTATION 3.1 Consultation with Statutory Bodies 6 3.2 Public Consultation 6 - 9 3.3 Conclusion 9 4. APPLICATION 4.1 Draft Order 10 4.2 Procedure 10 - 11 4.3 E.I.S. and Associated Documents 11 - 15 4.4 Adequacy of the E.I.S. 15 5. OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS 5.1 Dublin Transportation Office 16 5.2 Dublin Docklands Development Authority 16 5.3 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government 17 5.4 I.D.A. Ireland 17 5.5 Spencer Dock Development Company Limited/ Wintertide Limited 17 - 18 5.6 Treasury Holdings 18 5.7 State Street International (Ireland) Limited 18 5.8 North Wall Quay/Mayor Street Management Limited 18 - 19 5.9 Irish Life Assurance P.L.C. ] Harbourmaster III Ventures ] International House Company] 19
5.10 Custom House Docks Management Limited 19 5.11 Citigroup/Bank of Ireland 19 - 20 5.12 Point Exhibition Co./Point Village Co. 20 - 21 5.13 North Port Dwellers Association] Tony McDonnell ] Christopher Flynn ] 21 5.14 Chetham Holdings Limited 21 5.15 Artbrook Limited 21 5.16 C.I.E. Property Group 21 5.17 Dart for Lucan Campaign 22 5.18 Platform 11 22 5.19 Eamon Ryan T.D. 22 5.20 Colm Moore 22 - 23 5.21 National Transport Users Association 23 6. IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES 6.1 Introduction 24 6.2 Noise and Vibration 24 - 25 6.3 Traffic 25 - 28 6.4 Utilities 28 - 34 6.5 Other Aspects of the Environment 34 7. ROUTE SELECTION/ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Route Selection 35 - 40 7.2 Alternative Routes 40 - 43 7.3 Alternative Modes 43 - 45 7.4 E.I.S. consideration of alternatives 45 - 46 8. SUMMARY OF RPA EVIDENCE 47 - 49 9. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS 50 - 59 10. RPA RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS/ OBJECTIONS RECEIVED 60 - 65 11. CONDITIONS 66 - 68 12. CONCLUSION 69
13. APPENDICES 70 13.1 Draft Railway Order submitted by RPA 13.2 Maps depicting areas of land to be acquired 13.3 Maps (3) showing route options considered
in E.I.S. 13.4 Agreement reached by RPA regarding LUAS
Extension Project 13.5 E.I.S. 13.6 Documents (including Reports) received
from RPA and D.T.O. 13.7 Written Submissions/Reports from other parties
R E P O R T This Report has been prepared by the Inspector appointed under the Warrant of Appointment dated
the 19th day of December 2005 made by the Minister for Transport (hereinafter referred to as “the
Minister”) under the provisions of Section 42 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”).
1. INTRODUCTION:-
1.1. The LUAS Red and Green lines were respectively constructed and commenced operation in
June and September 2004. The LUAS Line C1 development under consideration in this
report involves an intended extension of the LUAS Red line from the existing terminus at
Connolly Station to the Point Depot.
It is intended that line C1 will be approximately 1,500 metres in length and that this will
comprise “on street” running along a double track extension from the existing line at Store
Street.
The route to be followed by the intended LUAS line C1 is that it will run for a short distance
along Amiens Street before turning Eastwards across the junction of Harbourmaster Place
and Mayor Street Lower. It is intended at this location that there will be a “Delta junction”
constructed to facilitate the passage of trams from the Connolly Terminus and through
traffic bypassing Connolly Terminus. It is intended that the LUAS line C1 will then
continue to run Eastwards along Mayor Street Lower crossing the George’s Dock via the
existing bridge. The route is then intended to continue along Mayor Street Lower crossing
Guild Street and over the Canal via the construction of a new bridge. The route is then
intended to continue through Spencer Dock development and re-establish the connection
between Mayor Street Lower and Upper. It is intended that the route will then cross New
Wapping Street and Castleforbes Road continuing along Mayor Street Upper before
terminating at the Point.
There are four proposed stops along the intended alignment at the following locations:-
1. George’s Dock at Mayor Street Lower.
2. Mayor Square on Mayor Street Lower.
3. Spencer Dock (within the Spencer Dock development).
4. The Point (Terminus).
- 1 -
It is intended that the stops will be of similar design to existing Red and Green line stops
with each of the four proposed stops comprising raised platforms approximately 281 mm.
high and 40 m. long with a 5 m. ramp at either end, where required, and that the platforms
will be a minimum of 3 m. wide, and, wherever possible, will be situated on either side of
the tracks to allow for level boarding and alighting by all passengers.
Trams will continue to be driven on “line of sight” basis. The line will be controlled from
the existing Central Control Room at Red Cow Depot.
The development of the LUAS line extension will involve the acquisition of the areas of
land which are identified in the map at Appendix 2.
The work on these sites is expected to take about 20 months (with enabling works to
commence beforehand); and to expedite the construction work it is expected that these will
commence at a number of locations along the overall route simultaneously.
- 2 -
NEED AND VIABILITY:-
2.1. The LUAS:-
The introduction of LUAS transport is consistent with and contributes to Government
Transport policy. It has been Government policy for many years to encourage a modal
shift from private cars to public transport to achieve a more sustainable pattern of urban
development. This is something to be carried out in a coordinated manner. At local level
the development of LUAS C1 is based on ensuring that the objectives for land use planning,
as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan, are achievable. The provision of the LUAS
C1 extension is consistent with the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) strategy “Platform
for Change” which outlines a definitive transport strategy for the greater Dublin area for the
period to 2016.
The LUAS Red and Green Line project which stemmed from a Government decision of
1998 was one of the larger and most complex infrastructure projects ever implemented in
the State. Since the introduction of the service the LUAS has attracted large numbers
much sooner than comparable systems overseas so that the two existing LUAS Lines carried
between them over 22 million passengers in 2005. Furthermore, the LUAS service has
achieved break-even level of operations in the first full year of operation. This success has
led to calls for introduction of more extensive light rail and metro lines serving the greater
Dublin area.
The information provided before the Inquiry is that generally the LUAS lines, which have
previously been developed, have helped achieve the important Dublin Transport initiative
objectives, namely, the securing of the future of the City as a viable centre for commercial,
leisure, residential and retail activities, so that some sectors of the retail trade have sustained
an increase in footfall since the system has been introduced.
The maximum line flow currently experienced on the Red Line is approximately 1,998
passengers per hour per direction (p.p.h.p.d.). The current capacity provided between
- 3 -
Connolly and Heuston Stations is approximately 3,094 p.p.h.p.d. It is anticipated that the
maximum demand on the extended Red Line is 4,272 p.p.h.p.d., and this will be met by an
average 4 minute tram frequency to be provided by increasing the length of each tram from
30 metres to 40 metres. While the operating timetable for the extended Line has not yet
been finalised, it is anticipated that the journey time from Connolly Station to the Point
Depot is expected to be 5.5 minutes giving a total journey time from Tallaght to the Point of
55.5 minutes. At this stage it is anticipated that the operating hours will be between 0530
hours and 0030 hours during weekdays, with an anticipated request to operate the service on
a 24 hour/365 day basis, as demand may warrant in the future.
It is estimated that by 2016 the LUAS Line C1 extension will generate an extra patronage of
over 2.2 million trips. This represents approximately 1.5 million passenger journeys per
kilometre of route (which is slightly higher than current LUAS ridership per kilometre).
The capital cost for the provision of the LUAS extension as proposed by the RPA is
estimated at €99.5 million. It is planned that the capital cost of the LUAS extension will be
funded through a mixture of Exchequer funding and private sector funding.
2.2. Conclusion:-
A cost benefit analysis conducted by the RPA shows the economic benefits resulting
generally from reduced journey times by the provision of the LUAS Line C1 extension
compared with a “do nothing” option. The Inquiry received further technical evidence
showing the deliverability of reduced and convenient journey times which are achievable at
considerably less capital cost by use of extra buses (whether electrically or diesel powered)
and/or the use of quality bus corridors, particularly as bus capacities and routes have a
greater flexibility and can be tailored to specific demands (this material is also considered in
Chapter 7 of this Report).
- 4 -
The amenity and convenience benefits of the LUAS are substantial and outweigh the
economic cost of the scheme; and the revenue that results from the construction and
operation of the extension will ultimately exceed the operating and maintenance costs of the
project.
While the proposed LUAS extension is a more costly option than bus services and would
involve a greater construction impact, its greater contribution to the regional objectives and
requirements of sustainable development, particularly for the Point Village area, has
obtained the support of the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) and the Dublin Docklands
Development Authority (DDDA) and the Dublin City Council (DCC) over a bus-based
option. However, it is artificial to consider the sole objective of the LUAS Line extension as
involving a reduction of an estimated 20 minute walking time to the Point Depot or the
convenient movement of large numbers of patrons attending a special event at the Point.
The provision of this LUAS Line extension will provide a symbol of regeneration in the
Docks and also allows for further LUAS Line extension beyond the Point which can be
anticipated to meet long term public transport requirements of the greater Dublin area. In
addition, to purely economic considerations the LUAS extension represents a clear and
positive commitment of the State to future development and investment in the regeneration
of the Docklands Area.
On the basis that further LUAS Line extensions can be anticipated in the future the
preferment of a bus option on economic grounds alone would be short sighted. The
economic history of the LUAS Lines to date are indicative that they provide enhanced
public transport and amenity for the community at good value for money. The Inquiry
concludes that the need and viability of the LUAS Line extension has been demonstrated.
- 5 -
3. CONSULTATION:-
3.1. Consultation with Statutory Bodies:
Statutory consultations were undertaken by the RPA with the following prescribed bodies:-
- DCC;
- DDDA;
- DTO;
- Department of Transport;
- An Taisce;
- National Roads Authority;
- Dúchas;
- An Chomhairle Ealaíon;
- Bord Fáilte Eireann;
- Commission for Electricity Regulation;
- Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs;
- Eastern Regional Fisheries Board;
- Environmental Protection Agency;
- The Heritage Council;
- Health Board;
- Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources;
- Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform;
- Waterways Ireland; and,
- Irish Aviation Authority.
Meetings were held with DCC, the DDDA and DTO and also with the Department of
Transport.
3.2 Public Consultation:-
Public consultation in relation to the LUAS Line C1 was initiated by the RPA in April 2003.
Following initial media briefing the public consultation process was followed by the
- 6 -
distribution of approximately 10,000 newsletters targeting all addresses (business,
residential and institutions) in the vicinity of the indicative route options for LUAS Line C1.
This was followed by notices in national newspapers announcing the launch of the
consultation process. Meetings with interested parties were subsequently held, and the
following parties were consulted at this early stage:-
(i) The residents of Mayor Street Upper.
(ii) Brooks Thomas.
(iii) Clear Channel Entertainment.
(iv) Jones Oil.
(v) A. M. N. Amro.
(vi) “The Vaults”.
(vii) Residents of Custom House Harbour Apartments.
(viii) O’Dwyer Property Management.
(ix) Custom House Plaza Management Co.
(x) Harbourmaster Bar and Restaurant.
(xi) Spar, Gandon House and Custom House Square.
(xii) McCann Fitzgerald.
(xiii) N.C.B.
(xiv) W. G. Z. Bank.
(xv) H. V. B. Bank.
(xvi) Depfa Bank.
(xvii) I. F. M. S.
(xviii) Irish Estates.
(xix) Lisney/A.I.G.
(xx) Citigroup.
(xxi) Insignia Richard Ellis Gunne.
(xxii) Gunne MacKenzie.
(xxiii) Dublin City Business Association.
(xxiv) Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
(xxv) Mongtomery Oppenheim.
- 7 -
(xxvi) Eircom.
(xxvii) McKeever Rowan.
(xxviii) Fitzpatricks Menswear.
(xxix) The Excise Bar.
(xxx) J. P. Morgan.
(xxxi) Grafton Barber.
(xxxii) Platform 11.
(xxxiii) Deutsche International.
In September 2003, the RPA selected a preferred route option involving routing along
Mayor Street Lower and Upper between the existing LUAS Connolly stop and the proposed
LUAS Line C1 terminal stop at the Point. In December 2004, the RPA held a meeting
attended by the IFSC Steering Committee, the DDDA, the DTO; and the IFSC indicated
that Consultants engaged by them were preparing a report advocating routing of the LUAS
Extension line along the North Quays as being preferable to the Mayor Street routing. In
June 2005, following further meetings with the IFSC Consultants, and following further
discussions with DCC, the DDDA and DTO, the RPA wrote to the IFSC Steering
Committee indicating that it had reviewed the alignment proposal but concluded that the
Mayor Street was the better .
During 2005 meetings also took place with the following interested parties:-
(xxxiv) National College of Ireland.
(xxxv) Dublin City Business Association.
(xxxvi) Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
(xxxvii) A.I.G.
(xxxviii) State Street Bank.
(xxxix) Commerzbank.
- 8 -
In 2006 meetings took place with the following interested parties:-
(xxxx) I.F.M.S.
(xxxxi) I.D.A.
(xxxxii) Citigroup
(xxxxiii) Bank of Ireland
(xxxxiv) J. P. Morgan
(xxxxv) North Port Dwellers Association/Residents of Upper Mayor Street.
Open days for public consultation were held in December 2003, January 2004 and
December 2004.
In summary, concerns were expressed by various parties regarding traffic and noise,
communications disruption during construction work and the location of poles and fixings
and disruption of traffic and residents parking facilities following completion of the
construction.
The RPA are emphatic that the process of public consultation is ongoing.
3.3. Conclusion:-
The Inquiry is satisfied that there has been adequate public and statutory consultation in
advance of the application for a Railway Order by the RPA.
- 9 -
4. APPLICATION:-
4.1. Draft Order:-
The RPA has applied to the Minister under Section 37 of the 2001 Act for a Railway Order.
The draft Order submitted by the RPA is attached at Appendix 1 to this Report.
4.2. Procedure:-
The Inquiry is satisfied that following a resolution of the RPA Board of 7th November 2005,
an application was made to the Minister for a Railway Order (in the terms of the draft
Order) on the 1st December 2005. Formal newspaper notices were published regarding the
said application, and all relevant documents concerning the application were made available
for public inspection from the 9th December 2005 up to and including the 23rd January 2006
at various offices and libraries; and the relevant documentation was served on various
Public Bodies as well as being served on all of the owners and occupiers of lands referred to
in the draft Order, which included:-
- DCC
- DDDA
- DTO
- Department of Transport
- An Taisce
- National Roads Authority (NRA)
- Dúchas
- An Chomhairle Ealaíon
- Bord Fáilte Éireann
- Commission for Electricity Regulation
- Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
- Eastern Regional Fisheries Board.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- 10 -
- The Heritage Council
- Health Board
- Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources
- Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
- Waterways Ireland
- Irish Aviation Authority.
The Inquiry is satisfied that all of the formal and procedural requirements of the Act of 2001
were met by the RPA in relation to the proposed Railway Order.
4.3. E.I.S. and Associated Documents:-
The Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) is attached at Appendix 5 to this Report.
Other documents (including reports) submitted by the RPA (and also by the DTO) are
attached at Appendix 6.
The E.I.S. has been prepared under Section 37(1) of the Act of 2001. Section 39 of the Act
of 2001 sets out the information to be contained in the E.I.S. The matters to be dealt with in
the E.I.S. are the following:-
(a) A description of the proposed railway works comprising information on the site,
design and size of the railway works.
(b) A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce, and, if possible,
remedy significant adverse effects.
(c) The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed railway
works are likely to have on the environment.
(d) An outline of the main alternatives studied by the Applicant and an indication as to
the main reasons for its choice taking into account the environmental effects.
(e) A summary in non-technical language of the above information.
- 11 -
In addition the following matters are to be included:-
(a) (i) A description of the physical characteristics of the whole
proposed railway works and land use requirements during the
construction and operational phases.
(ii) An estimate of the type and quantity of the expected residues and emissions
(including water, air, soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat and radiation)
resulting from the operation of the proposed railway works.
(b) A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by
the proposed railway works including in particular:-
(i) Human Beings, flora and fauna.
(ii) Soil, water, air, climatic factors on the landscape.
(iii) “Material assets”, including the architectural and archaeological heritage and
the cultural heritage.
(iv) The relationship between the matters referred to above.
(c) A description of the likely effects (including direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative,
short, medium, and long term permanent and temporary, positive and negative) of
the proposed railway works on the environment resulting from:-
(i) The existence of the proposed railway works.
(ii) The use of natural resources.
(iii) The emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of
waste.
And a description of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the
environment.
(d) An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know how)
encountered by the Applicant in compiling the required information.
(e) A summary in non-technical language of the above information.
Evidence was presented by the RPA to the Inquiry regarding the following matters required
to be addressed in the E.I.S.:-
- 12 -
(i) Human Beings:-
On the basis of the evidence presented by Mr. Sean O’Riordain the Inquiry is
satisfied that the development will not involve any adverse effects on human beings.
According to Mr.O’Riordain it appears that the construction of the development is
likely to have a short term negative impact on the socio-economic environment in
relation to the increased noise and dust emissions in the area (which are dealt with in
a separate section in this Report); however, it is considered that access and mobility
will be positively impacted by the development, both within the study area and the
wider Dublin area, and that resultant improvements in accessibility to employment,
services and trade will be an important element of the economic restructuring
process taking place, particularly within the Docklands Area.
(ii) Fauna and Flora:-
On the basis of the evidence of Mr. Peter Marsden, the Inquiry is satisfied that the
development will not involve any significant adverse effects on fauna and flora.
The evidence clearly indicates that no deleterious impacts are identified as arising
from the operation of the LUAS Line C1.
(iii) Soils and Water:-
On the evidence submitted by Professor Paul Johnston the Inquiry is satisfied that
the development will not involve any adverse effects on soils or water.
(iv) Air and Climatic Factors:-
On the basis of the evidence presented by Mr. Roger Barrowcliffe, the Inquiry is
satisfied that the development will not involve any adverse consequences on air or
climate.
- 13 -
(v) Noise and Vibration:-
The likely impacts of noise and vibration from the proposed LUAS extension are
addressed separately in Section 6.2 (pages 24 to 25 of this Report).
(vi) Landscape (including Townscape and Visual Impact):-
On the basis of the evidence presented by Ms. Sam Oxley, the Inquiry is satisfied
that the development will not involve any unacceptable adverse consequences on
townscape and visual impact.
(vii) Electro Magnetic Compatibility:-
On the basis of the evidence presented by Mr. Tony Maddocks, the Inquiry is
satisfied that there will be no adverse consequences to the community or users of any
electrical devices arising from the construction or operation of the development.
(viii) Architectural Heritage:-
On the basis of the evidence of Mr. Frank Keohane, the Inquiry is satisfied that there
will be no adverse consequences to “material assets” in the way of architectural
heritage resulting from the construction or operation of the LUAS Line C1.
(ix) Archaeological and Cultural Heritage:-
On the basis of the evidence presented by Ms. Margaret Gowen, the Inquiry is
satisfied that the “material assets” in the way of archaeological and cultural heritage
will not be adversely or deleteriously affected by the construction or operation of the
LUAS Line extension.
(x) Traffic and Transportation:-
The impacts on traffic and transportation arising from the proposed LUAS Line
extension are addressed separately at Chapter 6.3 (pages 25 to 28) of this Report.
- 14 -
(xi) Utilities:-
The possible impacts on utilities arising from the proposed LUAS Line extension are
addressed separately at Chapter 6.4 (pages 28 to 34) of this Report.
(xii) The inter-relationship between the matters required
to be addressed in the E.I.S.:-______________________
Mr. Marsden has satisfied the Inquiry in his evidence that the inter-relationship of
the various factors to be considered in the E.I.S. do not operate adversely to an
unacceptable degree on the community or the environment.
(xiii) Alternatives:-
The adequacy of the E.I.S. in considering alternatives to the proposed project is
addressed separately in this Report at Chapter 7 (pages 35 to 46).
4.4. Adequacy of E.I.S.:-
Apart from the impacts of the project on utilities/“material assets”, noise and vibration, and
traffic and the adequacy of the consideration given to alternatives to the proposed project
(which are dealt with separately in this Report) the Inquiry is satisfied that the E.I.S.
adequately addresses all of the matters set out in Section 39(1) of the 2001 Act.
- 15 -
5. OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS:-
The Inquiry has carefully considered all of the oral and written Submissions received by it.
Written Submissions and Reports (other than those received from the RPA and DTO)
contained in Appendix 7 attached to this Report.
Consideration is now given to the various Submissions/Objections raised before the Inquiry.
5.1 Dublin Transportation Office:-
The DTO has compiled a comprehensive transport strategy for Dublin “A Platform for
Change”. The current official Government position is that this strategy along with the
Transport Programme “Transport 21” provides the framework for transport development in
the greater Dublin area. The LUAS Line C1 extension is compatible with this strategy, and
the DTO supports the LUAS Line C1 extension. The DTO are concerned that the LUAS
extension will integrate with Iarnrod Eireann Suburban Rail Services at the Station at
Spencer Dock and with local bus services, and also that it allows for flexibility for future
LUAS extensions, as may be required in the future to serve the needs of commuters in the
greater Dublin area.
DTO commissioned an expert report (the Jacobs Report) to consider counter-proposals
raised which involved provision of public transport between Connolly Station and the Point
by high quality bus services rather than by tram. DTO prefer the LUAS project and this
issue is more fully addressed in the section in this Report “Alternatives” (Chapter 7 at pages
35 to 46).
5.2 Dublin Docklands Development Authority:-
DDDA fully support the LUAS Line extension and the alignment route chosen by the RPA
Their position regarding the alignment route choice is addressed in the section in this Report
dealing with “Alternatives” (Chapter 7 at pages 35 to 46).
- 16 -
5.3 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government:-
DEHLG request that an archaeological consultant should be engaged to carry out
inspections during groundworks and that the results of inspections are to be furnished to the
DEHLG. However, there is no anticipated adverse effect on archaeology resulting from the
construction works because the evidence is that any material of archaeological interest is
below the anticipated level of construction works. Accordingly, this is a matter to be
addressed by the RPA rather than a matter to be addressed in any Conditions to be
recommended by the Inquiry.
5.4 I.D.A. Ireland:-
The I.D.A. are concerned about adverse effects on the reputation and effectiveness of the
IFSC if the LUAS works cause disruption of business utilities; and the I.D.A. require the
RPA to prepare a risk mitigation strategy and business continuity plan in respect of the IFSC
and to provide alternative utilities systems prior to construction of the LUAS extension.
The I.D.A. also request the appointment of a designated RPA Manager to liaise with the
business community of the IFSC during construction works.
These matters are all addressed in the section headed “Utilities” (at Chapter 6.4 at pages 28
to 34) of this Report and also in the Recommended Conditions.
5.5 Spencer Dock Development Company Limited/Wintertide Limited:-
These companies are not consenting to any transfer of their lands to the RPA because they
contend that such a transfer would breach its Planning Permission which requires that a
reservation be given to the RPA in respect of the LUAS, and they submit that a CPO is
unnecessary because of an Easement Agreement entered by them with the RPA. These
companies also request that a Condition be recommended for inclusion in the Order
requiring RPA to liaise with businesses along the LUAS route during construction works.
The Inquiry does not consider that the imposition of a condition in a Planning Permission
requiring reservation of land for LUAS purposes precludes a Railway Order being made in
- 17 -
respect of lands affected by such Permission. The Inquiry does not accept that the entering
of an Easement Agreement displaces the RPA entitlement to a CPO of the relevant lands.
Regular consultation between the RPA and businesses along the LUAS route is highly
desirable during construction works, and this concern is addressed in the Recommended
Conditions.
5.6 Treasury Holdings:-
Treasury Holdings are concerned about land takes by the RPA for the carrying out of the
scheme; these concerns have been resolved by agreement with the RPA.
5.7 State Street International (Ireland) Limited:-
This company is concerned about the disruption of telecommunications and road traffic
during construction works, and is also concerned that inadequate consideration has been
given by the RPA to alternative routes.
These matters are addressed in the sections of this Report entitled “Utilities” (Chapter 6.4 at
pages 28 to 34), “Traffic” (Chapter 6.3 at pages 25 to 28), and “Route Selection and
Alternatives” (Chapter 7 at pages 35 to 46).
5.8 North Wall Quay/Mayor Street Management Limited:-
This company supports the LUAS line C1 extension, but it is concerned at the negative
impact on road traffic during construction works. It has also requested that the “Loop
Road” (aka “Aldermens Way”) is not to be used as a vehicular route to Mayor Street during
construction works. A request is also made that a risk management study for essential
utilities in the area be put in place prior to construction works, and following construction of
the track bed that granite sett cobbles are to be reused to maintain the present visual amenity
in the area. It has also requested that a taxi rank be provided for Mayor Street.
The road traffic impacts of the construction work and the possible use of “Aldermens Way”
and the request for a risk management study and reinstatement of cobbles are all addressed
- 18 -
in the Recommended Conditions. The provision of a taxi rank on Mayor Street is a matter
for future discussions between the RPA and DCC.
5.9. Irish Life Assurance P.L.C. Harbourmaster III Ventures
International House Company:-
These companies object to the removal of their car parking spaces at IFSC; the RPA have
confirmed that they will not be carrying out this proposal.
5.10 Custom House Docks Management Limited:-
This company is responsible for the common areas of Phase I of the IFSC (including roads
and footpaths). It is concerned about disruption of utilities and road traffic during
construction work. It is also concerned about disruption of traffic during LUAS
operations, the proposed removal of the Mayor Street taxi rank and the limited size of the
footpath at Mayor Street. This company is also concerned about the limited range of
alternative routes considered, and submits that the EIS is defective in not giving adequate
consideration to the North Quay route or other modes of public transport.
The potential impacts of construction works on utilities and road traffic are addressed in the
sections entitled “Utilities” (Chapter 6.4 at pages 28 to 34) and “Traffic” (Chapter 6.3 at
pages 25 to 28), and the consideration of alternative routes is addressed in the section
entitled “Route Selection and Alternatives” (Chapter 7 at pages 35 to 46) of this Report.
The RPA have confirmed that the proposal for the removal of the Mayor Street taxi rank is
not being pursued by them.
5.11 Citigroup/Bank of Ireland:-
These Banks (“the Banks”) welcome the project but are extremely concerned about possible
disruption of their business during the carrying out of construction works. They require the
provision of an acceptable risk management plan in respect of interruption of
telecommunication services in the vicinity of the LUAS Line and that all telecommunication
services are identified in advance of construction work on the LUAS Line. They require
- 19 -
that the E.S.B. and Bord Gais are satisfied that there is an adequate alternative electricity
and gas supply available prior to construction works and, that the RPA liaise with DCC to
identify and avoid disruption of all services and watercourses in the vicinity of the LUAS
Line. They require that the RPA establish a “24/7” emergency call-out repair service for
any potential disruption of utilities in the vicinity of the LUAS construction works.
These Banks also submit that the E.I.S. is defective because inadequate consideration is
given to the potential impact of construction works on all relevant “material assets”,
particularly telecommunication services to the IFSC and because insufficient consideration
was given to the North Quay as a route alignment for the LUAS Line extension or for buses
as an alternative mode of public transport instead of the proposed tram line extension.
The possible disruption to telecommunication services and other utilities and also road
traffic during construction works are addressed in the Recommended Conditions. The
provision of a risk management plan and the identification of services likely to be effected
by construction works are also addressed in the Recommended Conditions. The provision
of an emergency call-out repair service is also addressed in the Recommended Conditions.
The consideration of alternative routes and/or modes of public transport are addressed in the
section entitled “Route Selection and Alternatives” (Chapter 7 at pages 35 to 46); and the
possible effects of construction works on utilities (and the adequacy of the E.I.S. in respect
of same) are addressed in the section entitled “Utilities” (Chapter 6.4 at pages 28 to 34) in
this Report.
5.12 Point Exhibition Co./Point Village Co.-
It is intended to increase the capacity of the Point Depot from 8,500 to 15,000 patrons. The
work on increasing the capacity is intended to be carried out between May 2007 and May
2008. The Point Depot operators are concerned about the proposed location of the Point
Stop reducing the turning circle for large vehicles servicing concerts and also the amount of
space for large crowds to assemble outside the Point Depot. Apart from these matters, the
operators of the Point Depot welcome the introduction of the LUAS extension.
- 20 -
The RPA have agreed to address the concerns about space outside the Point Depot by
relocating the stop to a position 10m to the West of its currently proposed location. It
would obviously convenience the community as well as the RPA and the Point Depot
operators to have construction works on the Point Station coincide with works on the Point
Depot; however, the timing of the commencement and the duration of the works on the
Station are matters for consultation with the Local Planning Authority (DCC) rather than
matters to be dealt with in the Conditions to be recommended by the Inquiry.
5.13 North Port Dwellers Association Tony McDonnell Christopher Flynn:-_______________
The concerns of this residents group concerning access to dwellings and parking spaces and
also the location of poles/pylons etc. on Mayor Street have been addressed and resolved
following agreement with the RPA.
5.14 Chetham Holdings Limited:-
This company is concerned at possible negative effects on its property at Mayor Street
during construction works; however, these concerns can be addressed by the RPA at
operational level.
5.15 Artbrook Limited:-
This company requests that the proposed CPO of its land at Griffith Avenue should be
excluded from the Railway Order because of the remoteness from the development, and it is
concerned about financial loss sustained by the loss of use of its land.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the RPA requires the relevant land for storage purposes and that
statutory compensation is available for any financial loss from the CPO of the land.
5.16 C.I.E. Property Group:-
The property concerns of C.I.E. have been met following agreement with the RPA.
- 21 -
5.17 Dart for Lucan Group:-
This group welcomes the LUAS extension and requests that the extension be organised in a
way that avoids reduction of Dart or rail services at Spencer Dock and require that
appropriate consultations should take place to avoid disruption of existing or alternative
means of transport. The group also request the recommending of a Condition requiring the
RPA to carry out a study in conjunction with Iarnrod Eireann/Dublin Bus and DTO
regarding delivery of ongoing public transport services to the rest of the city.
These matters are addressed in the Recommended Conditions.
5.18 Platform 11:-
This group supports the LUAS extension and requests that design of the Point Depot Station
incorporates proper crowd control measures and an adequate amount of ticket vending
machines. The group is also concerned that the RPA ensure that the LUAS operates with
appropriate frequency and capacity to meet the needs of other rail users at Spencer Dock.
The LUAS timetables are matters to be addressed at operational level, and the other matters
are addressed in the Recommended Conditions.
5.19 Eamon Ryan T.D.:-
The Green Party Spokesperson on Transport welcomes the LUAS extension and proposes a
further extension to Poolbeg Peninsula.
Further LUAS developments are a matter for the RPA and have to be considered in an E.I.S.
in advance of any Railway Order being granted in respect of same. However, the Inquiry
has recommended a Condition that the extension is constructed in a manner that does not
preclude further extension beyond the Point Terminus.
5.20 Colm Moore:-
Mr. Moore complains of lack of clarity in the E.I.S. and also in the RPA maps. He also
- 22 -
requests longer platforms at the stops and is concerned about traffic safety at junctions
(particularly for cyclists); and he requests the provision of bollards on cycle lanes to
prevent cars blocking access. He is also concerned about flood risk in the area of the
project, and he suggests archaeological investigation be carried out to determine what was
previously built where Mayor Street crossed Royal Canal/Spencer Dock. He is also
concerned about Appendix 8 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2002-2011 and the
Docklands North Lott Planning Scheme (2002) regarding protection to be afforded to stone
setts at particular locations in the vicinity of the LUAS Line extension. He is also
concerned about the dimensions and location of the Spencer Dock Stop having regard to the
strategy in “Transport 21” Plan.
Development under a Railway Order is exempted development under the Planning Code by
virtue of the provisions of Section 38 of the 2001 Act, so that the requirements of Local
Authority Development Plans, while important matters to be taken into consideration, do not
give rise to any statutory impediment regarding works affecting stone setts or any other
“protected structures”. The strategies of the “Transport 21” Plan do not affect the validity of
the RPA proposals; and the flood risks are not exacerbated by the LUAS extension project.
The traffic risks in the proposed extension are no greater than for other LUAS routes, and
the question of bollards on cycle lanes is a matter for further representation to the RPA and
the DCC.
5.21 National Transport Users Association:-
This group have suggested alternative routes to achieve transport integration.
The question of alternative routes has been addressed in Chapter 7 (pages 35 to 46 of this
Report).
- 23 -
6. IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES:-
6.1. Introduction:-
The impacts of the project have to be considered in relation to the communities residing or
working in the vicinity of the proposed extension as well as those who work and trade on an
occasional basis within this local community. The principal possible adverse effects on the
environment and the community from the construction and operation of the LUAS Line C1
extension are considered and addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Report, which deal with
the E.I.S. and the Submissions/Objections made to the Inquiry. A number of particular
issues warrant special attention:-
(i) Noise and vibration.
(ii) Traffic.
(iii) Utilities.
(iv) Other aspects of the environment.
6.2 Noise and Vibration:-
The Inquiry has received evidence from Mr. Steve Mitchell, an expert on noise and
vibration, (presented on behalf of the RPA). It appears that some noise disturbance during
construction will be inevitable, but this will be short lived and if properly controlled is not
anticipated to be at an unacceptable level.
The only area of significant potential noise impact is apparently at the East end of the
scheme where ambient noise levels are currently lower than elsewhere along the route. It is
expected that the ambient noise levels in this area will increase following further
development so that the additive effect of the tram will be reduced.
The Inquiry is satisfied that tram noise will operate at tolerable limits. This is because the
RPA has committed to designing and operating the C1 extension so as to control noise
levels by a series of measures listed in the EIS:-
- 24 -
- The existing trams are required to incorporate noise control measures in the
design to comply with noise performance specifications.
- That the tram wheels be maintained in good order.
- To reduce the risk of additional noise when light rail vehicles are moving around
tight curves, anti-wear measures will be applied to the rails.
- So far as practical, noisy night time maintenance activities will be kept to a
minimum in residential areas.
Ground vibration from trams is likely to be perceptible at various locations but not at levels
which would be expected to give rise to complaint. It is not anticipated that impacts arise
from vibrations.
Vibration levels from trains will be below levels which could give rise to any damage to
adjacent structures.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the contractor will be required by the RPA to liaise with
occupants of buildings that are close to works to identify any equipment that is particularly
sensitive to vibration; and vibration monitoring will be carried out on sensitive listed
buildings (where necessary) to keep within tolerable limits.
6.3 Traffic:-
The operation of the LUAS Line C1 will involve the putting in place of new traffic
management proposals. These include new signalised junctions along Mayor Street at
Commons Street, Guild Street, New Wapping Street and Castleforbes Road. All junctions
on the route incorporate dedicated LUAS signals and pedestrian crossings. The project will
involve the construction of a bridge linking Mayor Street Upper with Mayor Street Lower
(Mayor Street Bridge) across Spencer Dock; this will provide a route for pedestrians and
cyclists as well as LUAS vehicles; and it will also provide vehicle access to the National
Conference Centre from Guild Street. It will also be necessary to close the road linking
Mayor Street Lower with Amiens Street except for LUAS vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.
- 25 -
A turning hammerhead will be provided on Harbourmaster Place for traffic due to the
closure of access on to Amiens Street.
There will be shared running of the LUAS with other traffic in a single lane in each
direction along Mayor Street Lower between Harbourmaster Place and Commons Street.
Traffic on Mayor Street Lower will be one way in an East bound direction. There will be
no right turn from Mayor Street Upper on to New Wapping Street or Castleforbes Road. In
2008 all traffic, including LUAS vehicles, are required to use a single approach lane on
Mayor Street to New Wapping Street and Castleforbes Road; and the introduction of a
right turn restriction is necessary to ensure that LUAS vehicles are not impeded by traffic
waiting to turn right. In 2016 the existing lane is to be designated as LUAS only, with the
road widened to provide an additional lane for all other traffic. There will be no right turn
for South bound traffic from Castleforbes Road on to Mayor Street Upper, and provision is
to be made only for West bound traffic between Castleforbes Road and a proposed Link
Road. In addition, loading bays are to be provided along Mayor Street between Commons
Street and Guild Street along the Northern kerb to facilitate retail activity and provide for
deliveries to both sides of Mayor Street Lower.
The Inquiry received expert evidence on traffic impacts from Mr. Alan O’Brien and Mr.
Andrew Vickerman (on behalf of the RPA) and Mr. Kieran Boyle (on behalf of Citigroup/
Bank of Ireland).
As observed, the LUAS extension comprises on street running of the trams along the full
length of the route. Some negative traffic impact will arise from restricted access on to
Amiens Street on the one way on Mayor Street between Commons Street and Guild Street.
This impact is acceptable in the overall context of traffic improvement arising from a
reduction of road traffic along the LUAS corridor, which ought to lead to improvement in
the operation of a number of junctions and reductions in delay along Commons Street,
Castleforbes Road and particularly Mayor Street to the West of Common Street.
- 26 -
During the construction stage, traffic disruption is inevitable, but this is likely to be short
term. In addition, it is anticipated that the construction traffic will be able to avail of the
Dublin Port Tunnel so as to reduce the impact of construction related traffic. It is also to be
noted that much of the alignment of the LUAS extension is through undeveloped areas with
low traffic flows. The RPA are committed to providing a carefully programmed traffic
management scheme. Traffic impacts of site preparation are unlikely to be significant, but
careful management will be required to minimise road traffic disruption during other
construction work. It is anticipated that the provision of a one way running lane along
Mayor Street will suffice to facilitate access to adjacent properties and adjoining car parks.
Construction of the track bed may require partial closure of certain sections of road for a
limited period, but it is intended for two way access to park parks to be maintained at all
times during the construction period. The RPA require the selected construction contractor
to supply a traffic management plan to achieve the end of minimal traffic disruption, and
this will be part of the contractor’s contractual obligations to the RPA.
Expert evidence of Mr. Andrew Vickerman was presented by the RPA in relation to traffic
management during construction work on the project. The Inquiry is satisfied from this
evidence that appropriate abatement measures are to be put in place to minimise traffic
disruption during construction work. It appears that the work is to be segmented into five
segments of similar character and work site requirements and that work is to be carried out
in a manner and to a schedule following agreement with An Garda Siochana, DCC and
DDDA. This will ensure a constant flow of traffic during the carrying out of construction
work and some of the heavy construction activities are likely to be undertaken outside of
business hours or cease during lunch times so as to minimise disruption to traffic. On the
basis of the work management proposals to be agreed with the Garda Siochana and the
Traffic Section of DCC as well as the DDDA, the Inquiry is satisfied that vehicle and
pedestrian traffic will be maintained at all times to all premises so as to minimise any
possible disruption to residential or business use in the vicinity of any construction works
carried out on this project. On the basis of this evidence it appears the construction work
can be carried out without undue interference to stakeholders in the vicinity and with due
- 27 -
respect to the working, resident and visitor population of the general area. The construction
stage of the scheme will lead to some level of disruption but this is likely to be of a short
term negative nature.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the potential negative impacts of the project on traffic during the
construction and operational phases have been adequately addressed in the E.I.S. The
Inquiry is also satisfied that during LUAS operations the impacts on traffic are acceptable
and positive. During the construction phase of the project, as observed, there will be
negative impacts on traffic of a short term duration but acceptable traffic flows are
manageable.
The Inquiry has addressed traffic impact in the Recommended Conditions by requiring
detailed traffic flow analysis for the relevant area to be carried out in advance of
commencement of construction to be followed by consultation with and monitoring by the
Traffic and Road Section of DCC and the Garda Siochana.
6.4 Utilities:-
The IFSC has been described to the Inquiry as a key national asset: it is home to more than
half of the World’s top 20 insurance companies and to some of the World’s largest banks.
Approximately 12,000 persons go to work in the IFSC every day with as many again
employed indirectly in professional support services such as legal, accounting and tax
services. In the area of fund management, it appears that the IFSC is firmly established as a
leading international centre for mutual funds with billions of Euros. The evidence before
the Inquiry indicates that transactions aggregating in value to millions of Euro are processed
electronically every day. The telecommunications infrastructure serving the IFSC is crucial
to its operation. Any disruption of the electricity or telecommunications services to the
IFSC which could arise during construction work is likely to have significant effects on the
business operations and credibility of the IFSC. For that reason, it appears that extra
precaution is to be take in the planning and management of any construction work carried
out in the vicinity of the IFSC.
- 28 -
The RPA are clearly aware of the sensitivity of businesses in the IFSC as a result of any
possible disruption of telecommunication services during the construction phase of the
LUAS extension. The Inquiry has received the expert evidence of Mr. Simon McKenna
(presented on behalf of the RPA) in relation to the protection of the telecommunications
infrastructure in the IFSC. In this regard, the RPA have completed a sophisticated
underground radar survey of the entire intended route of the LUAS Line C1 which has
enabled them to create a comprehensive 3D image of all buried features shown to a depth of
3 metres which was further backed up by more conventional survey methods such as slip
trenching. This apparently is the most comprehensive type of investigation that can be
carried out to identify services, and it greatly exceeds the level of preparatory site
investigations carried out for any utility works around the country (and even in other key
locations where continuity of telecommunication service is critical e.g. hospitals and call
centres etc.). This has provided a single data base for all utilities along the proposed route
which did not exist prior to the completion of the survey.
It is intended that the RPA will liaise directly with the service providers of
telecommunications, who in turn will liaise directly with their clients during the carrying out
of sensitive construction work, and ongoing consultation with key management bodies and
clients within the IFSC will continue to ensure detailed and factual information on progress
is supplied throughout the lifetime of the project. It is intended to provide additional
alternative routes for services that may be identified as being necessary. It appears that the
RPA are committed to a programme of diversionary works which will be required and that
additional routes for the provision of services will be identified and provided, where
necessary. This appears to be something the RPA intend to address on an operational
basis, and it is intended that a comprehensive procurement process will be undertaken to
ensure that a works contractor with proven telecommunications and utilities experience with
capacity to perform the required works will be appointed.
It is intended that all identified infrastructure will be replaced on an exact “like for like”
basis, and throughout this phase the service providers will be given approved access to the
- 29 -
site to verify the reported works in progress and satisfy themselves as to the quality of works
being undertaken and to verify that approved procedures and methods are being adhered to.
To this end, it appears that detailed method statements and risk assessments will be
compiled for all required diversionary works and that there will be liaison with the key
business stakeholders in the vicinity prior to commencement of the works. It appears that
all diversionary works will be implemented in parallel and therefore without risk to existing
services.
Over the course of the diversionary works changes may be required to approve designs or a
request for previously unforeseen additional infrastructure may be presented, and a strict
change control process will be implemented by the RPA to ensure that all requests are
tracked and auditable to determine the impact on the project design and on the programme
plan so as to ensure safe integration into the existing systems. It is submitted by the RPA
that a significant additional benefit of the completed works will be the compilation of a
single comprehensive and accurate set of “As Built” records of all utilities, which is not
something which has existed prior to the underground radar survey carried out by the RPA,
and that relevant records will be provided to each of the service providers and the IFSC
management bodies after the diversionary works have been completed in appropriate format.
This will mitigate against risk to telecommunication services in the IFSC for works
undertaken by any third party in the future.
It does not appear to the Inquiry that preventative and mitigation measures are appropriate to
be dealt with by RPA contractors operational level on a solely “wait and see” basis. To
provide certainty and comfort by both the RPA and the IFSC businesses it appears
preferable in any Railway Order to be granted that Conditions should be imposed which
require certain steps to be taken by the RPA in advance of construction work and which
ensure efficient operation of these works after commencement (see Conditions at Section 11
of this Report).
- 30 -
A submission has been made on behalf of the Banks that the EIS is defective because it fails
to address properly or at all the likely negative impacts of construction works on the utilities
(particularly telecommunication facilities) servicing the IFSC which are to be characterised
as “material assets”.
It is submitted that the failure to address the issue of utilities as “material assets” is a breach
of the provisions of Section 39 of the 2001 Act and is not in conformity with the EPA
Guidelines for the preparation of an EIS. Furthermore, it is submitted that the EIS
prepared by previous Railway Order Applications for LUAS Lines (LUAS Lines A, B, C,
CS and B1 to Cherrywood) each address possible impacts on utilities under the
consideration of the effect of the project on “material assets”. On this basis, it is submitted
that the Inquiry ought to adjourn consideration of the present application pending delivery
by the RPA of a revised EIS which specifically addresses this matter.
There is no statutory definition of “material assets”, but it can readily be accepted that the
enjoyment/use by a business of a telecommunications service is a “material asset”, even
though the 2001 Act places “material assets” in a context of referring to heritage
considerations.
The different wordings of Section 39(2)(b) and in turn (c) of the 2001 Act are to be
contrasted. Section 39(2)(b) requires an EIS to give a description of the aspects of the
environment (including “material assets”: Section 39(2)(b)(iii)) which are likely to be
significantly effected by the proposed railway works. Section 39(2)(c) requires a
description of the likely significant effects of the proposed railway works on the
environment resulting from various matters, including the existence of the proposed railway
tracks. The provisions of the Section clearly distinguish between a requirement to describe
aspects of the environment (including “material assets”) likely to be significantly effected by
the project, and the requirement to describe the likely significant effects. In both cases the
statutory obligations are concerned with likely (not potentially) significant effects, rather
than risks of adverse effects.
- 31 -
The EPA Guidelines regarding the material to be contained in an E.I.S. are only guidelines
and do not give rise to statutory obligations, (particularly as Section 39(4) of the 2001 Act
expressly disapplies the provisions of the European Communities (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations, 1989 to 2000, the Local Government (Planning & Development)
Regulations, 1994 to 2000, and the Planning & Development Act, 2000 in relation to any
Regulation regarding environmental impact assessment which is subject to an Order under
the ambit of the 2001 Act).
A close reading of each EIS provided for previous LUAS Railway Orders shows that these
do little more than baldly state that there is likely to be an impact on public utilities during
the construction phase of the project without detailing any identified measures to combat
that impact. In the EIS for Line B1 it can be construed that there is more concern for the
impact that any maintenance required by the utilities will have on the operation of the
tramway (rather than the other way around). In any event, a previous EIS for a LUAS
Railway Order has only an illustrative value.
It is to be emphasised that an EIS is not an administrative decision: it is a means of
providing full and proper information for a designated decision maker conducting an EIA.
An EIA is a process in which the amount of information to be considered at a given time is
not determined or fixed until the assessment is made. Accordingly, supplementary
information on relevant matters can be produced before the Inquiry for consideration as part
of the EIA (and further information in this regard was in fact proffered by the RPA).
It is appropriate to consider the contents of the EIS for this project. In relation to
considering any adverse effects on the IFSC telecommunications services as a “material
asset”, the EIS contains a considerable number of references to consideration being given to
risks of disruption (as opposed to significant adverse effects on) of IFSC communications.
There was no evidence before the Inquiry of any likely significant adverse effects on the
IFSC telecommunications or other utilities during construction work. Various witnesses
referred to appropriate precautions to prevent or minimise risks; but that is as far as the
- 32 -
evidence went on this issue. Reference to such consideration is to be found in a number of
passages in the EIS.
At page 32 of the EIS it is stated as follows:-
“A communications network risk can be minimised by the use of improved mapping
information. To this end the RPA have undertaken detailed ground radar investigations
and are using this information to carefully plan and phase utility works in conjunction with
the business community in the area. Alternative and back up routes can help to avoid
downtime or potential accidental disruption.”
At pages 36 to 38 at paragraphs 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 specific consideration is given to possible
effects of construction works on utilities and it is stated at p.37:-
“Due to the sensitive nature of the financial district area, intense investigation was required
to achieve a high level of confidence in the location of all subsurface structures. To
maintain this level of confidence further indepth investigation be carried out … All utility
diversions will be completed in conjunction with the relevant utility provider and will be in
compliance with their requirements and relevant codes of practice. The importance of
continuity of service to receptors within the study area is recognised by the RPA. In
recognition of the criticality of the communications services to the IFSC interests, RPA
informed relevant interests at various meetings and has confirmed that they are committed
to implementing a utility risk mitigation strategy … (p.p.37/38)”
Further addressing of the possible impact on utilities resulting from construction work is to
be found at pages 39, 72, 73 and 95 of the EIS.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the EIS adequately addresses the issue of “material assets” for
the purposes of Section 39(1) of the 2001 Act. Even if the information in the EIS is shown
to be inadequate, the Inquiry is satisfied that supplementary information presented by the
RPA and by the Banks have provided further information for the Inquiry to be satisfied that
- 33 -
no likely negative impacts of any significance arise in relation to the “material assets” of
IFSC businesses (including telecommunication and other utilities).
6.5 Other Aspects of the Environment:-
The Inquiry is satisfied that all of the identified potential adverse consequences upon the
environment as described in the EIS have been satisfactorily addressed by the RPA and that
any of the adverse consequences described in the EIS are within acceptable limits.
- 34 -
7. ROUTE SELECTION AND ALTERNATIVES:- 7.1 Route Selection:-
The three main route Options considered in the EIS are set out in the drawings at Appendix
3 of this Report:-
Route Option A:-
This is the shortest and straightest of the three routes considered. From Store Street the line
would head across the main junction with Amiens Street and along Mayor Street Lower
adjacent to the IFSC. The route would then cross Guild Street and pass across a new
bridge over Spencer Dock, over the CIE site and on to the Point Terminus. The Line will
be twin tracked along its length.
Route Option B:-
On this route the Line would cross the junction between Store Street and Amiens Street and
Connolly Station and run Northeast up Harbourmaster Place alongside Connolly Station
where it would become single track in order to pass through the narrow section at the
Northern end of Harbourmaster Place. The alignment then reverts to twin tracks in Sheriff
Street and continues East along Commons Street and Mayor Street across a new bridge over
Spencer Dock to the proposed terminus at the Point.
Route Option C:-
This involves a line with a single track loop extending from the existing cross-over
arrangements located South of the terminal stop at Connolly Station; East bound LUAS
vehicles would travel along the East side of the Station building through the narrow lane
before turning into Sheriff Street Lower and down Commons Street. At the junction of
Mayor Street Lower and Commons Street the track reverts to a twin track arrangement and
continues East across a new bridge over Spencer Dock to the proposed terminus at the Point
or to continue clockwise to close the loop at the junction with Harbourmaster Place. The
West bound LUAS vehicles would run along Mayor Street Lower to Store Street.
- 35 -
Following consultation with DCC, DDDA and CIE a number of critical factors emerged
which had to be taken into account in the route selection process:-
1. It was desirable that any proposal for C1 routeing should take account and
complement the DDDA Master Plan and any approved planning schemes for the
area.
2. Connolly Main Line Station is approximately 5 metres higher than the LUAS stop at
the terminus and the whole Station complex is supported on a series of arches so that
it was not a feasible option simply to consider extending the LUAS Line directly to
the Point.
3. CIE were considering a proposal to develop some of their property adjacent to the
railway bridge at Sheriff Street which would incorporate a bus interchange facility
and direct link from there to the Dart Station at Connolly Station (using the arches
that exist under the Station): they have not pursued this development to date.
4. DCC had an objective of building a bridge across the River Liffey (known as
Macken Street Bridge) and provision has been made in the design of this bridge to
accommodate the LUAS system on the bridge.
5. DDDA document “Platform for Change” has a proposal to extend the LUAS Red
Line to the Point Depot and shows a LUAS Line linking into this Line from the
South of the Liffey (using Macken Street Bridge).
6. Any route selection would have to take account of the North Lotts Planning Scheme
(2002) which involved a comprehensive commercial and residential development
which would have to be served adequately by any future LUAS Line development.
7. A condition on the Grant of a Certificate at Spencer Dock under Section 25 of the
Docklands Development Authority Act, 1997 was to the effect that a reservation
should be provided for the LUAS Scheme and necessary land interests should be
made available free of charge to the RPA: this development extends Eastward from
Guild Street for approximately 310 metres; and the reservation provided was along
the Mayor Street access.
- 36 -
8. The section of Mayor Street Lower between Amiens Street and Commons Street is
relatively narrow: it would not be possible to place a twin track LUAS system on it
without an element of shared running with other road vehicles.
9. Critical utility plant (especially communication cables) existed in Mayor Street
Lower which served the IFSC area. A high pressure gas main was routed
Southwards along New Wapping Street and then Eastward along Mayor Street
Lower and then Southwards to the quays along Castleforbes Road; and there were
important drainage pipes in the Sheriff Street area.
10. Waterways Ireland had an objective to open the Royal Canal to navigation and to
also restore Spencer Dock to its original width; this objective is also reflected in the
North Lotts Development Plan as produced by the DDDA.
11. DCC are anxious not to see a reduction in existing traffic capacity on a number of
streets in the vicinity of the intended LUAS route, namely Beresford Place, Amiens
Street/Memorial Road, North Wall Quay, Commons Street and Seville Place/Guild
Street (especially when Macken Street Bridge is constructed).
12. A number of protected structures exist in the area of intended development (see
Table 15.3 of the EIS).
13. Some of the arches under Connolly Station were developed as a pub, restaurant and
night club business and this area is accessed for deliveries and fire safety along a
narrow passageway adjoining same.
14. The Dublin Port Tunnel was proceeding to construction stage and there were likely
to be some traffic management changes to be considered from its opening.
In taking account of these various factors three route options emerged and comparison of the
operational safety issues associated with each option was made.
It appears that Option A maintains the existing stop location at Connolly and every tram
would have to enter this stop regardless as to whether it is terminating at Connolly or
continuing further. An increase in running time occurs due to the track configuration which
requires the tram driver to change cabs (which is likely to take about 2 minutes); but this,
- 37 -
however, is the shortest of the three route Options considered. It is considered that this
provides good access to the Western end of the IFSC using Connolly Station and a stop at
George’s Dock; but under this Option difficulties would arise in the handling of tram
frequency which is due to the track layout that exists South of Connolly, as East bound and
and West bound trams can conflict. This Option involved shared running on a section of
Mayor Street Lower between Amiens Street and Commons Street; and in order to provide
an acceptable operating environment a proposal was developed to limit access to this section
to the Commons Street end. This proposal was compatible with the long standing DCC
objective as part of the environmental traffic cell strategy for the area, so that a tram was
likely to have a free run in the West bound direction, and road vehicles and trams would use
the same phase of the traffic lights in the East bound direction. No difficulty arose in
relation to this alignment.
Option B requires a new stop at Sheriff Street to serve Connolly Main Line and Dart. It
would be possible to provide a link into the existing stop to provide a service from the
Tallaght direction that terminates at Connolly; but such an arrangement could create some
confusion for passengers if there are two stops relatively far apart which are both intending
to provide a service to the City Centre. This Option provides the best interchange with the
Dart system via a new link with worsening of the interchange with Connolly Main Line
when compared with Option A; it also has a marginally worse link to the Western end of
the IFSC when compared with Option A. It appears some delays would result from this
single line as it would not be feasible in a street running tramway to work to a timetable that
avoids trams arriving at either end of the single line at the same time or at a time where an
opposing tram was on the single line. The single line would have a road junction in it
where the LUAS crosses Sheriff Street. The running time of this Option would be similar
to that under Option A but under this option difficulties would arise in handling a tram
frequency below 4 minutes due to conflicts that arise due to the single line. This Option
requires shared running with road vehicles in Sheriff Street and Commons Street.
- 38 -
The use of the narrow passageway connecting Harbourmaster with Sheriff Street raised
some safety concerns. The issues can be appreciated by having regard to the fact that the
passageway is 5.85 metres wide at its narrowest point and is used by patrons of “The
Vaults” (which opened in June 2002). Concern would have to be raised as to the safety of
a tram breaking down or stopping for any length of time in this passageway. It would be
possible to provide a link into the existing stop to provide a service from the Tallaght
direction that terminates in Connolly; but such an arrangement could create some confusion
for passengers in that this would put in place two stops relatively far apart which are both
intended to provide a service to the City Centre. This Option provides a reasonable
interchange with the Dart system. It is worse than Option B but perhaps equivalent to
Option A in that it is better for East bound passengers and worse for West bound passengers.
Also, this Option is marginally worse as a link to the Western end of the IFS for East bound
passengers. The average run time on this route Option would be in the order of one minute
faster when the two legs of the journey are averaged. This route would have the most
flexible arrangement of all the Options as regards frequency, with the frequency limited by
what is acceptable at junctions; and this Option would operate without any extensive length
of shared running. The same safety concerns that existed in the narrow passageway
alongside “The Vaults” arose in relation to this Option with a slight diminution due to the
one way travel direction. It appears that the assessment under the operational issues leads
to the conclusion that the options A, B and C are roughly equivalent with the negatives in
some areas being balanced by positives in others. It appears that an important issue that
arose in the route selection by the RPA was the limit in the ultimate capacity of the system
that arose with Options A and B and the safety issues that arose in relation to Options B and
C.
The estimated capital cost was the lowest for Option A. B was estimated at 20% higher than
Option A, and Option C was estimated as being 31% higher than Option A. It would also
appear that it was likely that capital cost of Options B and C would further escalate due to
difficulties in the narrow passageway between Harbourmaster Place and Sheriff Street with
the stop at Sheriff Street. The construction of the stop and its associated underground link
- 39 -
to the Dart Station at Connolly was a fundamental requirement if the benefits outlined
earlier in options B and C were to materialise. The cost of the link was not included in the
cost estimate on the basis that CIE would develop it as part of their proposals. It seemed
likely that Irish Rail, particularly the Operations Staff, had some concerns about the opening
of such a link; and Irish Rail had configured the entrance to the Dart and the Main Line by
channelling all access to the South end of the Main Line Station where the entire ticketing,
etc. is located. They also opened a link at street level connecting Amiens Street to
Harbourmaster Place at the South end of the Station and they closed a direct link to the Dart
which existed off Amiens Street close to the Sheriff Street junction. The new link would be
effectively opening a similar one at the Eastern end so that a risk existed that the bus
interchange and the associated link might not be pursued by CIE or that the LUAS C Line
project might have to contribute towards the cost of its development. It was unlikely that
any significant benefits would arise with Options B or C that would justify the higher capital
costs. Accordingly, Option A was the better option when compared under the heading of
Capital Cost Comparisons.
7.2 Alternative Routes:-
In 2004 the IFSC Consultants submitted that a better alignment for the LUAS Line C1
existed along the North Wall Quay. A report was considered by the RPA in relation to the
North Wall Quay route. The conclusion of this report was that:-
- Major problems existed in getting from the Red Line to the North Wall Quay largely due
to traffic impacts associated with running along the Amiens Street, Memorial Road area
or due to the major issues that arose if the alignment was run diagonally across George’s
Dock in order to the traffic impact.
- An alignment along the Quays was technically possible.
- The best alignment was along Mayor Street.
- 40 -
The Mayor Street alignment was compared with the North Wall alignment using various
criteria, and the Mayor Street alignment scored better in relation to these criteria: the
negative impacts arising from construction works and possible effects on utilities were far
more significant in the Mayor Street alignment than the North Wall Quay route.
Counter-arguments were put forward by Consultants engaged by the IFSC Steering Group
which proposed a better alignment putting both sets of tracks on the North side of the
Quays. This option was considered to be a poor one and was not technically feasible
bearing in mind the current design criteria having regard to the following technical factors:-
1. The RPA contend that the development would involve reduction of the effective lane
width to a dimension well below the minimum or desired width acceptable to DCC;
and it is apparently technically not possible to comply with any design standard in
running two traffic lanes through the Southern span of Schertzer Bridge at George’s
Dock which would reduce the effective available lane width below the required
standards.
2. Safety difficulties arise from the proposal of locating two opposing tram lines at the
Northern side of the Quay and two opposing traffic lanes immediately to the South
of the tram lanes.
3. Traffic difficulties arise from an alignment of the North side of the Quays where any
vehicles travelling East or West wishing to turn North conflict with both East and
Westbound trams and as a consequence are likely to block straight ahead traffic
while waiting for LUAS vehicles to pass (unless dedicated left and right turning
lanes are provided, which are not specified in the IFSC Steering Group Consultants
design). It is possible that a new bridge would need to be constructed to the South
of Schertzer Bridge to cater for the two lanes of traffic under this proposal.
- 41 -
4. The counter-proposal involving the North Quay involves diverting the two LUAS
Lines into the proposed National Conference site at Spencer Dock in order to avoid
the Schertzer Bridge at this location, which alignment conflicts with their proposed
access arrangements.
The RPA put forward a number of observations to support their contention that the North
Wall alignment does not offer a viable alternative to the Mayor Street alignment:-
(a) In order to avoid relocating the Store Street stop in the North Wall proposal it would
not be possible for trams to bypass Connolly and run directly to and from the Point.
(b) The North Wall alignment as proposed has difficulty in accommodating a direct
connection between the Line C1 extension and the proposed LUAS Line over
Macken Street Bridge because it is a requirement that LUAS Lines cannot curve on
a Bridge and the design does not allow for points on the movable section of the
Bridge.
(c) The proposed North Wall alignment severely impacts on traffic at Amiens Street,
Beresford Traffic Gyratory, Memorial Road and North Wall Quay and the Director
of Traffic in DCC is extremely critical of the North Wall option because of its
disruptive effect on traffic flows in the vicinity.
(d) The North Wall alignment does not comply with the Master Plan of the DDDA
particularly the intended future development under the North Lotts Planning Scheme
so that the LUAS Line does not operate as a “transport spine” which would be
reflected in the Mayor Street alignment and provide appropriate urban design
integration of the stops along the route.
(e) The Mayor Street alignment would be cheaper to develop than the North Wall
alignment because land is to be made available free of charge in the Spencer Dock
area (by reason of conditions imposed on the Grant of a Certificate at Spencer Dock
under Section 25 of the Docklands Development Authority Act, 1997) and also
because the Mayor Street route involves a shorter span and that it would necessarily
involve lower capital and maintenance costs.
- 42 -
In addition to the RPA criticisms of any proposed North Quay alignment, the DDDA are
also critical of such a route. The DDDA submit that the North Quay alignment would
provide no significant benefit to the South side of the river and would be operated as a “one
sided” catchment. The DDDA also submits that an alignment along the Quays would fail
to provide for important interchange facilities at Spencer Dock where LUAS needs to
integrate with the terminal Railway Station to the North of Sheriff Street (which is now the
subject of a Planning Application to DCC) and with the interconnector Docklands Station.
Any alignment that does not terminate at a Station with points would have serious
implications for the operations at the expanded Point Station. The DDDA would strongly
object to any alignment which passes through George’s Dock which is a protected structure
and also there is potential for adverse impact on the two protected Schertzer Bridges on the
Quays (recently refurbished by the DDDA). The North Quay alignment would have an
adverse effect on the public amenity use of the North Quay which has been enhanced by the
DDDA demolishing a series of warehouses on the Quayside itself and developing a number
of restaurants along this route.
Having considered the submissions of the RPA and the DDDA, as well as submissions on
behalf of the Banks, the Inquiry is satisfied that the route chosen by the RPA for the LUAS
Line extension is appropriate and that it is preferable to an alignment along the North Quay.
7.3 Alternative Modes:-
Expert evidence was presented on behalf of the Banks favouring a bus option instead of the
LUAS extension. The capital and maintenance costs of a bus service are much lower than a
tram system and the risk to disruption of the telecommunications infrastructure and other
utilities serving the IFSC are removed or minimised. A quality bus service could meet the
required public transport needs of commuters seeking to travel to the Point Depot or beyond
in that equivalent numbers of commuters could be transported along bus corridors in
comparable travelling time to that to be provided by the LUAS trams.
- 43 -
The DTO were strongly supportive of LUAS transport rather than the use of buses: the use
of buses would cause worse traffic congestion on the basis of the information and
submissions supplied by the DTO, the DCC and, in turn, the DDDA: the inability of an
enhanced bus service to meet demand for transport at a major Point Depot event is
illustrated by the fact that an event attended by 15,000 persons (the intended increased
capacity of the Point Depot from 8,500) will involve 69% using public transport (i.e. 8,177
by LUAS and 1,656 by bus). This will involve a capacity of 5,000 on LUAS in a city
centre direction and in turn would give rise to 1,656 bus person trips in the hour following
the event which is not feasible even with an increased supply of bus numbers. It also
appears that extra buses will have a negative effect on exhaust emissions in the vicinity of
the intended development; while a proposal has been raised that buses would operate by
electricity, it is to be pointed out that no trolley bus service currently exists in the Dublin
area and to provide one would involve the putting in place of street furniture and other
pylons which in turn will cause some disruption during construction or maintenance works.
The Jacobs Report commissioned by the DTO considers that the buses to be provided for
this route would have to be of high quality, and it observes that inconvenience would arise
for LUAS commuters from further down the line having to change to a bus service at
Connolly Station to access the Point Depot. The Report concluded that a quality bus
service would not attract as much patronage as LUAS trams, and while the LUAS service
provides a more costly option than a bus service, its greater contribution to sustainable
development of the North Lotts and Point Village areas suggest that the LUAS should be
preferred over the less costly bus option.
Sustainable planning and development in an urban area is preferably achieved after an
efficient transport infrastructure has been put in place. The DDDA submitted that the
future residential and commercial development of the North Lotts and Point Village areas
have enhanced future development prospects with a LUAS transport service rather than a
bus service, because the capital investment in the LUAS scheme reflects a State
endorsement of development of these areas.
- 44 -
As observed previously, the objective of the project is not merely to provide an efficient
public transport link between Connolly Station and the Point Depot: the project has to be
considered as part of an overall transport strategy for the greater Dublin area into the future
which may involve further extension of the LUAS beyond the Point terminus. The required
strategic planning of such long term objectives will not be met by the short term costs
savings in choosing a bus transport option instead of the proposed LUAS extension.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the proposed bus transport options are not preferable to the
proposed LUAS extension.
7.4. EIS consideration of Alternatives:-
It is submitted that the EIS is inadequate because it failed to address other options, because,
apart from the proposed project, it failed to address other options namely:-
(a) The North Quay route.
(b) Doing nothing.
(c) Bus transport.
The North Quay route is referred to in the EIS at pages 27 and 28 under the heading
“Reassessment of Alternative Route along Quays”. Accordingly, the EIS cannot be
contended to be deficient for failure to consider this route option.
Section 39(1)(d) of the Act of 2001 requires an EIS to consider the main alternatives studied
by the RPA: it is not necessary to list exhaustively in the EIS all feasible routes for the
purpose of discounting or excluding them from realistic proposals. The Inquiry is not
convinced that an EIS considering alternatives must address the option of doing nothing
instead of the proposed development. The RPA is not an all-encompassing Transport
Authority with a remit to consider providing transport options other than rail transport.
However, before seeking the Railway Order proposed, the RPA consulted with the DTO and
considered its transport strategies for the greater Dublin area. It is to be noted that the
statutory consultation process undergone by the RPA also involved consultation with
various parties including the DTO, the DCC, the RPA and the Department
- 45 -
of Transport. This consultation is referred to in the EIS and this must necessarily have
considered doing nothing or utilising bus instead of tram transport.
Further material regarding the bus option was submitted by the RPA and DTO (particularly
the Jacobs Report), and also on behalf of representatives of the Banks which provided
additional information for consideration by the Inquiry as part of the EIA.
The Inquiry does not consider the EIS to be deficient in its consideration of alternative
routes or modes of transport.
- 46 -
8. SUMMARY OF RPA EVIDENCE.
Name of Witness Date of Evidence Nature of Evidence.
1. Darragh Byrne 29.05.06 Evidence of the RPA resolution to
seek a Railway Order and the acknowledgement of the Application made.
2. Anne Lillis 29.05.06 Evidence of the publication of
newspaper notices and display of documents and statutory consultation process.
3. Una Henshaw 29.05.06 Evidence of referencing to identify owners or interests in lands affected by the LUAS development and the service of documents relating to same. 4. Frank Allen 29.05.06 Evidence of Government policy and
Dublin Transportation Office Transport and Development Strategy and Transport 21 (the project starting point) and the need and demand for the project and project objectives
5. John Henry 29.05.06 Evidence of the Dublin Transportation
Office Transport and Development Strategy and the LUAS Line C1 compatibility with same.
6. Paul Moloney 29.05.06 Evidence of the Dublin Docklands
Development Authority Transport and Development Strategy and the compatibility of the LUAS Line
C1 with same.
- 47 -
7. Dick Gleeson 29.05.06 Evidence of the Dublin City Council
Transport and Development Strategy for the area and the LUAS Line C1
compatibility with same. 8. Michael Sheedy 29.05.06 Evidence of the concept of light rail and the experience and lessons learned during construction of Red and Green Line and the safety record of same. 9. Pat O’Donoghue 29.05.06 Alternative routes. 10. Ger Hannon 29.05.06 Public consultation process. 11. Eoghan Madden 29.05.06 Evidence of Traffic Management strategy for the area of the project from the Dublin City Council prospective. 12. Jerry Barnes 29.05.06 Evidence of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Land Use and Planning Strategy for the area in the vicinity of the development. 13. Jimmy Quinlan 29.05.06 Proof of all drawings and overview of the proposed line on an area by area basis (including the areas to be sought to be acquired compulsorily). Evidence of outline construction methodology. 14. Simon McKenna 29.05.06 Protection of telecommunications infrastructure in the IFSC. 15. Tom O’Reilly 29.05.06 Cost benefit analysis.
- 48 -
16. Peter Marsden 29.05.06 Ecology and interaction of EIS factors. 17. Sean O’Riordain 29.05.06 Socio-economic impacts and other effects on humans. 18. Sam Oxley 29.05.06 Visual and townscape impacts. 19. Alan O’Brien 29.05.06 Traffic impacts. 20. Andrew Vickerman 29.05.06 Construction traffic management. 21. Margaret Gowen 29.05.06 Archaeological impacts. 22. Frank Keohane 29.05.06 Conservation architecture. 23. Paul Johnston 29.05.06 Water and soil impacts. 24. Tony Maddocks 30.05.06 Electro-magnetic compatibility of project. 25. Steve Mitchell 30.05.06 Noise and vibration impacts. 26. Roger Barrowcliffe 30.05.06 Air quality impacts.
- 49 -
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS Ref: Name Date Summary of Submissions Oral Date of Inspector’s Received Submission Evidence Comments Y/N_______ 5.1 Dublin Transportation Office 23.02.06 DTO is concerned about:- Y 29.05.06
(DTO) (a) How the LUAS service will integrate with (a) Noted. Iarnrod Eireann Suburban Rail services at the Station at Spencer Dock and how it will
integrate with local bus services. (b) How growth in public demand will be met (b) Noted. by LUAS services. (c) The maximum platform lengths. (c) Noted. (d) The adequacy of provision for cyclists along (d) Noted.
the proposed LUAS alignment. (e) The adequacy of access at stops on line (e) Noted. extension. (f) Flexibility for future LUAS extensions. (f) Noted. (g) Determination of alignment of planned inter- (g) Noted.
corridor and long term station at Spencer Dock to ensure integration with LUAS services.
5.2 Dublin Docklands 23.02.06 DDDA:- Y 29.05.06 Development Authority (a) Fully supports the LUAS C1 Line extension Noted.
(DDDA) and the alignment route chosen by RPA. 5.3 Department of the 23.02.06 DEHLG:- N Environment, Heritage and (a) Request that archaeological consultant should This does not appear to be necessary as Local Government be engaged to carry out inspections during any material of archaeological interest is (DEHLG) groundworks and that results of inspections are likely to be below proposed construction
to be furnished to DEHLG. levels. 5.4 I.D.A. Ireland 30.03.06 (a) Are concerned about adverse effects on the Y 31.05.06 (a) This is noted and is addressed in
reputation and effectiveness of IFSC if LUAS the recommended conditions. works cause disruption to business operations, possible interruption of electricity or telecommunication services particularly as may arise during construction works.
(b) Require the RPA to prepare a risk (b) This is addressed in the mitigation strategy and business continuity recommended conditions. plan in respect of IFSC and to provide new electricity, telecommunications and water utilities prior to construction of the LUAS Extension.
(c) Require the appointment of a designated RPA (c) This is addressed in the Manager to liaise with the business community recommended conditions. of the IFSC during the construction of the project.
5.5 Spencer Dock Development 15.03.06 (a) SDDC raised no objections previously Y 31.05.06 (a) Issue of validity of contract Company Limited 01.06.06 because of alleged Agreement with RPA irrelevant to Inquiry. Time for (SDDC) that SDCC could receive right to construct, objections regarding LUAS to operate and maintain LUAS by way of Inquiry has not expired. Wintertide Limited 01.06.06 easement through Spencer Dock area so as to avoid need for land transfer. RPA announced change of this policy after time expired for making representations to Minister regarding LUAS Line. (b) SDCC are not consenting to transfer of land (b) The imposition of a condition in a (inter alia) because such transfer would Planning Permission requiring breach its Planning Permission which reservation of land for LUAS provides that a reservation be given to purposes does not preclude a RPA in respect of the LUAS. Railway Order being made in respect of lands affected by such Planning Permission. (c) Request that CPO is unnecessary because (c) The Inquiry does not accept that of Easement Agreement reached with RPA the Easement Agreement displaces regarding their lands. the RPA entitlement to a CPO. In any event it appears that the concerns regarding land take have been satisfactorily addressed by the RPA. (d) Request a condition to be recommended for (d) This is addressed in recommended inclusion in Railway Order requiring the conditions. RPA to liaise with businesses along the LUAS route during construction works. 5.6 Treasury Holdings Are concerned about land takes by the RPA for These concerns have been resolved by the carrying out of the scheme. agreement with the RPA.
5.7 State Street International 31.05.06 (a) Concerned about disruption of Y 31.05.06 (a) This is addressed in the (Ireland) Limited. Telecommunications and other utilities recommended conditions. during construction works. (b) Concerned about the absence of proper (b) This is addressed in the traffic control systems to prevent/minimise recommended conditions. traffic disruption during construction works. (c) Concerned that inadequate consideration has (c) The North Quay alignment was been given to North Quay as alternative route. considered by the RPA and was not considered appropriate so that
it was not one of the main alternative routes considered in the EIS.
5.8 North Wall Quay/ 24.02.06 This Company manages the common areas of Y 30.05.06 Mayor Street Management IFSC including roads and pavements and it: Limited (a) Supports the LUAS Line C1 extension. (a) Noted. (b) Is concerned at the potential negative impact (b) This is addressed in the on road traffic in the area during construction recommended conditions. works. (c) Request that “Loop Road” (aka “Alderman (c) This is addressed in the Way”) is not used as vehicular route to recommended conditions. Mayor Street during construction works. (d) Request that a Risk Management Study for (d) This is addressed in the essential utilities in the area be put in place recommended conditions. prior to construction. (e) Request that following construction of the (e) This is addressed in the track bed granite set cobbles should be recommended conditions. reused to maintain present visual amenity in the area. (f) Request that in the final stages a taxi rank (f) This is a matter to be addressed be provided in the area. by the R.P.A. and DCC at operational level. 5.9 Irish Life Assurance PLC ] 22.02.06 Object to LUAS Line extension because of intended N It is noted that the R.P.A. have Harbourmaster III Ventures] 22.02.06 removal of car parking spaces at Harbourmaster indicated that they will not be
International House Co. ] 22.02.06 Place for use as replacement taxi rank for rank at carrying out this proposal for removal IFSC. of the taxi rank. 5.10 Customs House Docks 23.02.06 This company is responsible for common areas Y 30.05.06 Management Limited of Phase 1 of IFSC (including roads and
footpaths) and it is:-
(a) Concerned about the effect of construction (a) and (b) The potential effects of works on utilities and traffic. construction works are addressed (b) Concerned about construction work and in the recommended conditions. operation of the LUAS disrupting access to adjoining business properties (particularly along Mayor Street).
(c) Concerned about limited range of alternative (c) The North Quay alignment was routes considered and it is submitted that considered by the RPA and was not the EIS is defective in failing to consider a considered appropriate so that it was North Quay alignment or the provision of not one of the main alternative routes other forms of public transport instead of considered in the EIS. Other public LUAS. transport options such as extra buses do not provide as satisfactory a service as the LUAS.
(d) Concerned about the effects of the operation (d) Traffic in the vicinity of the line will of the line on traffic in the area. not be seriously disrupted during operation of the line, and disruption of traffic during construction works will be temporary and controlled.
(e) Concerned about the proposed relocation of the (e) The RPA have confirmed that this taxi rank from Mayor Street to Harbourmaster proposal will not be carried out. Place. (f) Concerned about the limited size of the (f) This matter is addressed in the footpath in the vicinity of the Mayor Street recommended conditions. Lower stop.
5.11 Citigroup Corporate and 17.05.06 Citigroup:- Y 31.05.06
Investment Banking (a) Welcomes the proposal to bring the (a) Noted. LUAS Line C1 into the IFSC. (b) Require that an acceptable Risk (b) This is addressed in the Management Plan in respect of any recommended conditions. risk of interruption of telecommunication services in the vicinity of the LUAS Line be organised in advance of commencement of work on the project. (c) Require R.P.A. and utility providers to (c) This is addressed in the furnish minimum commitments to recommended conditions. prevent/minimise adverse effect on Citigroup’s business during construction works. (d) Require R.P.A. to provide insurance or (d) This is likely to create extra costs
indemnity or to fund Citigroup insurance and disputes and is unnecessary. against any loss/damage arising from disruption of telecommunications services during construction of project. (e) Require R.P.A. to identify all (e) This is addressed in the telecommunication and utility services likely recommended conditions. to be effected during construction of project and to produce evidence of location of same together with a written proposed construction methodology in respect of construction works in the vicinity of these services. (f) Require R.P.A. to organise clear diverse traffic (f) Adequate traffic control measures routes prior to construction work commencing have already been identified. so as to minimise traffic risk and disruption of Citigroup business. (g) Require R.P.A. to consult and agree with (g) This is addressed in the Citigroup and Bord Gais on alternative gas recommended conditions. supply line to Citigroup building and that this should be sufficiently charged at all relevant times and require that R.P.A. arrange with Bord
Gais that no single point of gas supply failure exists. (h) Require R.P.A. to ensure that E.S.B. are satisfied (h) This is addressed in the that there is a sufficient and healthy alternative recommended conditions. electricity supply source available to Citigroup building and that the R.P.A. work closely with the E.S.B. to minimise any interruption of electricity supplies. (i) Require R.P.A. to implement satisfactory dust (i) Satisfactory dust control and air borne particle control measures during measures are to be provided construction work and that R.P.A. and its during construction works. contractors will not break into any foul drains or sewers or gas lines so as to cause any disruptions/evacuation of the area. (j) Require R.P.A. to liaise with Dublin City (j) This is addressed in the Council to ensure that a separate alternative recommended conditions. water supply is available to the Citigroup building and to ensure that R.P.A. are familiar with the location of drains, sewers, fouls and culverts in the vicinity of construction works. (k) Require R.P.A. to establish a 24/7 emergency (k) This is addressed in the call-out repair service in respect of any potential recommended conditions.
disruption of gas, water, electricity or drainage systems servicing or adjacent to Citigroup building during construction work on the project. (l) Require that R.P.A. obtain approval of Dublin (l) This is addressed in the Docklands Development Authority and Dublin recommended conditions. City Council before commencement of construction works. (m) Require that construction of new Macken Street (m) The progress of development of Bridge over River Liffey is completed before Macken Street Bridge is not within LUAS construction works commence. control of the RPA and ought not
to impede progress of the development of the LUAS Line
extension. (n) Request conditions to be recommended to the (n) This is dealt with in the Minister by the Inquiry to give effect to their recommended conditions. said requirements (as listed above).
5.11 Citigroup Inc. and 22.05.06 These Banks object to the LUAS Line Extension Bank of Ireland because they are:- (a) Concerned that the EIS does not adequately address the utilities serving the IFSC as material assets (as defined in Section 39(2)(b) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001) and also, therefore, does not properly
provide a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed railway development. (b) Concerned about adverse effects on their banking business arising from possible disruption of utilities (particularly communication services) and request that in advance of construction works that all utilities are properly identified and that a thorough risk management scheme is put in place. (c) Concerned about inconvenience caused to their employees and customers/clients arising from traffic congestion connected with the construction and operation of the LUAS Line extension and complain that the EIS has underestimated traffic flows in the future
(particularly at the Mayor Street/Commons Street Junction). (d) Concerned about the substantial losses to be suffered by these Banks in the event of disruption of utilities during construction of the LUAS development and require a clear commitment from the RPA for liability for such losses. (e) Complaining about the removal of the taxi rank at Mayor Street envisaged in the RPA proposals. (f) Submit that the provision of improved transport facilities to the Docklands and IFSC with little or no risk of disruption of the IFSC business is better served by providing a comprehensive/enhanced bus service instead of an extension to the LUAS Line and that the provision of the LUAS Line Extension is not viable and is less viable than other identified/identifiable alternatives. (g) Submit that the LUAS Line extension should be routed along the North Wall Quay instead of through Mayor Street and that the EIS is deficient in choosing the Mayor Street route in preference because of the greater traffic congestion and inconvenience as well as safety issues arising from the choice of the Mayor Street route.
5.12 Point Exhibition Company The Point Companies:- Y 1.06.06 (a) Welcome the LUAS Line extension to the (a) Noted. Point Village Company Point Depot. (b) Request the relocation of the Point Stop (b) Agreement has been reached by the 10m to West because proposed location RPA regarding proposed relocation
would negatively impact on holding events of the stop. in Point Square and on crowd control at the Point Depot. (c) Request that construction works at the Point (c) It is not appropriate for the Inquiry to Stop are carried out between May 2007 recommend to the Minister the fixing May 2008 to coincide with time when Point of the schedule for the carrying out Depot is closed for reconstruction. of works on the project. The Inquiry
recommends a condition that the commencement and scheduling of works are to be agreed with the Planning Department of DCC. (d) Request that they be advised on the reservation (d) This is a matter for future required for any Eastward extension of the representation to the RPA LUAS Line from the Point Depot.
5.13 The North Port Dwellers 15.05.06 This residents group request that:- Y 31.05.06 The RPA have met with this Residents
Association 24.05.06 (a) Consideration be given to appropriate access group to address the grievances raised to driveway at 1 Mayor Street Upper. and it appears that the issues raised by (b) Houses numbered 1 to 6 Mayor Street the residents group have been addressed Upper be afforded parking bays as provided and resolved satisfactorily by the RPA. for houses numbered 7 to 10. (c) Cycle way be provided to continue along what is currently proposed as a parking area on the Southern side of Mayor Street Upper. (d) LUAS cable supporting poles/pylons not be placed against the houses numbered 1 to 6 Upper Mayor Street but that such devices are moved out towards the edge of the pathway. 5.13 Tony McDonnell 17.05.06 Complains about lack of consultation with N The resolution by the RPA of the him by RPA, which he contends is borne issued raised with the North Port out by the absence of a reference to the Dwellers Association also appear to driveway at front of 1 Mayor Street Upper meet these complaints/queries. (his residence) in LUAS plans. 5.13 Christopher Flynn 16.05.06 Queries effects of LUAS Line Y 31.05.06 The resolution by the RPA of the on parking outside his residence at issues raised with the North Port 4 Mayor Street Upper, and also regarding Dwellers Association also appear to positioning of poles, wires and footpath meet these complaints/queries. widening etc. 5.14 Chetham Holdings Limited 13.01.06 The occupiers of premises at Mayor Street Upper N Noted. Concerns about construction are concerned about the possible negative effects impacts can be dealt with by the RPA
on their property of construction works. at operational level.
5.15 Artbrook Limited 23.02.06 The occupiers of 547 Griffith Avenue, Dublin 11 N request:- (a) That the property be excluded from the Railway (a) The Inquiry accepts the submission
Order because of the remoteness from the project. of the RPA that the property being sought to be acquired is needed for storage in connection with the project.
(b) Complain about financial loss during temporary (b) Financial loss can be met possession of property. appropriately by award of compensation for temporary loss of the property. 5.16 C.I.E. Group Property Concerned about property acquisition. Y 31.05.06 Agreement has been reached regarding procurement by RPA of CIE property. 5.17 DART for Lucan Campaign 20.02.06 This group: Y 1.06.06 (a) Welcomes LUAS C1 Line extension. (a) Noted. (b) Requests that LUAS extension be (b) & (c) This is dealt with in the organised to avoid reduction of DART recommended conditions. or rail services at Spencer Dock and that appropriate consultations take place to optimize mitigation measures (including bus routes) to avoid any disruption of existing or alternative means of transport. (c) Request a condition to be recommended for (c) for inclusion in the Railway Order that
requires the RPA to carry out a study in conjunction with IE/Dublin Bus and DTO regarding delivery of ongoing public transport services to the rest of the city.
5.18 Platform 11 19.02.06 Platform 11: N (a) Support the provision of Line C1. (a) Noted. (b) Request that design of Point Depot (b) and (c) These requests are stop incorporate ground management addressed in the recommended facilities, e.g. barrier to allow for unwalled conditions. queuing for events at Point Depot. (c) Request that sufficient ticket vending machines are provided at busier stops. (d) Request that R.P.A. engage with Iarnrod (d) LUAS timetables are to be dealt with
Eireann to ensure that LUAS has adequate at operational level. frequency and capacity to accommodate needs of other rail users passing through Spencer Dock. 5.19 Eamon Ryan T.D. 26.05.06 (a) Supports the LUAS Line extension Y 31.05.06 (a) Noted.
(b) Requests that extension should be (b) The proposal for further LUAS stops developed to incorporate further LUAS stops is beyond the remit of the Railway to the Poolbeg Peninsula. Order under consideration, and is not
addressed in the EIS. A condition is recommended that requires the extension is constructed in a manner that does not preclude further extension beyond the Point terminus.
5.20 Colm Moore 31.05.06 (a) Complains about lack of clarity in RPA maps Y 31.05.06 (a) Noted. 01.06.06 and in EIS. (b) Requests longer platforms at stops. (b) This is a matter for RPA to be dealt with at operational level. (c) Concerned about traffic safety at junctions (c) The traffic risks on the LUAS arising from LUAS operation (particularly extension are no greater than on in relation to cyclists). other LUAS routes. (d) Requests bollards on cycle lanes to prevent (d) This is a matter for further cars blocking access. representation to the RPA and DCC (e) Requires special traffic arrangements to be (e) This is a matter to be addressed by made for cyclists along the route of the LUAS the RPA after consultation with the extension. Traffic Section of DCC. (f) Concerned about flood risk in area of the (f) This risk is not exacerbated by the extension. LUAS extension. (g) Suggests that archaeological investigation (g) On information currently available be carried out to determine what was this is unnecessary. previously built where Macken Street Cross/ Royal Canal/Spencer Dock. (h) Envisages difficulties in implementation of (h) The LUAS line extension does not DTO traffic plans. appear to impede appropriate
transport development for the Dublin area.
5.21 National Transport Users They have suggested alternative routes Y 31.05.06 The question of alternative routes Association to achieve transport integration. has been addressed.
RPA RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS RECEIVED. Submission Submission Type Issues Raised Response Dublin Transportation Written submission to - Supports scheme The issues raised were addressed in Office the Minister. - Integration of rail services in the evidence presented to the Inquiry on Spencer Dock area. 29 May 2006 by Jim Quinlan in
- Integration with bus services. Relation to route description and - Maximum length of platform. Tom O’Reilly in relation to capacity. - How will anticipated growth in public transport demand be met over time. - Adequacy of provision for cyclists. - Adequacy of access at/in vicinity of stops.
Dublin Docklands Written submission to - Supportive of the scheme. Evidence presented to the Inquiry Development Authority the Minister by Paul Maloney and Jerry Barnes further support the submissions. All matters resolved to satisfaction of DDDA. North Wall Quay/Mayor Written and oral - Traffic management during and 1. The issues raised were addressed in Street Management limited submission to the Minister. post construction. evidence presented to the Inquiry by
- Management of utilities/service Alan O’Brien and Andrew diversion. Vickerman in relation to traffic - Cobbled area of Mayor Street management and by Simon McKenna at Mayor Square on utility diversions. - Taxi rank provisions. 2. The requirement in relation to the cobbled area is noted and was dealt with in questioning of Jim Quinlan. 3. RPA has requested DCC to change
the location of the taxi rank from Mayor Street to Commons Street. DCC agrees with this in principle but will need the approval of Council members (Appendix 1).
Platform 11 Written submission to - Supports scheme. RPA notes points raised. The issues the Minister. - Design of stop at Point Depot to have been addressed in evidence. incorporate crowd management. Matters in relation to crowd
- Sufficient ticket machines should be management at the Point agreed with provided at Point Depot and Spencer the Point Exhibition Company. Dock stop.
- Service level should provide adequate capacity to accommodate rail passengers through Spencer Dock.
Dept. Environment, Written submission to - Archaeological Heritage. RPA correspondence attached. Heritage and Local the Minister. - Architectural Heritage. (Appendix 2). Government. Artbrook Limited Written submission to Objection to land take. Dealt with in question of Jim Quinlan. the Minister. RPA correspondence attached. (Appendix 3) Irish LifeAssurance PLC Written submission to Proposed permanent and temporary Dealt with in question of Jim Quinlan. Harbourmaster III Ventures the Minister. acquisition on Harbourmaster Place. RPA correspondence attached. International House Co. (Appendix 4)
Chatham Holdings Limited Written submission to - Detailed final design drawings The proposed permanent and the Minister. required to ascertain impact on temporary land take is required for property/business. the project. RPA corresponcence - Disruption and disturbance unacceptable. Attached (Appendix 5). Point Exhibition Co. Written submission to - Supports scheme. Agreement has been reached in Point Village the Minister. - Impact of the Point terminus from relation to the location of the stop at operation of the Point Square. the Point. The drawing attached in
- The coordination of construction Appendix 6, shows this location. activities around the Point Square. RPA will endeavour to carry out construction according to the programme requested but cannot commit to these dates due to factors outside its control.
Custom House Dock Written and oral Construction. The points raised have been addressed Management Limited. submission to the Minister. - Utilities. in evidence presented to the Inquiry by - Access. RPA and in this statement. Operation. RPA has in the past contributed to
- Traffic volumes similar costs for Local Authorities and - Service deliveries. will consider entering into similar - Hammerhead. arrangements with IFMS for reasonable - Taxis. costs incurred in relation to facilitating - Emergency access. LUAS construction. - Pedestrians. - Cyclists.
- Maintenance costs. - Width of platform at Georges The Northern platform as shown on the Dock stop. plans is proposed to be 3m wide, which is wider than the footpath at present and is considered adequate in relation to
likely passenger numbers. The Southern platform combined with the adjacent footpath of 1.5m giving an overall circulation width of 4.5m.
- Consideration of utilities as material assets. - Consideration of alternatives.
Wintertide Written submission to Land take agreements. RPA and Wintertide have reached the Minister and oral agreement on substantive matters submission to Inquiry. subject to contract. RPA seeks CPO powers in respect of relevant lands as a fall back position. IDA Written submission to Construction disruption. The issues raised were addressed in the Minister and oral evidence presented by Mr. Alan submission to Inquiry. O’Brien and Mr. Andrew Vickerman in relation to traffic management and
Mr. Simon McKenna on utility diversions. RPA will establish liaison forums for local residents and businesses to ensure
that information dissemination mechanisms are put in place for advising of works proposals and progress paying particular attention to impacts.
In the case of IFSC 1 & 2 RPA has Confirmed that it would welcome discussions with IFMS in relation to the establishment of effective consultation
mechanisms. Dart for Lucan Written and oral Integration with Irish Rail at The requested condition is unnecessary Campaign. submission to the Minister. Spencer Dock Station. due to established close collaboration with CIE Group companies. North Port Dwellers Written and oral - Driveway access for 1 Mayor Street RPA confirms agreement with as per Association. submission to Inquiry. Upper. evidence given by Mr. Flynn. A sketch
- Resident parking. of the proposed revised general - Location of overhead OMLE support arrangement together with relevant poles. correspondence is attached. (Appendix 7)
Citibank and Written and oral General issues and insurance. General issues dealt with in evidence. Bank of Ireland submission to Inquiry.
As is standard for large infrastructure projects, RPA will ensure that insurance is in place to cover the legal liability of RPA and its contractors employed on the project. RPA has put such insurances in place for earlier projects.
C.I.E. Group Oral submission to Inquiry. Location of the proposed LUAS A drawing showing the proposed substation at Spencer Dock is revised location of the substation as conflicting with the CIE Inter- agreed between RPA and CIE is connector proposals. Attached (Appendix 8).
RPA requests that the longtitudinal limits of deviation be increased to 25m in a westerly direction in this limited case.
Eamon Ryan T.D. Written and oral - Welcomes the proposed scheme. The RPA design of LUAS Line C1 does submission to Inquiry. - Suggests that LUAS Line C1 should not preclude any of the extension not preclude future extensions to the options outlined by Mr. Ryan. east and south. National Transport Users Submission to Inquiry. Suggested alternative routes to achieve RPA believes that Mayor Street rather Association transport integration. than North Wall Quay is the appropriate
preferred alignment for LUAS C1 as set out in evidence presented to the Inquiry.
Mr. Colm Moore Oral and written - Clarification of technical details. Insufficient road space is available to submission to Inquiry. - Cycling issues. accommodate a dedicated cycleway. RPA believe that there is now a greater awareness of the risk to cyclists since
the introduction of LUAS in 2004. An alternative cycle route, of very high quality, has been provided by DDDA in the Campshires.
11. CONDITIONS:-
The Inquiry recommends to the Minister the imposition of the following conditions in
granting the Railway Order.
A. In advance of commencement of construction works:
1. The RPA are to carry out a comprehensive audit of all utilities serving the IFSC and
the exact location of the conduits serving same.
2. The RPA are to put in place a comprehensive risk management plan for the
prevention, monitoring, control and remediation of risks of disruption of electricity
and telecommunications services to the IFSC which is to be prepared and operated in
consultation with and to the satisfaction of the ESB and Eircom.
3. The RPA, following consultation with Bord Gais are to ensure that Bord Gais are
satisfied that there is a sufficient and healthy alternative gas supply to the Citigroup
Building.
4. The RPA, following consultation with the ESB, are to ensure that the ESB are
satisfied that there is a sufficient and healthy alternative electricity supply source
available to the Citigroup Building.
5. The RPA are to consult with Dublin City Council Sanitary Services so as to ensure
familiarity of the RPA and their contractors with the location of drains, sewers, fouls
and culverts in the vicinity of the construction works for the project.
6. The RPA will consult/agree with the Garda Siochana and the Roads and Traffic
Section of DCC in relation to a road traffic control system to be operated during
construction work on the project and the RPA and its contractors shall consult with
- 66 -
the DCC and the Garda Siochana on a regular basis to consider and/or provide any
required modifications of this system.
7. The RPA are to establish and provide an “around the clock” emergency call-out
repair service in respect of any potential disruption of telecommunication, gas, water,
electricity or drainage systems servicing or adjacent to the Citigroup Building, and
which is required to be kept in place during the period of construction work on the
project.
8. The RPA are to obtain the approval of the DDDA Authority and DCC before
commencement of construction works for the project.
9. The RPA are required to appoint a designated manager to liaise with the business
community of the IFSC during the construction phase of the project.
B. 1. The RPA are required to provide a sufficient number of ticket vending machines and
crowd controlling barriers in the vicinity of the Point stop so as to provide for proper
crowd control on the occasion of major events at the Point Depot. The nature of
the crowd controlling barriers and the number and location of ticket vending
machines are to be agreed with the Planning Department of Dublin City Council.
2. The RPA and its contractors are not to use the “Loop Road” (also known as
“Alderman Way”) as a vehicular route to Mayor Street during the carrying out of
construction works.
3. During the carrying out of construction work granite cobblestones removed for the
fitting of the track bed are to be reused to maintain visual amenity of the area. The
RPA are to consult with the Planning Department of DCC prior to carrying out this
work.
- 67 -
4. The RPA are to provide a footpath of appropriate dimensions at the Mayor Street
Lower stop so that passage of pedestrians along the footpath at this location is not
unnecessarily impeded by the presence of LUAS users waiting for a tram.
Agreement is to be reached with the Planning Department of DCC regarding the
location and dimensions of this footpath facility.
5. The RPA are to carry out a study in conjunction with Iarnrod Eireann, Dublin Bus
and DTO regarding delivery of ongoing public transport services to the rest of the
city of Dublin.
6. The RPA and its contractors are to consult with Eircom, E.S.B., Bord Gais and DCC
on a regular basis during the construction phase of the project.
7. The works on the project shall be designed and carried out by the RPA in a manner
which shall not impede any further LUAS extensions beyond the Point Terminus.
- 68 -
12. CONCLUSION:-
The Inquiry carefully considered all submissions, objections and representations. The
Inquiry, having considered all of the evidence presented as well as the submissions,
recommends that the Draft Railway Order, as submitted, be approved by the Minister
subject to the Conditions set out in Chapter 11 of this Report.
- 69 -
13. A P P E N D I C E S.
1. Draft Railway Order submitted by RPA
2. Maps depicting areas of land to be acquired
3. Map showing route options considered in E.I.S.
4. Agreement reached by RPA regarding LUAS Extension Project
5. E.I.S.
6. Documents (including Reports) received from RPA and D.T.O.
7. Written Submissions/Reports from other parties
- 70 -
