Line CConnolly to The PointDepot

Dublin Light Rail Environmental impact Statement

1

1: Introduction 3

2: Public Consultation 12

3: Consideration of Alternative Routes 21

4: Luas Red Line Extension: Project Description 34

5: Planning and Land Use Context 43

6: Socio Economic Context 53

7: Traffic and Transportation 62

8: Ecological Resources 85

9: Soil 90

10: Water 95

11: Noise and Vibration 99

12: Electromagnetic Effects 113

13: Air Quality and Climate 116

14: Landscape and Visual 126

15: Cultural Heritage 149

16: Impact Interactions 161

17: Statement of Assessment 167

Annex A: Landscape Insertion Plans 168

Annex B: RPA Consultation Newsletter 174

Annex C: Supporting Information on Climate and Air Quality 176

Chapter Page

2

Availability of the Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS)

Copies of the EIS including the Non TechnicalSummary are available for inspection and pur-chase at the following locations:

Railway Procurement AgencyParkgate Business Centre,Parkgate Street,Dublin 8.

Dublin Transportation Office69 – 71 St. Stephens Green,Hainault House,Dublin 2.

The EIS is also available to download (free ofcharge) through the RPA website: www.rpa.ie

Copies of this EIS can be purchased for a sum of¤15.00 each; A CD version of the EIS can be purchased for asum of ¤5.00;Copies of the Non Technical Summary of this EISmay be purchased for a sum of ¤3.00 each at theabove locations.

Photomontage showing proposed Luas Stop on Mayor Street

3

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT

The purpose of this Environmental ImpactStatement (‘EIS’) is to present the results of an inde-pendent assessment of the significant environmen-tal impacts associated with the construction andoperation of a light railway line (‘Luas Line C1’)aligned between Connolly Station and The Point inthe Dublin Docklands area.

As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment(‘EIA’) process, the Study Team has analysed thepotential environmental and social effects of theLuas Line C1 light rail transit (‘LRT’) scheme toensure that it is designed and constructed to min-imise significant impacts, whilst maximising socialbenefits. As such, the objectives of the EIA may besummarised as follows:

• to identify the significant environmental impactsof the Luas Line C1 scheme, taking account of thecharacteristics of the proposed scheme, the sensitiv-ity of the local environment and the concerns oflocally and nationally interested parties;

• to predict and evaluate the extent and signifi-cance of potential impacts;

• to identify measures that should be taken to mit-igate potential adverse impacts;

• to assess the significance of residual impacts if anyremaining after proposed mitigation measures areimplemented; and

• to identify appropriate means of monitoring theidentified environmental effects of the Luas Line C1LRT scheme during its construction and operation.

This Environmental Impact Statement, as the princi-pal output of the EIA process, will inform decision-making on the approval of the Luas Line C1scheme. The information presented in this docu-ment has also assisted the Railway ProcurementAgency in the design and planning of the construc-tion programme so that the LRT scheme may bedeveloped focusing on the minimisation of nega-tive impacts.

ERM Environmental Resources ManagementIreland Ltd (‘ERM’) was commissioned, by theRailway Procurement Agency (‘RPA’), to prepare anindependent assessment of the environmentalimpacts of the scheme and its associated environ-mental impacts. ERM was assisted in the assess-ment process by specialist subcontractors in thefields of cultural heritage and of traffic and trans-port (refer to Table 1.8a). As the environmentalassessment specialists and lead environmental con-

sultants, ERM takes responsibility for the informa-tion and recommendations contained in this EISdocument.

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE LUAS LIGHT RAILSCHEMEThe Dublin Transportation Initiative (DTI), pub-lished by the Department of Transport in 1994, pre-sented an integrated transport strategy for theGreater Dublin Area. Among other measures, itrecommended the construction of a three line LRTsystem, linking Tallaght, Ballymun and Cabinteelyto the City Centre. In1996 the Transport (DublinLight Rail) Act, 1996 was enacted and provides alegal framework whereby Córas Iompair Éireann(CIÉ) might apply to the then Minister for PublicEnterprise for “Light Railway Orders” (LROs), grant-ing CIÉ powers to construct, operate and maintainlight railways.

In October 2000 the Dublin Transportation Office(DTO) published “A Platform for Change - Outlineof an integrated transportation strategy for theGreater Dublin Area - 2000 to 2016” incorporatingLuas and Metro lines. In December 2001 theTransport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 wasenacted and the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act1996 was repealed. The new Act contains provisionssimilar to the repealed act in respect of Luas andMetro systems. In December 2001, the RPA was

4

established and subsumed the role of the formerCIÉ Light Rail Project Office.

1.3 OUTLINE OF THE LUAS LINE C1DEVELOPMENTLuas Red and Green Lines were constructed andcommenced operation in June and September 2004respectively. Luas Line C1, which is the focus of thisEnvironmental Impact Statement, is an extension ofthe Luas Red Line and will operate from the exist-ing terminus at Connolly Station to The Point.

Line C1 is approximately 1500m in length and com-prises a double track extension from the existingline at Store Street. This extension runs for a shortdistance along Amiens Street before turning east-wards across the junction of Harbourmaster Placeand Mayor Street Lower. At this location there willbe a “delta junction” constructed to facilitate thepassage of trams from Connolly Terminus andthrough traffic by-passing Connolly Terminus. LuasLine C1 continues to run eastwards along MayorStreet Lower, crossing Georges Dock via the existingbridge. The route continues along Mayor StreetLower, crossing Guild Street and over the GrandCanal via the construction of a new bridge. Theroute will continue through the Spencer DockDevelopment and re-establish the connectionbetween Mayor Street Lower and Upper. The routewill then cross New Wapping Street andCastleforbes Road, continuing along Mayor Street

Upper before terminating at The Point. The DublinDockland Development Authority has placed aCompulsory Purchase Order on a road to the westof the Point Theatre.

The principal components of Luas Line C1 comprise:

• trams (similar to those currently in operation onthe Red and Green Lines);• tram stops;• track;• an overhead electricity supply; and• bridge over Grand Canal and associated fixturesand structures.

The trams currently in operation are 30m and 40min length and can carry 235 and 310 passengersrespectively. The passenger carrying capacity andthe service frequency of trams can be adjusted tooffer a wide range of line capacities. The vehiclesare powered by electricity drawn from overheadwires at 750V DC and operate to a maximum speedof 70km/h. Within the city centre, the trams arerestricted to relevant traffic speed limits.

A detailed description of the Luas Line C1 is pre-sented in Chapter 4.

1.4 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUNDIn the 1990’s, the Dublin Transportation Initiative

and the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act 1996 laiddown the conceptual need and the legislative pow-ers to develop the Luas scheme in Dublin. TheDublin Transportation Office (DTO) was establishedin 1995.

In 2000, the DTO published “A Platform for Change– Outline of an integrated transportation strategyfor the Greater Dublin Area – 2000 to 2016 “whichincorporated Luas and Metro lines within its overallstrategy. A Platform for Change provides an overallplanning framework for the development of thetransport system in the Greater Dublin Area.Regarding the LRT proposals, the DTO strategyrecognises the importance of the Luas scheme incontributing towards increasing public transportcapacity from 70,000 in 2001 to 300,000 in 2016.The scheme is intended to be integrated withQuality Bus Corridors, DART and Metro Services andcycle and pedestrian routes to create an integratedtransport network.

In 2001, the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996was replaced by the Transport (RailwayInfrastructure) Act, 2001 which established theRailway Procurement Agency (‘RPA’) as an inde-pendent statutory agency responsible for the pro-curement of railway infrastructure.

In addition to the transport-specific policy and leg-islative instruments described above, the Luas Line

5

C1 complies with a range of other current andevolving polices. These include the following:

• Regional Planning Guidelines (RPGs) for theGreater Dublin Area 2004;• Dublin City Development Plan 2005 -2011 (adopt-ed March 2005);• Dublin Docklands Masterplan 2003; and• Dockland North Lotts Area Planning Scheme2001.

These documents are reviewed in more detail inChapter 5.

1.5 REQUIREMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTASSESSMENT

1.5.1 Transport (RailwayInfrastructure) Act 2001This Environmental Impact Statement has been pre-pared pursuant to Section 37 (1) of the Transport(Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 which states that:

“The Agency, CIE or any other person with the con-sent of the Agency, may apply to the Minister for aRailway Order.An application under subsection (1) shall be madein writing in such form as the Minister may specifyand shall be accompanied by-

(a) a draft of the proposed Order,(b) a plan of the proposed railway works,(c) in the case of an application by the Agency or aperson with the consent of the Agency, a plan ofany proposed commercial development of landadjacent to the proposed railway works,(d) a book of reference to a plan required underthis subsection (indicating the identity of the own-ers and of the occupiers of the lands described inthe plan) and,(e) a statement of the likely effects on the environ-ment (referred to as an Environmental ImpactStatement) of the proposed railway works.”

The Introduction to the Act sets out its main pur-poses as follows:-

“(i) establish a new independent, commercial,statutory public body to be known as the RailwayProcurement Agency whose main function will bethe procurement of new railway infrastructure;

(ii) allow private sector participation in the con-struction, operation and maintenance of new rail-ways;

(iii) repeal the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act,1996, and re-enact its provisions in a modifiedform, to provide a single statutory railway orderprocedure; and

(iv) provide for the regulation of light railwayswhen running on-street”.

This EIS contains the information specified inSection 39 which sets out the information that mustbe contained in an EIS submitted by an applicantfor a railway order. The following information ismandatory and is incorporated into this EIS: -

• “a description of the proposed railway workscomprising information on the site, design and sizeof the proposed railway works. (S.39.1 (a))

a description of the measures envisages in order toavoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significantadverse effects, (S.39.1 (b))

• the data required to identify and assess the maineffects which the proposed railway works are likelyto have on the environment, (S.39.1 (c ))• an outline of the main alternatives studied by theapplicant and an indication of the main reasons forits choice, taking into account the environmentaleffects, (S.39.1 (d))• a summary in non-technical languages of theabove information” (S.39.1 (e))

In addition the following matters shall also beincluded:-

“ a description of the physical characteristics of thewhole proposed railway works and land-use

6

requirements during the construction and opera-tional phases (S.39.2 (a) (i) )

An estimate by type and quantity, of the expectedresidues and emissions (including water, air, soilpollution, noise, vibration, light, heat and radia-tion) resulting from the operation of the proposedrailway works, (S.39. 2 (a) (iii) )

A description of the aspects of the environmentlikely to be significantly affected by the proposedrailway works, including in particular: - (S.39.2 (b))

Human beings, flora and fauna, (i)

Soil, water, air, climatic factors and the landscape,(ii)

Material assets, including the architectural andarchaeological heritage and the cultural heritage,(iii)

The inter-relationship between the mattersreferred to above,

A description of the likely significant effects(including direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative,short, medium and long-term, permanent and tem-porary, positive and negative) of the proposed rail-way works on the environment resulting from –(S.39.2 (c) )

The existence of the proposed railway works, (i)

The use of natural resources, (ii)

The emission of pollutants, the creation of nui-sances and the elimination of waste, (iii)

and a description of the forecasting methods usedto assess the effects on the environment. (iv)

An indication of any difficulties (technical deficien-cies or lack of know-how) encountered by theapplicant in compiling the required information,(S.39,2 (d)).

A summary in non-technical language of the aboveinformation. (S.39.2 (e)).

An important paragraph is inserted at the end ofSection 39 (2) of the Act. This states that the infor-mation in an EIS is to be prepared, “ to the extentthat such information is relevant to a given stage ofthe consent procedure and to the specific charac-teristics of the railway works or type of railwayworks concerned, and of the environmental fea-tures likely to be affected, and the applicant mayreasonably be required to compile such informa-tion having regard, inter alia, to current knowledgeand methods of assessment”.

Section 39 (4) provides that: -

“The European Communities(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations1989 to 2000, and the Local Government (Planningand Development) Regulations 1994 to 2000, andthe Act of 2000 and any regulation made thereun-der in relation to the effects on the environment

shall not apply to anything done under an ordermade under this Act”.

Whilst the EIS process under the 2001 Act is specif-ic to rail developments, account was taken inpreparing this EIS to the “Advice Notes on CurrentPractice (in the Preparation of EnvironmentalImpact Statements) which was issued by theEnvironmental Protection Agency in 2003 and alsoto the “ Guidelines on the Information to beContained in Environmental Impact Statements”published by the Environmental Protection Agencyin 2002.

This results in additional factors being addressedsuch as, for instance, protected structures along theroute alignment.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE EISAn important stage in the EIA process is the earlydetermination of the technical issues associatedwith the construction, operation and decommis-sioning of Luas Line C1. This is important as theparticular activities arising from different develop-ments will require specific assessment approaches,determined by the potential impacts arising fromthe development and the sensitivity of the chosenlocation. Early planning of the assessment,through the application of systematic scoping tech-niques, ensures that resources are effectivelydeployed and efficiently focussed.

7

The understanding gained from the scopingprocess then provides direction in relation to thetype and level of information that will need to begathered in order to adequately assess impacts.

Whilst the design Luas Line C1 will focus largely onthe intended route and its immediate surroundingarea, an EIA is required to take a wider view (orgeographical scope) in determining the full envi-ronmental consequences of a proposed develop-ment. For example, the EIA will be required toaddress the environmental consequences of issuessuch as:• any developments that may occur as a conse-quence of the Project (e.g. provision of additionalpassenger facilities);• areas outside the project sites which may beaffected by any emissions or effluent dischargesduring construction (e.g. particulate, wastewater,hazardous materials);• existing activities which will be altered or cease asa consequence of the Project (e.g. residential orrecreational activities);• the main environmental effects of Luas Line C1compared with the existing land use or an alterna-tive land use, and• other existing or planned developments withwhich the Project could have cumulative effects.

ERM has undertaken this EIA and prepared this EISin accordance with these requirements.

1.7 TIMETABLE OF TECHNICAL STUDIESThe EIA Study was commissioned in October 2001.Scoping was carried out between October 2001 andJanuary 2002. Technical studies for the EIS largelycommenced in the summer of 2002 and were com-pleted by Spring 2005.

The EIA process culminates in the publication of anEIS and Non-Technical Summary (NTS). These docu-ments inform decision-makers during the approvalprocess. The EIS also plays an important role ininforming the Luas Project Management Team as tothe implementation of specific environmental man-agement and monitoring tasks.

8

1.8 EIA STUDY TEAM

ERM mobilised a team of experienced consultantsto undertake the individual stages of the EIA. Theirnames and responsibilities are listed in Table 1.8a:

ERM formed part of the Line C1 Design Team – amulti-discipline team managed by the RPA, includ-ing Traffic specialists, Safety specialists, Engineers,Environmental specialists and Architects etc.

Function Name Organisation

Project Director Peter Marsden ERM

Project Manager Ruth Minogue ERM

Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Clare GlanvilleTracey Ryan

ERM

Air Quality Nicola WaldenGeorgina le Neve Foster

ERM

Ecology Aileen McSwiney ERM

Noise Steve MitchellMike FraserAileen McSwiney

ERM

Vibration Rob Barlow ERM

Archaeology Lisa CourtneyJackie Jordan

Margaret Gowen & Co Ltd

Landscape and Visual Neil ElliotSam OxleyRuth MinogueEimear O’Connor

ERM

Electromagnetic Peter Dray ERMTraffic and Transport Alan O’Brien

Andy BlanchardJonathan Noonan

Faber Maunsell

Consultation Paul ScottPeter Marsden

ERM

Planning Alison Harvey ERM

Socio-economic Kirsten WilliamsRachelle Marburg

ERM

EIS Preparation Peter MarsdenRuth MinoguePaul Scott

ERM

Table 1.8a EIA Study Team

9

1.9 CONSULTEESAlthough there are no legal requirements regard-ing consultation at the pre-submission stage of theEIA process, it is considered beneficial and prudentto consult with interested parties at an early stageof the project planning and development process.

In order to ensure that the EIS covers all relevantissues, members of the project team consulted witha wide range of organisations whose interestsmight be affected by Luas Line C1. These includeboth statutory bodies and non-governmentalorganisations with relevant interests. The pre-sub-mission consultations, undertaken as part of theEIA process, took place in parallel to the RPA’s ownpublic consultation exercise. However, the RPAconsulted a broader range of interested parties aspart of the process of selecting a preferred routeand did not limit its scope to environmental issues.

ERM’s approach to ‘scoping the issues’ was to dis-cuss the scheme, obtain information relevant to theassessment and identify any environmental issuesof concern to the consultees that should beaddressed in the EIA. Details of the consultationprocess and outcomes are outlined in Chapter 2.

1.10 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONSTable 1.10a explains certain terms and abbrevia-tions used throughout the rest of this document,

which will aid the reader in their overall under-standing of the EIS.

Table 1. 10a Glossary of Terms

Terms & Abbreviations Definitions aOD Above Ordnance Datum At Grade At public carriageway level (as opposed

to underpass or bridge overpass)CIE Córas Iompair ÉireannCumulative Impacts These occur when the effects

of an action are combined or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time

dB(A) A frequency weighting applied to sound measurements which approximates to the frequency response of the human ear

DART Dublin Area Rapid Transit DDDA Dublin Docklands Development

AuthorityDo-Nothing Scenario The situation, which would

exist if no intervention or development,was carried out.

DTO Dublin Transport OfficeEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS Environmental Impact StatementEPA Environmental Protection AgencyEU European UnionFauna AnimalsFlora Plants

Groundwater Water that occupies pores and crevices in rock and soil, below the surface and above a layer of impermeable material.

GSI Geological Survey of IrelandIFSC International Financial Services CentreLAeqT A widely used noise parameter that

calculates a constant level of noise withthe same energy content as the varyingacoustic noise signal being measured. The letter “A” denotes that the A-weighting average has been included and “eq” indicates that an equivalent level has been calculated. Hence, LAeqis the A-weighted-equivalent continuous noise level. LAeq is used as the basis for defining limits under the EPA Act.

LAeq10 The level of A- weighted noise exceeded for 10% of the 15-minute measurement time. This parameter is used to give a single figure result for higher noise levels and the impulse noise levels measured during the sample.

LAeq90 The level of A-weighted noise exceededfor 90% of the 15minute measurementtime. This parameter is used to give a single figure result for noise level without any incidental or impulse noiseand is often used as a measure of the background noise level.

10

LRV Light Rail Vehicle, more commonly known as tram. The name tram is moreusually referred to throughout this document.

LRT Light Rail Transit – a generic term for the light rail system.

Mitigation Measures Measures taken to avoid, reduce or minimise predicted impacts

Monitoring The repetitive and continued observation, measurement and evaluation of environmental data to follow changes over a period of time, also used to assess the effectiveness of control measures.

NOx Nitrogen OxideNO2 Nitrogen DioxideOCS Overhead Conductor SystemOHLE Overhead Line EquipmentPAH Polycyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsPM10 Particulate matter measuring less than

10 microns in diameter.ppb parts per billionReceiving Environment Existing environment within

which the LRT is to be developed.RMP Record of Monument and PlacesRPA Railway Procurement AgencySMR Sites and Monuments RecordSPA Special Protected AreaSAC Special Area of ConservationSO2 Sulphur DioxideScoping The process of identification of the

most significant issues to be addressed within the environmental impact assessment process.

ug/m3 Microgrammes per cubic metre, a measurement referring to air quality.

VDV Vibration Dose ValueVOC Volatile Organic Compounds.

1.11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ERM would like to thank the RPA for their commit-ment to the project and acknowledge the individ-ual ERM contributors who have assisted in the pro-duction of this EIS.

In addition, ERM would like to thank the variousspecialists for their individual technical inputs tothe EIS. These include:

• Faber Maunsell - Impacts on Traffic and Transport.• Margaret Gowen and Company Limited -Archaeological Assessment• MC3-D - Photomontages for Visual ImpactAssessment.

1.12 EIS STRUCTUREThe remainder of this EIS document is structured asfollows:

Chapter 2: Public Consultation This chapter describes the consultation processundertaken in order to identify key environmentaland socio-economic aspects/issues of the study.Details of the issues raised are also summarised andincluded in this chapter.

Chapter 3: Consideration of AlternativeRoutesEuropean and national EIA law require an EIS toinclude a description of alternatives consideredduring the design and selection of developmentproposals and to explain the reasons for selectingthe chosen route including environmental reasons.This chapter therefore presents an overview of theLuas Line C1 route selection process, which deter-mined the preferred route option.

Chapter 4: Luas Red Line ExtensionChapter 4 describes the development that is beingproposed. It includes details on the spatial andtemporal phasing of the development and, usingmaps and scaled diagrams, it explains the detailedlayout of the completed development. It should benoted that certain information on materials, con-struction machinery and techniques are not yetconfirmed and are not included in the scope of thisstudy.

11

Chapter 5: Planning and Land Use ContextThis chapter describes the past, present and pro-posed landuse within the study area. Strategic poli-cies, development plans and other relevant infor-mation is reviewed in the context of the Luas LineC1 scheme.

Chapters 6-15: Environmental ImpactsChapters 6-15 describe the impacts of the proposeddevelopment on the various aspects of the environ-ment. Each chapter will follow a common structureas set out below.

• Methodology – sources of information and meth-ods used to study the environmental impacts;• Technical limitations – details of any problemsencountered during the impact assessment processand how these limitations have been taken intoaccount;• Receiving Environment – description of the envi-ronment as it presently exists;• Potential impacts – identification of sources ofpotential impacts and magnitude and significanceof the potential impacts of the development in theabsence of any precautionary controls;• Mitigation Measures – measures taken to avoid,reduce or minimise any impacts predicted in theprevious Chapter;• Predicted Impacts - magnitude and significance ofimpacts that may occur after mitigation measureshave been applied; and

• Monitoring requirements – details of a monitor-ing programme that will be undertaken to detectany impacts during construction and operation ofthe new Luas line extension.

The aspects of the environment are divided into thefollowing categories:

Chapter 6: Socio Economic Context

Chapter 7: Traffic and Transportation

Chapter 8: Ecological Resources

Chapter 9: Soil

Chapter 10: Water

Chapter 11: Noise and Vibration

Chapter 12: Electromagnetic Effects

Chapter 13: Air Quality and Climate

Chapter 14: Landscape and Visual

Chapter 15: Cultural Heritage

Chapter 16: Impact InteractionsThis chapter looks at the pattern of impacts bothspatially and temporally and assesses if the Luas

Line C1 may cause an accumulation of impacts inone area or aggregated impacts over time. It alsolooks at how certain aspects of the Luas Line C1scheme may cause multiple impacts, the occurrenceof secondary impacts and how these may be miti-gated.

Chapter 17: Statement of Assessment This chapter provides a formal statement of thefindings of the EIA process.

The EIS is supported by a number of Annexes as fol-lows:

Annex A: Landscape Insertion Plans.Annex B: RPA Newsletter.Annex C: Supporting Information on Climate andAir Quality.

12

2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

2.1 INTRODUCTIONThis section of the EIS describes the approach takenduring the EIA-related consultation and public par-ticipation programme. The current legal require-ments for consultation during the EIA process areoutlined, the methods used by ERM to obtain sub-missions from statutory consultees are describedand a summary is provided of the key issues raisedin such submissions.

2.2 REQUIREMENT FOR CONSULTATIONIn Ireland, the legal requirements with regard toconsultation on new railway infrastructure are con-tained within the Transport (Railway Infrastructure)Act, 2001. This Act includes specific requirementsregarding the content of an EIS and requires thatthe EIS be advertised after the application for theRailway Order has been made.

The European EIA Directive (Council Directive85/337/EEC (as amended) on the assessment of theeffects of certain public and private projects on theenvironment) sets the basic requirements for theEIA process for specific projects in all EU MemberStates. As such, it includes EIAs for “Tramways, ele-vated and underground railways, suspended linesor similar lines of a particular type, used exclusivelyor mainly for passenger transport;”(Annex 2:10(h)).

The Directive requires that consultation with thepublic and the environmental authorities must takeplace prior to the decision-making stage but doesnot necessarily require that any consultation takeplace prior to submission of the EIS. Nevertheless,it is considered beneficial and prudent to consultwith key interested parties at an early stage of theproject planning and development process. Thisbenefits the EIA process through:

• enhancing transparency in decision-makingthrough the provision of information which allowsfor early identification and mitigation of potentialimpacts;• providing a more comprehensive understandingof the baseline environment and relevant key indi-vidual and community issues and values (so morecomprehensive data can be integrated into thedevelopment design);• facilitating the acquisition of information on thepotential environmental effects at an early stage ofthe EIA process; and• increasing understanding, avoiding unnecessarycontroversy and delays in the decision makingprocess at later stages arising from lack of under-standing.

2.3 CONSULTATION PROCESS

2.3.1 Overall Luas Consultation ProgrammeAs part of the EIA process, pre-application consulta-tions were undertaken in parallel to the RPA’s ownpublic consultation exercise. The RPA consulted abroader range of interested parties as part of theprocess of selecting a preferred route and did notlimit its scope to environmental issues.

ERM’s approach to ‘scoping the issues’ was to dis-cuss the scheme, obtain information relevant to theassessment and identify any environmental issuesof concern to the consultees that should beaddressed in the EIA.

2.3.2 RPA Consultation ProgrammeThe RPA initiated public consultation in relation toLuas Line C1 in April 2003. The launch of theprocess was marked by a joint RPA/DDDA initialmedia briefing where commencement of publicconsultation, focusing initially on the selection ofthe preferred route option for Luas Line C1, wasannounced. The media briefing was well attendedand was successful in prompting a significantamount of media coverage, which served to alertmembers of the public to the proposed line exten-sion and the associated public consultation process.

The launch of the public consultation process was

13

followed by the distribution of approximately10,000 newsletters targeted at all addresses - busi-ness, residential and institutional - in the vicinity ofthe indicative route options for Luas Line C1.

The form and content of information disseminationis outlined below.

Newsletter

The newsletter included maps showing identifiedroute options and possible stop locations and a listof key issues to be considered in identifying thebest overall route option. It confirmed the RPA’sinterest in obtaining the views of interested partiesand representatives. Amongst the informationincluded in the newsletter was a description of theoverall process governing the making of railwayorders, which served to place the public consulta-tion process in an appropriate context.

The newsletter was accompanied by a Freepostresponse postcard for return by the recipient indi-cating their willingness to participate in the publicconsultation process; the postcard also providedrecipients with an opportunity to communicateviews and preferences to the RPA. Annex B pres-ents the RPA Newsletter.

Newspaper Notices

Newspaper notices (approximately A4 size) werepublished in national newspapers following thelaunch of the public consultation process.Providing key information in relation to proposalsfor Luas Line C1 these notices again underlined theRPA’s interest in receiving views and commentsfrom interested parties. The notices incorporated aFreepost cut-out section to be completed andreturned by interested parties confirming their will-ingness to participate in the consultation process.Respondents were sent a copy of the newsletter.

Meetings

In April 2003 the RPA initiated meetings with inter-ested parties. In most instances meetings werearranged at the request of the RPA. Table 2.3a liststhe interested parties that were consulted at thisearly stage.In November 2003, IFMS (Integrated FacilityManagement Service, a property managementcompany responsible for a large proportion of theIFSC) with which RPA had consulted, convened ageneral meeting, at which presentations weremade by RPA representatives regarding the select-ed route option and work on the design of the LuasLine C1.

Table 2.3a RPA Consultation withInterested Parties

Residents of Mayor Street UpperBrook ThomasJones OilABN AmroThe Vaults Residents of Custom House Harbour ApartmentsCustom House Plaza Management CompanyHarbourmaster BarSPAR, Gandon House and Custom House SquareMcCann FitzGeraldNCBWGZ BankHVB BankDepfa BankNAB CRLIFMSIFSC Steering CommitteeLisney/AIGCitigroupInsignia Richard Ellis GunneGunne MacKenzieMontgomery OppenheimEircomMcKeever RowanFitzpatrick’s MenswearExcise BarJP MorganGrafton BarbourPlatform 11

14

Open-Day (December 2003)

Following the selection of the chosen route, andthe subsequent development of more detaileddesign proposals, an open-day was held inDecember 2003 at the National College of Irelandin the IFSC.

Persons who had responded to the RPA’s consulta-tion initiatives and had been entered on to a data-base were invited to attend and a notice referringto the open-day was posted on the RPA and theDDDA web sites. An organisation with a databaseof contacts in the IFSC area agreed to incorporatenotification of the open-day in a newsletter beingdistributed by e-mail prior to the open-day.

Apart from drawings of the route for Luas Line C1,a dynamic graphical simulation model of theshared running section between Amiens St andCommons St was developed and exhibited at theopen–day. In part, the simulation was intended toillustrate how shared running would operate andthereby counter concerns and misunderstandings,which had arisen from the earlier stages of the con-sultation process.

Open-Day (January 2004)

Following the open-day held in December, a secondopen-day was organised for January 2004 to display

the most recent draft proposals and a graphicallyenhanced version of the dynamic traffic simulationmodel.

Large scale notices were published in nationalnewspapers inviting members of the public toattend, letters were sent to all database membersadvising of the open-day and notices were postedon the RPA and DDDA web sites.

In December 2004, a third open-day was held toupdate interested members of the public on theprogress of Line C1 and to provide the RPA with anopportunity to respond to queries and obtain com-ments. Notices were published in national newspa-pers inviting members of the public to attend andinvitations were sent to persons listed on the RPAdatabase.

Draft drawings of a design based on the MayorStreet alignment (the chosen route for the propos-al) were available for inspection. Attendees werealso informed that a more detailed examination ofan alternative route option along the Quays hadbeen prompted by feedback from public consulta-tion (see Section 2.3.3 below). Copies of the RPA’sdocument outlining the results of this route optionexamination were available for inspection andwere issued to attendees. CD versions of the docu-ment were also issued. Attendees were informedthat a final decision in relation to the Quays option

to be pursued was imminent.

The product of the preliminary electronic mappingexercise was a graphical animation showing theoutput of a utilities survey was made available tothe public for inspection. Development and imple-mentation of a risk mitigation strategy for utilitydiversions was further discussed.

Correspondence & Telecommunications

A significant number of letters, e-mails and tele-phone calls were received from interested parties.As a matter of policy, the RPA responds to all suchcorrespondence.

2.3.3 Further RPA Consultation with IFSCBusiness Community in August 2004Arising from the on-going public consultationprocess, a number of concerns were raised, princi-pally by the business community in the IFSC. Thekey concerns related to impact upon telecommuni-cations infrastructure and construction stageimpacts.

In recognition of the criticality of the telecommuni-cations services to IFSC business interests and inorder to mitigate the risk of their disruption, RPAgave a commitment during consultation to developand implement a risk mitigation strategy. The aimof this strategy is to minimise the impact associated

15

with construction activities to existing utilities.A significant amount of opposition to the selectionof the Mayor Street Alignment was encountered bythe RPA. The IFSC Steering Committee which wasestablished in 2004 to oppose the scheme promot-ed the view that a better alignment option alongthe North Quays was available.

As a consequence of these concerns, the RPAagreed to reinvestigate an alternative Line C1alignment along the Quays. A report reassessingthis option was prepared by the RPA in August2004. This report concluded that adoption of aQuays option would give rise to unacceptable andsevere traffic impacts and disruption, in addition toenvironmental impacts, and significant cost increas-es. Further details of this assessment are providedin Chapter 3, Consideration of Alternatives.

2.3.4 Summary of Issues Arising from RPAConsultation with IFSC CommunityA wide range of issues were raised and respondedto during the course of the consultation process.Issues included:

• measures to avoid damage to critical communica-tions cables (which led to the re-examination, andrejection, of the Quay option as discussed previous-ly);

• temporary traffic management measures neces-

sary to facilitate the construction of Luas Line C1;

• traffic management measures which would berequired to be introduced on an indefinite basis tofacilitate the efficient running of trams followingthe commissioning of passenger services;

• the maintenance of access to residences and busi-ness premises during the construction phase forpedestrians and vehicular traffic;• the provision of loading/unloading facilities;

• provision of resident parking facilities;

• noise, dust and vibration during construction andoperation of the line;

• spacing between stops; and

• interchange with existing and proposed IarnródÉireann services.

2.3.5 Statutory EIA ConsultationsERM contacted a range of organisations in order toinform them of the nature of Line C1 and to deter-mine the nature of any concerns or issues that theywished to have raised during the EIA process. Tofacilitate the consultation process, all organisationswere sent a copy of the Line C1 Route OptionsNewsletter, published by the RPA, and a copy of theExecutive Summary of the Environmental Desktop

Connolly Station (front)

Connolly Station (rear)

16

Study completed by ERM in 2001.

Table 2.3b lists the bodies that were consulted, thetype of consultation (meeting or letter) andwhether a response was received. The bodies are alllisted as “prescribed bodies” under Section 28 ofthe Planning and Development Regulations, 2001(S.I. 600 of 2001). These bodies may be consultedby a local authority upon receipt of relevant plan-ning applications.

All organisations were initially contacted by letter;those that did not respond after several days werethen followed up with a telephone call.

ERM personnel attended meetings with four pre-scribed bodies. These were regarded as being theorganisations that will have the closest involve-ment with the project during its construction andoperation.

Organisation Meeting Letter Response

Dublin City Council

Dublin Docklands Authority

Dublin Transportation Office

Department of Transport

An Taisce

National Roads Authority

Dúchas

An Chomhairle Ealaion

Bord Fáilte Éireann

Commission for Electricity Regulation

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

Regional Fisheries Board

Environmental Protection Agency

The Heritage Council

Health Board

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources

Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Waterways Ireland

Irish Aviation Authority

Table 2.3b ‘Prescribed Bodies’ consulted by ERM

17

2.4 SUMMARY OF ISSUES

2.4.1 Issues Arising from ERM’s ConsultationActivitiesTable 2.4a list the issues that were raised by theDublin Docklands Development Authority, theDublin Transportation Office, the Department ofTransport and Dublin City Council. The Table alsoidentifies where, in the EIS, these issues have beenaddressed.

Table 2.4a Issues Raised during Consultation Meetings

Consultee Issue Section where issue is addressed in EIS.

Dublin Docklands Potential for soil contamination. Chapter 9Development Authority Flood levels along Mayor Street. Chapter 10

Integration of Point Depot with other transport nodes. Chapter 7Visual impact of “wirescape” and integration of design into existing townscape. Chapter 14Wheel squeal in residential areas. Chapter 11Pedestrian safety. Chapter 7Access by other traffic. Chapter 7Visual and heritage issues related to Spencer Dock Bridge. Chapter 14Interchange with other modes of public transport. Chapter 7Capacity of Line C1. Chapter 7New policy in the DDDA Masterplan 2003 which reserves canal crossing for public transport, cycling and pedestrians. Chapter 6 and 7

Dublin Transportation Office Assumptions made in traffic modelling/junction

strategies. Chapter 7Integration with other modes of transport Chapter 7Roll-out of Platform for Change Chapter 7Impacts at different scales Chapter 7Use of models Chapter 7Cycling/walking Chapter 7

18

Table 2.4a Issues Raised during Consultation Meetings (continued)

Consultee Issue Section where issue is addressed in EIS.

Department of Transport EIS must be compliant with Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. All of EIS.Should address issues raised at previous Luas PublicInquiries (particularly noise and vibration). All of EIS,

particularly Chapter 11.Non-technical summary should be carefully focused. NTS

Dublin City Council Definition of corridor. Chapter 4.Need to look at Landscape Framework Plan and Urban Design Plan. Chapter 14.

19

Table 2.4b summarises the key issues that wereraised by those organisations who were contactedby letter. The Table also identifies where, in the EIS,these issues have been addressed.

2.5 CONCLUSION

The submissions that were received during the con-sultation process aided in the scoping of the EIAprocess and in the identification of potentialimpacts, key environmental sensitivities and aspectsof the project that required clarification from theDesign Team.

Throughout the consultation process it was madeclear that the RPA was ready and willing to consultwith interested parties in an open and professionalmanner.

The development proposals which constitute thesubject matter of this environmental impact state-ment reflect the contribution of those who optedto participate through the public consultationprocess and the RPA design team’s preparedness toaccommodate ideas, views and concerns as far as isreasonably practicable and appropriate.

In this regard and in recognition of the criticality ofthe communications services to IFSC business inter-ests, RPA gave a commitment to implementing autility risk mitigation strategy to minimise the risksto continuity of service associated with diversion ofutilities.

Table 2.4b Issues Raised by Organisations Contacted by Letter

Organisation Issue Section where issue is addressed in EIS.

Environmental Protection Refer to EPA Advice Notes that have been revised or All of EISAgency are undergoing revision

Waterways Ireland Refers to details already discussed Chapter 4 andwith DDDA and RPA regarding Spencer Dock Bridge. remainder of EIS

Commission for No comments -Electricity Regulation

Minister for Community, No comments -Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

Irish Aviation Authority No significant effect on the safety of civil air navigation. -

National Parks and Referred to Applications Section and to the Regional Chapter 8Wildlife Service (formerly EcologistDúchas)

Minister for No comments -Communications, Marine and Natural Resources

The Heritage Council No comments. Recommended contacting National Parks Chapter 8 and Wildlife Service.

20

Interested parties were requested not to forego theopportunity which would be provided to inspectthe plans, the environmental impact statement andother documents accompanying the railway orderapplication as these might incorporate changes oradditional information of interest to them.

21

3 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

3.1 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter discusses the approach taken in thecomparative evaluation of alternative Luas Line C1routes and the selection of the preferred route.

With respect to the Luas Line C1, the following sec-tions discuss the rationale for the extension of theLuas Red Line beyond Connolly Station, the routeidentification process and a description of how theroutes were assessed.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RATIONALE FOR THEEXTENSION OF LUAS RED LINE

The policy review outlined in Chapter 1 confirmsthe need for a LRT system in Dublin in order to con-tribute to an integrated public transport system toand within the city centre. In the absence of theLuas Line C1, the Red Line terminates at ConnollyStation and there will be no link to the Point.Although the North Lotts Planning Scheme, withinthe overall Dublin Docklands Development Area,would continue as planned, the Luas Line C1 is anintegral part of the redevelopment of theDocklands and will be an important node for devel-opment in this area. A proposed stop at SpencerDock and a terminus at the Point will provide accessto and from these areas by public transport. The

area will have a limited degree of private vehicleaccess in order to provide a better living environ-ment oriented around public transport nodes.Furthermore, in the absence of the improved accessthat proposed Luas extension would provide, Cityareas between Connolly Station and Dublin Portwould be excluded from the opportunities fordevelopment and regeneration.

In line with the Directive 85/337/EEC (as amendedby Directive 97/11/EC), the early determination ofthe technical issues associated with the construc-tion, operation and decommissioning of the pro-posed development is required. Early planning ofthe assessment, through the application of system-atic scoping techniques, ensures that EIA resourcesare effectively deployed and efficiently focussed.

The Environmental Desktop Study was undertakenby ERM in 2001 as part of the examination of routealternatives. Three initial route options were con-sidered and assessed for their potential environ-mental impacts. Further discussion on this processis presented in the following section.

3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF ROUTES

3.3.1 Route Identification Process

The route identification process was undertaken by

a multi-disciplinary team comprising RPA’s Luas LineC1 design team, representatives of Dublin CityCouncil and the EIA study team. The route identification methodology comprisedthe following six stages:

1. Identification of feasible alignment options forLuas Line C1.

2. Elimination of unreasonable options based upontraffic, cost, built environment, safety and broadengineering grounds.

3. Identification of a short-list of route options formore detailed evaluation.

4. Evaluation of the short listed route optionsbased upon operational, environmental, topo-graphical, geotechnical, cost, built environmentand more detailed engineering grounds.

5. The undertaking of Public Consultation on thethree route options.

6. The identification of the preferred route.

Overview of Initial Routes

The overall route selection process began with theidentification of all possible route options thatmeet the overall development objective of provid-ing a light rail link from Store Street (off AmiensStreet) to the Point .

22

Beginning in early 2001, a wide range of routeoptions and alignment variants were developedand evaluated by the RPA in consultation withDublin City Council. During the evaluation of this‘long list’ of options, a number of key criteria wereapplied, including:

• engineering feasibility/practicability/constructability/operability;• disruptions to traffic flow (during both construc-tion and operation of the line); • cost considerations;• consideration of the built environment; and• disruption associated with the relocation of serv-ices and utilities.

Many route corridors were considered during thisinitial exercise. In order to assess the corridorseffectively, the corridors were broken down intotheir individual streets and the streets were evalu-ated to identify which of these streets posed signif-icant restrictions.

23

3.4 SELECTION PROCESS

3.4.1 Route Selection Criteria

Part of the options appraisal process involveddeciding which aspects of the environment neededto be addressed and which aspects are less likely tobe significant. The assessment of environmentalconsiderations against each route option involvesthe ongoing application of selection criteria in aconsistent manner. Best practice and emergingguidelines on the environmental aspects to be con-sidered were taken into account during this stage.

Table 3.5a below indicates which aspects are con-sidered to be the key environmental issues thatwere addressed in the route selection process.

Table 3.5a Key Environmental Issues

Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Key Environmental issue

Human Beings Economic Activity

Social Patterns

Land-use

Employment

Health & Safety

Flora and Fauna Communities

Terrestrial/Aquatic/Marine

Seasonality

Succession

Existing Management

Critical Requirements

Protection Status

Habitats

Breeding/Feeding/Roosting

Routes

Mammals/Birds/Fish/Insects/

Reptiles

Population

Stability/Management

Critical Resources

24

Table 3.5a Key Environmental Issues (continued)

Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Key Environmental issue

Soil Geology (e.g. Karst environments)

Mineral Soils

Peat/Fens

Estuarine Sediments

Agricultural Capability

Engineering Characteristics

Water Ground/Surface/Estuarine/ Marine

Physical

Chemical

Biotic

Beneficial Uses

Air Air Quality

- Pollutants

- Suspended Particles

Odour

Noise

Vibration

Radiation (Electromagnetic)

25

Table 3.5a Key Environmental Issues (continued)

Environmental Topic Environmental Aspect Key Environmental issue

Climatic factors CFCs

Acid Rain

Thermal Pollution

Micro-Climate Change

Pollution Transport

Landscape Landscape Character

Landscape Context

Views & Prospects

Historical Landscapes

Manmade Landscapes

Material Assets Building & Structures

Infrastructures

Natural Resources of Economic Value

Cultural Heritage Archaeology

Folklore/Tradition/History

Architecture/Settlements

Monuments/Features

26

In addition, as part of the scope for the desktopstudy a review of comments made during the oralhearings of previous Luas routes was undertaken.Some of the key concerns noted during publicinquiries for the previous Luas Lines included:

• impact on local communities;• traffic management arrangements;• access arrangements (in particular loading/unloading at premises along the route of Luas LineC1);• noise and vibration;• disruption during construction (in particular noiseand dust impacts, and pedestrian movement); and• concerns regarding the use of Connolly StationRamp for a Luas stop.

In line with the information presented above, thecomparative appraisal of the route options wasundertaken on the basis of the following key crite-ria, which were regarded to be the most pertinentissues for this options appraisal:

• socio-economic factors;• potential soil/groundwater contamination;

• landscape/heritage factors; and

• traffic.

3.4.2 Route Options

The initial route options were carefully assessedagainst a number of key considerations. They wereall eliminated on a number of grounds, frequentlydue to engineering feasibility constraints, disrup-tion to traffic flows, built environment considera-tions.

A number of options including single and dualtracks for Store Street, Talbot Street, MemorialRoad, Beresford Place, Custom House Quay, AmiensSt and Connolly were eliminated primarily due todisruption to traffic flows, disruption associatedwith relocation of services and facilities and engi-neering feasibility constraints.

A variety of options and combinations were alsoconsidered for the Commons Street, Guild Street,New Wapping Street, Sheriff Street, Seville Placeand Harbourmaster Place areas.

Following the evaluation of the long list of routeoptions, broken down into the individual streets,the RPA and representatives of the Dublin authori-ties developed a ‘short list’ of three routes thatwere identified for more detailed assessment.

Each of the routes shared a common alignmentbetween Commons Street and the terminus at thePoint . For ease of integration with the existing

Luas Red Line and to ensure optimal flexibility froman operational perspective, all routes also havetheir western end linking up with the Luas Red Lineat Store St (off Amiens St) and all serve ConnollyStation, As a result all route options consideredinvolve reconfiguration of the track arrangementscrossing Amiens St.

Route Option A proposed the straightest andshortest of the three routes. From Store Street theline would head across the main junction withAmiens Street and along Mayor Street Lower adja-cent to the IFSC. The route would then cross GuildStreet and across a new bridge over Spencer Dock,over the CIÉ site and on to the Point terminus. Theline would be twin-tracked along its length. (SeeFigure 3.5.2a).

Route Option B would head across the junctionbetween Store Street and Amiens Street andConnolly Station and run northeast upHarbourmaster Place alongside Connolly Stationwhere it would become single-track in order to passthrough the narrow section at the northern end ofHarbourmaster Place. The alignment then revertsto twin tracks in Sherriff Street and continues eastalong Commons Street and Mayor Street across anew bridge over Spencer Dock to the proposed ter-minus at The Point. (See Figure 3.5.2b)

27

Route Option C proposed a line with a single-track loop extending from the existing cross overarrangements located south of the terminal stop atConnolly Station, eastbound Luas vehicles wouldtravel along the east side of the station buildingthrough the narrow lane before turning intoSherriff Street Lower. and down Commons Street.At the junction of Mayor Street Lower andCommons Street the track reverts to a twin trackarrangement and continues east across a newbridge over Spencer Dock to the proposed terminusat The Point or to continue clockwise to close theloop at the junction with Harbourmaster Place. Thewestbound Luas vehicles would run along MayorStreet Lower to Store Street. (See Figure 3.5.2c)

As is apparent from the route descriptions above,the three route options under consideration sharedcommon sections such that three route sectioncomponents could be defined:

Route Section 1 - from Store St, Amiens Streetalong Sherriff Street Lower and Common Street tothe junction with Mayor Street Lower;

Route Section 2 - from Store St, Amiens Streetalong Mayor Street Lower and to the junction withCommons Street; and

Route Section 3 - from the junction with CommonsStreet along Mayor Street Lower, connecting with

Mayor Street Upper to the Point.

These route sections were combined in the routeoptions under consideration in the following man-ner:

Route Option A combined Route Section 2 andRoute Section 3; and

Route Option B combined Route Section 1 andRoute Section 3;

Route Option C combined Route Sections 1, 2 and3.

Given that Route Section 3 was common to allthree Route Options (and therefore is a neutral ele-ment in any comparative assessment of the threeoptions), a comparison of the options availablecomprised: Route Section 1 versus Route Section 2versus Route Sections 1 & 2 combined.

It is clear that any such comparison would result ineither Route Option A or B being found favourableto Route Option C as the latter would combine thephysical impacts of all the options under considera-tion.

Re-assessment of an Alternative Route along Quays

Following the formal consideration of the route

options, and the subsequent public consultationprocess, a number of specific concerns continued tobe expressed in relation to that section of the pro-posed alignment along Mayor Street, in the vicinityof the IFSC. In particular, the IFSC SteeringCommittee raised concerns regarding the potentialimpacts upon existing telecommunications infra-structure, which is critical to business continuity,and of temporary construction stage impacts,which they perceived as having a potentially longterm negative effect upon a number of local busi-nesses. Access to underground parking facilitiesduring construction has also been expressed as aconcern. As part of this consultation process, aroute via the Quays was suggested by the IFSCSteering Committee as an alternative. This hadbeen considered by RPA during the early stageroute assessment process and had been rejectedmainly due to traffic considerations. However inview of the serious concerns voiced by the IFSCSteering Committee, RPA undertook to re-assessthe Quays route.

Several options for a route along the Quays wereconsidered. The first 500-750m of the routebetween Connolly and the Quays was shared by allof these options (if one assumes that the line mustconnect with Connolly). Alternatives which bypassConnolly and Busáras were also considered includ-ing a link directly back to Abbey Street. The trafficimpacts of these variants would be significant and

28

the loss of integration with Busáras and ConnollyStation essentially ruled these options out.

An alternative route using the first section ofHarbourmaster place was also considered, with thetram crossing Georges Dock via a bridge structure.

Three options for routes proceeding along theQuays were identified:

• Route Option 1 a route between two adjacentcarriageways in the centre of the existing road; • Route Option 2 would stay on the North side ofCustom House Quay; and• Route Option 3 would place the route along theCampshires.

The IFSC steering committee in response to theoptions identified above proposed a further varia-tion on an alignment on the north side of theQuays which was also assessed

The environmental impacts of the various Quaysoptions are discussed in further detail below.

3.5 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF ROUTES

3.5.1 Socio-economic Factors

As each of the non-quays route options lay withinthe same broad corridor, their potential for impactswere similar. The main difference between theoptions related to the alignment of the trackbetween Amiens Street and Commons Street, with-in Custom House Dock. However since redevelop-ment of this area is well advanced there would belittle or no impact on the development profile ofthe area as a result of any of the proposed routes.The greatest impact of the scheme would be to theeast of Spencer Dock where the regenerationpotential is the greatest. All of the options fol-lowed the same route in this area and hence therewere no differences between the impacts of thethree options.

The appraisal of the socio-economic differenceimplications of the alternative route options con-cluded that the options were broadly similar intheir effect, with a minor preference for RouteOptions B and C due to the improved accessibilitybetween Connolly DART station and Luas. All ofthe route options would temporarily adverselyaffect communities during construction but theseimpacts were balanced against the improved acces-sibility and reduced journey times that the Luas willultimately provide.

The appraisal also concluded that the degree of dif-ference between the options is relatively narrowand did not warrant the exclusion of any of theRoute Options based on socio economic factors atthis stage.

In relation to the identified Quays Options whencompared with the Mayor St alignment three sig-nificant factors were identified which predictednegative impacts in relation to passenger accessand capital costs:

1. The Quays alignment options are located a con-siderable distance from the proposed Spencer DockStation, a critical transport hub for the docklandsarea. There is also a large residential community tothe North of the preferred alignment, which wouldbe disadvantaged by moving the alignment furthersouth.

2. The location of the line along the Quays leavesLuas Line C1 with a catchment limited to the northside rather than both north and south, whichwould be the case if the line were located onMayor Street.

3. The alternative routes along the Quays wouldrequire more property acquisition and demolitionand so add significantly to the capital cost. TheCampshires option (“Route Option 3”) would

29

require demolition of the two restaurant buildingsand would result in major impacts on the environ-mental improvement works recently undertaken byDDDA. The route long Mayor Street is mainly inpublic roadway or along lands reserved as part ofplanning permissions already issued; this routetherefore requires no demolition of existing prop-erties.

3.5.2 Potential Soil/GroundwaterContamination

The appraisal of potential soil and/or groundwatercontamination identified potentially significantissues along each of the route options. It is expect-ed that the construction of Luas Line C1 will involverelatively shallow excavations between 800 to 1500mm below the surface at any location along theroute options with the exceptions of bridges andsubstations. However, the potential for encounter-ing contaminated material within this depth rangewas considered greater in the Sherriff Street area(due to historic industrial rail uses associated withConnolly Station) when compared with MayorStreet Lower; accordingly Route Option A was thepreferred option since it avoided this potential areaof environmental concern. The Quays Options, by being routed to the south ofthe core areas of historic industrial use, are likely toencounter areas with a lower contaminationpotential. However, since the Route Option A, B, C

evaluation exercise was undertaken, the progres-sive development of the Spencer Dock area hasbeen accompanied by land remediation measuressuch that the risks of encountering unforeseen con-tamination have been reduced.

Overall, it should be noted, that the appraisal alsoconcluded that the degree of difference betweenthe options is relatively narrow and did not warrantthe exclusion of any of the Route Options at thisstage. Remediation of any areas of significant con-tamination, albeit at a cost, can resolve any issuesassociated with contaminated soils.

3.5.3 Landscape/Heritage Factors

The appraisal of landscape and heritage issuesidentified the impact to the heritage and town-scape resources (specifically, the protected struc-tures) on Mayor Street Lower as a potentially signif-icant difference between the three route options;albeit these effects would be reduced through sen-sitive design. Nonetheless, the appraisal concludedthat there was a slight preference for Route OptionB (which avoids particularly sensitive features alongMayor Street Lower) over the other two options.

The appraisal also concluded that the degree of dif-ference between Route Options A to C is relativelynarrow and did not warrant the exclusion of any ofthese Route Options at this stage.

The Quays route options would avoid impacts toheritage resources on Mayor Street. However, eachof these options would require the crossing of theScherzer Bridges, which are protected structures.The dimensional clearances of the trams are suchthat a single Scherzer bridge could not accommo-date the passage of two trams. However, this doesnot warrant the exclusion of the Quays optionsbased on landscape/heritage factors.

3.5.4 Traffic

A detailed appraisal of the potential traffic implica-tions of the route options and a consideration ofavailable traffic management options was under-taken. A particular emphasis was placed on thetraffic implications of each of the route optionsincluding those associated with the proposedMacken Street Bridge development, Dublin PortTunnel, and other proposed developments thatmay create new traffic cells. For each of the routeoptions, an overall traffic scheme for the studyarea, compatible with the on-street light rail run-ning, was developed.

This appraisal concluded that Route Option Cappeared to be the least preferred route as it com-bined the physical impacts of all the route optionsunder consideration and increased the numbersand locations of potential sensitive receivers. Theappraisal also identified Route Option A as the pre-

30

ferred route. However, the appraisal noted that thedegree of difference between the Options was rel-atively narrow and did not warrant the exclusion ofany of the Route Options at this stage.

The Quays Options

The Quays route options posed a number of signif-icant traffic and road user safety implicationswhich are outlined below:

Key issues associated with the alignment optionsfor routes proceeding along the Quays:

• Route Option 1 a route between two adjacentcarriageways in the centre of the existing road; • Route Option 2 would stay on the North side ofCustom House Quay; and• Route Option 3 would place the route along theCampshires.

Traffic: an alignment along the quays would resultin significant impacts on traffic. The Port Tunneland Macken Street bridge are key components inDublin City Council’s traffic management strategyfor the City. Modelling of traffic in the area indi-cates that whilst large trucks would be removedfrom the Quays by the Dublin Port Tunnel, there isa potential for increased traffic volumes alongCustom House Quay. The only alignment optionalong the Quays that would result in less significant

traffic impacts during operation would be a fullysegregated alignment along the Campshires.Otherwise there would be a number of difficulttrack crossings and interface points between theLuas line and the existing north-south routesthrough the area. Traffic impacts would be mostsignificant in the area of Custom House Quay andBusáras. These options are not acceptable to DublinCity Council.

Compatibility with Macken Street Bridge: eachof the Quays options also has difficult issues withregard to compatibility with the proposed MackenStreet Bridge and the entrance to Spencer Dock.Achieving sufficient headroom for the access to thecanal with a fixed bridge would result in anunworkable interface with Macken Street Bridge,with the result that an opening bridge would bethe only option to facilitate a crossing of the canal.The proximity of the alignment to the MackenStreet Bridge makes a future connection crossingthe bridge very difficult.

Safety: the Quays options pose a number of signif-icant risks for roadusers for example on Memorialroad the potential for traffic and trams travelling inopposing directions on the wrong side of the road.Footpaths and roadway widths are minimised, cyclelanes removed pedestrian crossings become diffi-cult resulting in pedestrians having to negotiatetraffic and trams travelling in several differentdirections with no space for staggered crossings.

Complex tram/road user interactions, especially atjunctions and crossings can lead to higher risk ofaccidents.

Integration with other modes of public trans-port: the Quays alignment options are located aconsiderable distance from the proposed SpencerDock Station, a critical transport hub for the dock-lands area.

Passenger access: the Quays options limits theLuas Line C1 catchment to the north side ratherthan both north and south if the line were locatedon Mayor Street. The proposed new pedestrianand road bridges across the Liffey would help toreduce this somewhat. However, there is a largeresidential community to the North of the pre-ferred alignment, which would be disadvantagedby moving the alignment further south.

Loss of amenity: the alignment option along theCampshires would require major changes to thisnewly created public amenity. The Campshires are alinear recreation area parallel to the river, withample cycle and walking facilities and river-sideseating. The removal or permanent reduction inscale of the Campshires would have a negativeeffect on the quality of environment for theDocklands community Trees that have recentlybeen planted along the Campshires may have to beremoved to facilitate construction and temporary

31

diversions of services and traffic. Space restrictionsmay prevent these being replaced following con-struction. The Famine Memorial would have to berelocated and two newly established restaurantsdemolished.

The principle issues associated with the shared sec-tion between Connolly and the Quays are:

Traffic Disruption: Amiens St is one of the maintraffic arteries for the city’s traffic managementstrategy. The Quays options would require a fulldelta junction arrangement to be located inAmiens Street. This would interfere with trafficflow through reduced traffic lanes and the intro-duction of signals to control tram movementsacross the delta junction are complex. A connectionfrom the Quays back to Connolly Station wouldresult in severe traffic impacts on Memorial Roadand around the Custom House. The alignmentwould remove a minimum of two lanes from infront of the IFSC (La Touche House) and wouldrestrict car park access on the quays. The need toreduce the number of lanes on the southern end ofAmiens Street, such a proposal is not acceptable toDublin City Council.

Pedestrian, Cyclist, Road User Safety signals,moving points and metalwork in the road carriage-way would make the Amien St junction a difficultand confusing crossing, in particular for pedestrians

and cyclists. The Mayor Street proposed alignmentplaces the delta in Harbourmaster Place in a traffic-free area. Reducing the risks to all roadusers. Also,the potential for opposite direction running oftrams on Memorial Rd, introduces greater risks fortram, road user interface.

The alternative route using the first section ofHarbourmaster place, with the tram crossingGeorges Dock via a bridge structure has the advan-tage of avoiding the predicted traffic impacts atMemorial Road. Demolition of a small shop unitwould be required and the requirement for a newbridge across the dock would have a significantimpact on the amenity of the newly renovateddock. A high level bridge would be required tocross the roadway and then ramp down onto theCampshires (pedestrianised area adjacent to theLiffey) to avoid an at-grade crossing.

3.5.5 Overall Comparative AppraisalAs indicated above, Route Option C appeared to bethe least preferable option as it combined the phys-ical impacts of all the other route options underconsideration and increased the numbers and loca-tions of potential sensitive receivers. At the sametime however, Route Option C would allow maxi-mum accessibility to the Docklands Area for LuasLine C1 passengers. However, it is important tonote that each of the technical appraisals also con-cluded that the differences between the route

options did not warrant the exclusion of any of thenon-Quays route options at this stage. This is dueto the scale and/or duration of identified potentialimpacts, which can potentially be mitigatedthrough the detailed design process and throughthe application of best practice in site managementduring construction and operation.

The comparative environmental appraisal indicatedthat none of the non Quays Route Options are like-ly to give rise to impacts that would warrant theirexclusion from further consideration. Similarly,there appeared to be no clear preference across theenvironmental factors appraised for one RouteOption to be considered the preferred option.

The route selection process also considered non-environmental issues, such as engineering feasibili-ty, financial considerations, and provision of pas-senger services. It was concluded therefore thatenvironmental considerations should be given rela-tively low weighting in the route selection processand that other factors (engineering feasibility, pas-senger service provision, cost, etc) would be used asthe primary determinants of route selection.

Comparison of the Quays route options with theMayor St alignment concluded that the Quaysroute options would result in significant trafficmanagement, economic and environmentalimpacts that, in combination, warranted the exclu-

32

sion of the Quays route option from further consid-eration. In addition, the two principal concerns, inrelation to the Mayor Street option, were analysedand appropriate risk avoidance and managementmeasures were proposed:

Communications network risk can be minimisedby the use of improved mapping information. Tothis end, the RPA have undertaken detailed groundradar investigations and are using this informationto carefully plan and phase utility works in conjunc-tion with the business community in the area.Alternative and backup routes can help to avoiddowntime or potential accidental disruption.

Construction Impacts There will be significant,but temporary, construction impacts during thebuilding of the line along Mayor Street. Howeverthe RPA considers these will not be as significant asperceived by local residents and occupants of theadjacent buildings. By the use of good planning,proper liaison, construction innovation, prefabrica-tion, flexible working, these impacts will be min-imised. The construction impacts are short-term innature and will be offset by the gains which thefinal scheme brings. During construction access topremises and underground carparks will be main-tained.

3.6 EMERGENCE OF ROUTE OPTION A AS THE PREFERRED

ROUTE

The results of the initial comparative evaluation ofroute options identified Route Option A as the pre-ferred route.

However, the decision to proceed with this routeoption was suspended in the summer of 2004 fol-lowing representations from local business inter-ests that requested that options routed along theQuays be considered within the overall route eval-uation exercise.

As discussed in Section 3.5 above, a re-evaluation ofthe original short listed route options against theQuays route options has demonstrated that theQuays options would result in significant environ-mental, traffic management and economic impactsthat, in combination, warranted the exclusion ofthe Quays route option from further consideration.

The overall conclusion of the consideration of alter-native route options is that Route Option A is thepreferred route. This route is the straightest andshortest of each of the routes considered and com-prises a twin tracked alignment from Store Street,across the main junction with Amiens Street andalong Mayor Street Lower adjacent to the IFSC.From the IFSC the route would cross Guild Streetand Spencer Dock and on to the Point terminus.

This selected route has been subjected to fullrequirements of the EIA process as reported in theEIS Chapters that follow.

Photomonta ge sho wingproposed Luas line on Ma yor St.

34

4 LUAS RED LINE EXTENSION: PROJECTDESCRIPTION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the extension of the existingLuas Red Line from Connolly Station to The Point,known as Luas Line C1. The objective of this chap-ter is to present the main activities associated withthe development of the Luas Line C1, includingscheme description, construction activities andoperational activities.

4.2 CONTEXT OF SCHEME

The Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) published‘A Platform for Change’ in 2000, which outlined anintegrated transportation strategy for the GreaterDublin area. One of the recommendations of thisreport was the extension of Luas Red Line (LowerAbbey Street to Connolly Station) to the Docklandsarea. This Luas extension is planned within thewider context of a number of proposed develop-ments within the Docklands area including:• the construction of the Macken Street Bridgeacross the River Liffey;• the construction of the Interconnector rail linkbetween Heuston and a proposed Spencer DockTerminus;• the construction of the Dublin Port Tunnel; • the overall development of Docklands areaincluding Spencer Dock and the proposed Linear

Park and National Conference Centre, and• the construction of the Irish Rail Surface Stationat Spencer Dock.

4.3 OBJECTIVES OF SCHEME

The following design objectives were consideredduring the development of the Luas Red LineExtension.

The new LRT route should provide connection toLuas Red Line (as previously approved and con-structed);

The new route should serve The Point, as indicatedin the DTO publication ‘A Platform for Change’;

The new LRT route should allow for a possible linkto the proposed heavy rail station beneath theSpencer Dock Site and the Irish Rail Surface Stationat Spencer Dock;

The new route should allow for possible futureextension to Dublin Port and the South side of thecity via the proposed Macken St Bridge;

• LRT route to service existing and proposed devel-opment within the Custom House Docks area;• The LRT route should comply with the DDDAplanning scheme for the extended Custom HouseDocks area;• The new LRT route should avoid demolition ofexisting properties; and• The new LRT route should support sustainable

development of the docklands area.

4.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSEDSCHEME

4.4.1 Design PrinciplesIn addition to the objectives detailed in Section 4.3above, a number of design assumptions were alsomade and these are presented below:

• the extension of the Red Line will be designed toaccommodate the current vehicles operating onthe Red and Green Lines;• the route will be predominantly at street level;• no separate depot will be provided;• the route should be suitable for future develop-ment via the proposed Macken Street Bridge; and• stops will be similar to those used on the existingRed and Green lines, i.e. 50m long platforms.

4.4.2 Route AlignmentThe Red Line extension is approximately 1,500m inlength and comprises a double track extensionfrom Store Street; close to the existing terminalstop at Connolly Station. This alignment turns east-wards across the junction of Harbourmaster Placeand Mayor Street Lower from the existing Red Linestop at Connolly Station. At this location there willbe a “delta junction”. The design of this junction atMayor Street, Amiens Street and HarbourmasterPlace allows the greatest level of flexibility opera-

35

tionally with different service patterns possiblefrom each arm in both directions.

The Red Line extension continues to run eastwardsalong Mayor Street Lower, crossing Georges Dockvia the existing bridge. The route continues alongMayor Street Lower, crossing Guild Street and overthe Grand Canal via the construction of a newbridge with two vehicle carriageways, two foot-paths and two LRT tracks. The route will continuethrough the Spencer Dock Development and re-establish the connection between Mayor StreetLower and Upper. It will cross New Wapping Streetand Castleforbes Road, continuing along MayorStreet Upper before terminating at The Point.

There are four proposed stops along this alignmentat the locations detailed below.

• George’s Dock at Mayor Street Lower.• Mayor Square on Mayor Street Lower.• Spencer Dock Stop (within the Spencer DockDevelopment).• The Point Terminus.

4.5 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT

4.5.1 LRT Rolling Stock As with the Luas system as a whole, the Luas Line

C1 extension to The Point will be operated usingLight Rail Vehicles (LRV), hereafter referred to astrams. Initially the type of tram utilised will be sim-ilar to those in use on existing Red and Green lines.

Each tram will have capacity to accommodate 235passengers on 30m trams and 310 passengers on40m trams, based on 5 persons per m2. Standingpassenger numbers will depend on demand and onthe perception of comfort levels. Each tram willhave a driver’s compartment at either end and willbe bi-directional. It will have a low floor level formost of its length to facilitate easy access for themobility impaired.

The main performance characteristics of the tramsare presented in Table 4.4a below.

Table 4.4.a Performance Characteristics ofthe Tram

4.5.2 Track Luas Line C1 will run along streets and a groovedrail will be used as per the existing Red Line. Thetrack will adopt the standard European LRT gaugeof 1435mm. As the system will be double trackthroughout, the overall track bed width will be6.2m on a straight alignment and 6.6m where thetrack bed contains axial poles. The areas betweenand beside the rails will be paved/surfaced. Thetype of paving/surfacing depends on the characterof the surrounding area and the nature of any non-LRT traffic that may run over the track bed.

4.5.3 StopsThe stops will be of a similar design as the existingRed and Green line stops. Each of the four pro-posed stops will comprise raised platforms approxi-mately 281mm high and 40m long, with a 5m rampat either end where required. The platforms willbe a minimum of 3m wide and, wherever possible,will be situated on either side of the tracks (lateralplatforms). These allow for level boarding andalighting by all passengers.

Performance topics Characteristics

Maximum speed 70 km/hourInitial acceleration 1.2 m/s2 approximately eight seconds from 0 – 30 km/hourAverage deceleration in operation 1.2 m/s2

36

4.5.4 Canal BridgesThe development of Luas Line C1 will involve thewidening of Mayor Street Bridge and the construc-tion of a new bridge over the Grand Canal atSpencer Dock.

The Mayor Street Bridge widening scheme willinvolve widening and strengthening the currentbridge to allow for the running of the Luas Line C1.The bridge deck will be widened as required toachieve the minimum width requirements includ-ing footpaths and the external longitudinal beamswill be strengthened. Where feasible, all parapets,granite kerbing, cobbles and other surfaces will bereused in order to retain the appearance of theexisting bridge.

A new bridge will be constructed over the RoyalCanal at the Spencer Dock site, adjacent to theintersection of Guild Street and Mayor StreetLower. It will form a key feature in the proposedLinear Park within the wider Spencer Dock develop-ment. It has been designed to accommodate thedual track for the tram, two footpaths and twovehicular carriageways.

4.5.5 Power Supply The trams operate on 750 volts direct current (d.c.).Substations are required to house the necessaryequipment to transform and rectify a supply at10kv from the national electricity grid and output

to the LRT traction system at 750 d.c.

Electricity to Luas Line C1 will be supplied via over-head power lines, at a minimum height of 6.0mabove the ground in areas where road traffic canrun directly on the alignment, supported by polespositioned either alongside or between tracks, orby cables fixed to building facades. Power will besupplied to the OCS (Overhead Conductor System)via multi-tubular cable ducts that form one edge ofthe track bed foundation; on the other side of thetrack bed there will normally be a parallel set ofducts carrying communications and signallingcables.

One new substation will be required to service theRed Line extension. It is proposed that this substa-tion will be located at the Spencer Dock stop. Inaddition, there is a requirement for OCS LinesideFeeder Boxes. These are used for interconnectionand, in some cases, for the switching of parallelfeeder cables supplying the OCS. The number ofparallel feeder boxes will depend on the finaldesign but it is estimated that a maximum of fourfeeder boxes will be utilised for the Red Line exten-sion.

Technical cubicles are located at the tram stops;these contain the equipment relating to each indi-vidual tram stop such as electrical power supplies,telecommunications equipment, cable transmission

network (CTN) equipment and automatic vehiclelocation system (AVLS). The cubicles contain thetelecommunications equipment for the fixedequipment at the tram stop such as passengerinformation displays (PIDs), public announcement(PA), etc.

4.6 CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHEME

4.6.1 IntroductionTypically, the construction of a linear scheme hascertain specific characteristics. Work is typicallystarted at a number of locations simultaneouslywith many work activities running concurrently. Inthis way, as construction work progresses along theroute different activities will happen in differentplaces and at different times. This is particularlytrue of the Luas Line C1 project where a clearsequence of activities described below has to befollowed:

• site preparation and investigation;• utility diversion; • foundation excavations;• installation of ducting and drainage along andadjacent to the route;• installation of track bed and rails; and• surface finishes and installation of electrical andoperating equipment.

37

The successful completion of these pre-constructionand construction phase activities will ensure com-pletion of the works within a reasonable timeframeand aim to minimise inconvenience within thealignment area.

4.6.2 Sequence of Construction Activities andUtilities DiversionIntroduction

The initial phase construction activities will involvethe mobilisation of the appointed contractor,establishment of site offices and initial site prepara-tion. The site has to be prepared by the removal tostore of any street furniture that might be affectedincluding bollards, guardrails, directional signs, let-terboxes, etc. The development of the proposedalignment does not require the demolition of anyexisting buildings. The implementation of tempo-rary traffic measures will be required in order tofacilitate future construction activities.

Identification of sub-surface features

As part of the design process utilities (and othersub-surface) components that may interface withthose areas that will incorporate the Luas trackbedand overhead catenary system are identified. Onceidentified and located, the level of interface isassessed and the components modified or designedaround as deemed necessary. The cooperation of

IFSC occupants was sought as part of this process.Thereafter sophisticated electronic mapping wasdeemed necessary to visualise the sub surface struc-tures as records of locations were often not up-to-date, or lacked detail within its contents data, inparticular with regard to buried basements, decom-missioned utilities and reinforced protection slabs.

The following information has been gathered:• Location and identification of all utilities withrespect to their horizontal profile and depth.• Location of basements• Location of subsurface structures, voids, culverts,watercourses, etc that may not have been identi-fied from general records.• Geotechnical data.• Non-identified potential archaeological sites(mainly structures).

Due to the sensitive nature of the financial districtarea, intense investigation was required to achievea high level of confidence in the location of all sub-surface infrastructure. To maintain this level of con-fidence further indepth investigation be carriedout. This information will support the detaileddesign and construction stages of the Luas Line C1project.

Utilities DiversionTo ensure that Luas Line C1 operations are notaffected by future utility maintenance or diversion

activities, where appropriate existing utilities willbe diverted from beneath the proposed Line C1route. Utilities will generally be relocated awayfrom the track bed area but provision for suitablyprotected crossing will be made where existing orfuture development requires it. Principally theseworks will involve the diversion of water mains,storm water drains and sewers, electricity cables,gas pipes and telecommunications and TV cables.Where sewers are of large diameter and are buriedat substantial depths they will not be relocated butany access manholes will be relocated off the trackbed.

Bord Gais has a 40bar 500mm diameter transmis-sion main traversing the Sherriff Street-East Wallarea known as the Abbotstown-Ringsend line. Partof this line interfaces with the proposed alignmentbetween the junctions of New Wapping Street andCastleforbes Road in a West/East direction alongMayor Street Upper. This line feeds the power sta-tion at Ringsend.

In consultation between Bord Gais it was agreed toconstruct the trackbed above the gas main. Thedesign and construction of the trackbed will beagreed with Bord Gais prior to construction to sat-isfy construction, maintenance and safety stan-dards.

Works associated with utility diversions are withinthe scope of major renewals or diversions which

38

utility organisations may expect to undertake fromtime to time. All utility diversions will be completein conjunction with the relevant utility providerand will be in compliance with their requirementsand relevant codes of practice.

The importance of continuity of service to receptorswithin the study area is recognised by RPA. Inrecognition of the criticality of the communicationsservices to IFSC business interests, RPA informed rel-evant interests at various meetings and has con-firmed that they are committed to implementing autility risk mitigation strategy. This includes:

• Location and identification of all services throughthe use of Geo-radar, record information and handdug trial holes/slit trenches.

• Appointment of a project manager specifically forthe diversion of utilities

• Verifying existing back up facilities and alterna-tive routes/supplies

• Designing diversion works including provision ofadditional alternative routes if required which canbe left in place permanently

• Preparation of detailed works programme includ-ing traffic management strategies

• Supervision and monitoring of the works and

• Establishment of a liaison group as a mechanismto update stakeholders regularly

Enabling Works and Bridges

To facilitate the most efficient constructionmethodology, both Mayor St Bridge and SpencerDock Bridge are likely to be constructed prior tocommencement of work on the track. Constructionof the bridges will follow the sequence of eventsbelow:

• prepare site;• construct bridge foundations;• construct frame of bridge deck; and• pour concrete to create bridge deck.

Construction Access

The contractor will require site access at all times.Site access will be restricted to construction person-nel only. Arrangements to dig across access pointsto underground car parks will be by agreementwith the owners. The use of ramped access is envis-aged to maintain these access points.

Management of the construction traffic will be inline with the Traffic Management Plans that will beimplemented for the duration of the construction

works. It is likely that there will be a requirementfor ‘out of hours’ delivery of some materials to thesite to minimise traffic impacts.

Storage of Materials

Materials will be stored at the designated maincompounds and delivered onto site as required. Asthe sites progress there can be a certain element ofstorage on site. For the storage of materials and/orsubstances that are potentially hazardous on site,due consideration will be given to the storage areaand to the findings of chemical agent risk assess-ments.

Identification of sub-surface features

As part of the design process it was necessary toidentify any utilities (and other sub-surface) com-ponents that may interface with those areas thatwill incorporate the Luas trackbed and catenary sys-tem. Once identified and located, the level of inter-face will be assessed and the components modifiedor designed around as deemed necessary.Electronic mapping was deemed necessary asrecords of locations were often not up-to-date, orlacked detail within its contents data, in particularwith regard to buried basements, decommissionedutilities and reinforced protection slabs.

The following information has been gathered:

39

• Location and identification of all utilities withrespect to their horizontal profile and depth.• Location of basements• Location of subsurface structures, voids, culverts,watercourses, etc that may not have been identi-fied from general records.• Geotechnical data.• Non-identified potential archaeological sites(mainly structures).

Due to the sensitive nature of the financial districtarea, intense investigation was required to achievea high level of confidence in the location of all sub-surface infrastructure. To maintain this level of con-fidence further intense investigation will berequired and is ongoing. This information will sup-port the detailed design and construction stages ofthe Luas Line C1 extension project.

4.6.3 Principal Construction ActivitiesTrack Bed and Track Construction

Track bed construction will generally entail theexcavation of a 6.0 to 7.0m wide trench varying indepth to between 0.8 and 1.5m. Multi-tubularducts, which carry the power supply cables and thecommunications links required for the trams, areinstalled at track bed construction stage, as is therequired drainage system. This work will be carriedout either below or adjacent to the track bed.

On completion of the ducting works, the track bedformation is compacted and levelled with a layer ofblinding concrete or granular fill. Typically, thetrack bed is then prepared with the installation ofsteel reinforcement and the fixing of the rails totheir final line and level prior to the pouring of theconcrete slab. Concrete will be poured to varyingdepths below the top of rail level to suit a range ofsurface finishes. The foundations for the poles,which support the overhead line equipment(OHLE), are also laid at this stage.

Delta Junction

Construction of the delta junction will necessitatethe closure of Connolly Terminus for a period of upto six weeks. The alterations will require existingsections of track to be removed and a new tracklayout incorporating switches and crossings and anew OHLE arrangement to be constructed

The reconstruction of the track within the ConnollyTerminus will require the removal of a section ofthe new retaining wall along Harbourmaster Place.The construction of the wall incorporates a move-ment joint to facilitate this. The reconstruction ofthe track at this location will occur at the same timeas the Amiens Street works in order to minimiseprogramme delay.

The works will also entail the removal and reposi-tioning of the overhead power supply, the reloca-tion of underground ductwork, cables, public light-ing, services and drainage.

Track Laying

The rails are delivered in lengths of up to 18m andthis can cause short term disruption to traffic flows.The RPA is currently investigating the possibility ofthe construction of sections of trackbed utilisingprefabrication techniques, which may help toreduce the duration of works particularly at roadjunctions. There is also a possibility that some works(such as trackbed and pole foundations) could becarried out as part of other development along thealignment, thereby helping to speed up the con-struction process.

Surfacing and Equipment

The final stage of surface works comprises the sur-facing of the track bed, the reinstatement of all dis-turbed surfaces on pedestrian footpaths and car-riageways, and the completion of civil works at thestop platforms. In some areas, the construction ofpole foundations and the erection of support polesmay be undertaken as a subsequent series of tasks.

40

OHLE, Power Supply and Cable Installation

The installation of the overhead lines and thepower supply facilities will occur once the track bedhas been completed. The support pole foundationswill have been installed at the same time as thetrack bed formation. The erection of the supportpoles will comprise a rapid operation usingmechanical equipment.

Cable installation will involve industry best practiceand a similar method will be used for the threadingof other signalling and communication cables.

Landscaping

Based on the character of the area, landscaping willbe confined to hard landscaping including the sur-facing of the track bed and the completion of civilworks at the stop platforms. Landscaping will com-mence on completion of the track laying and erec-tion of the OHLE poles.

Any additional landscaping will be outside thescope of this current proposed scheme and thepowers of the RPA.

4.6.4 Construction ScenarioProgramming and Phasing of Construction

For the purposes of this EIS the following assump-

tions can be reasonably made:

• work will start simultaneously at a number oflocations;• the overall duration of construction activity willbe approximately 20 months, with enabling workslikely to commence before this activity: and• a period for testing and commissioning of thenew system will be required in addition to theabove referenced time periods.

It is anticipated that construction will be undertak-en within normal contract hours: 0800 to 1800Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1600 on Saturdays.However, it is likely that work will also take placeon Saturday and Sunday. Works across certain junc-tions will need to be undertaken outside of peakperiods. Such working hours and traffic manage-ment arrangements will be agreed with the localauthority where required. The planning of suchworks will also take consideration of the residents.Night work would normally cease at 2300 hoursunless the area is non- residential.

Location of Site Works

There is a requirement for a large compound stor-age area and currently a portion of The Point CarPark near Mayor Street Upper is considered a suit-able site.

There will also be a requirement for a small com-

pound area within Spencer Dock. In addition, tem-porary compounds will be required to facilitate thebridge construction as well as to facilitate theSpencer Dock Stop and substation construction.There will be constant liaison and close coordina-tion of works to ensure safe and efficient construc-tion.

Finally, a site compound will be required on theeast side of the Canal to facilitate construction ofthe bridge abutments.

Spoil Disposal

All construction activity typically gives rise to signif-icant amounts of nominated spoil. The disposal ofspoil will be the responsibility of the contractors.For track bed excavation, excavated material willbe reused where appropriate. Where this is notpossible, waste material will be recycled. Whereend disposal is required, it will be removed by apermitted haulier to an approved and licensed dis-posal facility.

Quantities and type of waste for disposal havebeen estimated as being approximately 20,000cubic metres of clay spoil and 2,000 cubic metres ofasphalt.

41

4.7 OPERATION OF THE LUAS RED LINEEXTENSION

4.7.1 OperationThe trams are driven on a line of sight basis in asimilar fashion to road vehicles. At certain locationswhere trams need to change tracks, a localised sig-nalling system may be installed to ensure that theycan operate safely over points and to ensure thatno conflicting movements between trams canoccur. In these locations, the points will be mecha-nised.

The main control centre for Luas operations islocated at the Red Cow Depot building. All tramsare in radio contact with the main control centreand a computerised display is available to the con-trollers showing the position of the tram on theline at any point in time.

A monitoring system will be provided to provideinformation on critical elements of the power sup-ply. The controller will grant isolations of the over-head power systems for maintenance and in emer-gencies. A video security monitoring system at theproposed stops and at key junctions in the systemwill be displayed at the control centre.

Accessibility is also an important operational fea-ture. In order for the tram to comply with accessi-bility requirements for mobility impaired people

the internal floor level is maintained, for at least70% of the total length of the vehicles at a maxi-mum height of 350mm from the rolling surface.The exchange rate is at least 20% (the exchangerate is the ratio between total door width andlength of tram). The minimum width for a doubledoor leaf is 1,300mm.

All servicing and maintenance of trams operatingon the Red Line Extension will take place at the RedCow Depot. Diversion of the majority of utilities outside theLuas trackbed minimises the risk of disruption ofservice due to typically minor public utility repairs.This is important for maintaining a reliable publictransport service.

4.7.2 Frequency and Hours of ServiceThe headway between trams in each direction oftravel on each section of the system on weekdays,Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays is detailedin Table 4.6a below.

Although the intended timetabling is as indicatedin Table 4.6a, the system will have the potential tooperate 24 hours a day, seven days a week on 365days of the year.

4.7.3 Ticketing ArrangementsAll stops on Luas Line C1 will have ticket machinesthat accept coins, notes and credit cards. ExistingRed and Green Line ticket options include single,return and one day journeys for Luas only tickets.For Luas only or Luas + Bus, ticket options include aseven day, monthly or annual journey ticket.

Other aspects of existing ticketing arrangements

Mondays–Friday Mondays–Friday Mondays–Friday Mondays–Friday(0700 – 1000 & (0530 – 0700) (1000 – 1600 & (2230 – 0030)1600 – 1900) 1900 –2230)

5 min 10 min 7.5 min 15 min

Saturday Saturday Saturday Sundays, Public Holidays(6.30 – 9.30) (9.30 – 19.00) (19.00 – 0.30) (8.00 – 0.00)

10 min 7.5 min 10 min 10 min

Table 4.6.a Indicative Timetable for RedLine extension

42

include but are subject to change:

• a selection of tickets valid on Luas for the journeybetween Connolly and Heuston and Heuston toConnolly as a feeder option;

• tax-saver commuter tickets;• Student travel identity cards; and • pre-paid tickets available for ticket agents atretail outlets.

The Luas Smart Card will be available for use on theLuas Line C1. This is a durable card the size of acredit card which allows Luas customers to pay-as-they-go when they travel on Luas. This providesthe customers with a quick, reliable and easy wayto pay for their journeys on Luas. The Luas SmartCard is an important step in launching a fully inte-grated ticketing system for public transport inDublin.

To use the smart card to travel on Luas, customersmust validate their card before boarding and afterexiting the tram. To validate their card customersmust present it in front of the highlighted area ofa platform validator. There are at least two vailda-tors at all Luas stops.

4.8 CONCLUSION

This Chapter has provided an overview of informa-tion currently available on the proposed develop-

ment and operation of Luas Line C1 extension. Inparticular, the project description has aimed to pro-vide as much detail as is currently available onissues relating to alignment, construction pro-gramme and operation. In turn, the informationcontained within this chapter has informed thesubsequent specialist topics particularly in relationto assessing the potential impacts of the proposeddevelopment.

43

5 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1.1 OverviewThis chapter presents an overview of the planningand development context of the area within whichthe Red Line extension to The Point is to be devel-oped. It describes relevant national and local plan-ning documents, and their implications for thestudy area, as well as current planning and devel-opment activity along, and adjacent to, Luas LineC1.

5.1.2 Methodology

The review and evaluation of the planning anddevelopment context within which Luas Line C1 beconstructed and the extent to which the extensionis in compliance with this context comprised thefollowing tasks:

a desktop examination of relevant planning docu-ments in order to assess their significance to thestudy area and Luas Line C1. These include:

• Regional Planning Guidelines for the GreaterDublin Area 2004.• Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011.• Dublin Docklands Masterplan 2003.• Dockland North Lotts Area Planning Scheme2002.• DTO Land Use and Transport Strategy, A

Platform for Change, 2001.• National Spatial Strategy.• numerous site visits undertaken between October2001 and January 2005 to ascertain current land usein the study area;• the compilation of a description of current landuse, outlining the types of activities that occurwithin the study area;• a series of discussions with the personnel from theplanning section of the DDDA and DCC in relationto the planning and development applications thathave been recently approved within the study area,some for very large developments, and include therecent Compulsory Purchase Order of a road to thewest of The Point, within the Spencer DockDevelopment; and • an assessment to contrast existing land use in thestudy area against the current planned develop-ments, to highlight the change in the nature ofland use within area, and to provide an indicationof the wide scale change that is likely in the future.

The review of the documents focused primarily onthe future development of the area and the likelypattern of future land uses. It also included a com-prehensive review of transport and access policies.

5.1.3 LimitationsDevelopment planning is a dynamic and evolvingprocess and it is not possible to accurately predictthe precise land use and social patterns that will

emerge in the medium to long term within thestudy area.

As a consequence, the documentary basis for thisassessment (development plans and policies, plan-ning applications, strategic documents, etc) pro-vides a number of statements of intent and policyguidance, which are likely to evolve and changeover time and may not be fully realised.

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVINGENVIRONMENT

5.2.1 OverviewFor the purposes of the evaluation of the planningand development context, the study area is consid-ered to extend from Connolly Station in the west,to The Point in the east and from North Wall Quayin the south to Upper Sheriff Street in the north.

Luas Line C1 will run from Store Street; close to theConnolly terminus; along Mayor Street Lower, anarea surrounded by modern 4-5 storey mixed usebuildings. At Commons Street, the line will crossthe junction and will bridge across Spencer Dock,which is currently owned by Waterways Ireland.The route is then aligned across the open area usedfor freight storage, railway sidings and the CIEowned North Wall Container Depot. The whole ofthis area is part of the proposed Docklands NorthLotts Planning Scheme and is being cleared and

44

developed as part of the overall Dublin DocklandsDevelopment Authority’s Master Plan. This area willsee the development of Spencer Dock as a commer-cial, residential and leisure centre of importance tothe Docklands, Dublin area and wider region.Proposals to locate the national Conference Centreat this site also exist which would make the areasignificant nationally.

The route will rejoin the existing road network atMayor Street Upper and will run along this roaddirectly to The Point. Several warehouses at theeastern end of Mayor Street Upper have recentlybeen demolished thereby allowing easier construc-tion of Luas Line C1.

5.2.2 Existing Land Uses within the Study AreaGeneral Description

The study area can be divided into two distincthalves. The western section is heavily influenced bythe large-scale office and residential developmentscentred on the International Financial ServicesCentre (IFSC). In the past 10 years, the land use ofthis area has undergone extensive change, withresultant changes in social patterns and linkages.Further development is planned or underway,including a new retail development at George’sDock and the construction of large commercialbuildings and apartment complexes and associatedretail food outlets

The eastern section of the study areas is predomi-nately characterised by industrial land use, withopen yards and large low-rise industrial buildingson a large grid street pattern. The predominantland uses are warehousing, distribution, and lightindustry with relatively small pockets of residentialdevelopment. There are also some office andsmall-scale retail outlets. The Point, which is locat-ed at the eastern end of the study area, is a nation-al entertainment and events venue. Please seeFigure 5.2a for an illustration of current land use(Dublin City Development Plan 1999).

Land Use from Connolly Station to Spencer Dock

Incorporating the IFSC, land use in this area is pre-dominately office and residential accommodation.

Approximately 14,000 people work in the area in avariety of sectors including banking and finance,though there are also a growing number of retailand retail service outlets being developed, includ-ing the new retail development at Georges Dock.The area currently contains over 300,000sq m ofcommercial space.

This area is substantially developed, and there is lit-tle opportunity for further new development.Construction works will take place within the con-text of existing land uses, with no demolition ofproperty required.

Land Use from the Royal Canal Dock to NewWapping Street

This area is largely owned by Iarnród Éireann andThe Spencer Dock Development Company and ispredominately used for rail freight handling, asso-ciated office use, some storage and light industrialuses. The area is characterised by ‘discontinuousfrontages and open character’ (Docklands NorthLotts Planning Scheme 2002, p 8), with no throughaccess currently being provided to the site. TheFreight railway lines run through the northern por-tion of the site, whilst the southern portion is cur-rently being developed with two major commercialblocks under construction. There are a number ofancillary buildings on the site, some of which arelikely to be demolished as part of the wider devel-opment of the area. Many of these buildings arecurrently vacant.

There is a very small section of residential develop-ment within the area, this being located on thewest end of Mayor Street.

New Wapping Street to Castleforbes Road

The predominant land use in the southern sectionof the area is warehousing and distribution, with asmall amount of retail services located along NorthWall Quay. The northern section is predominately

45

storage and distribution, though this area also con-tains a considerable amount of residential develop-ment, particularly fronting Mayor Street and NewWapping Street. Some of the major businesses inthis area include Brooks Thomas (warehousing/tim-ber) and Jones Oil.

Castleforbes Road to The Point

There are two small pockets of residential develop-ment, these being located in Sheriff Street Upperand Mayor Street Upper. In addition, a new com-mercial/residential mixed use development is beingdeveloped near the corner of Castleforbes Roadand Sheriff Street Upper, incorporating 125 apart-ments, 7,762 sq m of office space, restaurant andcrèche. A second phase of this development is cur-rently under construction.

The Point (a protected structure) is located at theeastern end of the study area and is a nationalentertainment/events venue, attracting large num-bers of visitors to the area. There are plans to rede-velop the venue and the area to the north of MayorStreet.

Protected Structures

There are a total of 19 protected structures withinthe study area, though none of these are directlylocated along the proposed route. Further discus-

sion of protected structures is provided in Chapter15 Cultural Heritage.

5.2.3 Planned Developments in the Study AreaThe dockland area is undergoing enormouschange. Traditional land uses for dock areas, suchas warehousing and light industry, are making wayfor residential and commercial land uses. Thisregeneration and change of use is consistent withmany other docklands areas worldwide and currentplanning policy for the area has been formed toaccommodate regeneration and redevelopment(see Section 5.3 below).

A review of recently granted planning applicationsfor the study area reveals the nature of the changeof land use in the area. Over 1,650 residential units(ranging from 1 to 4 bed units) and a total of over138,000m2 of non-residential development (office,retail, tourism, recreational, educational etc.) haveplanning permission in the Docklands Area.

Included in this overall volume of planned develop-ment is the National Conference Centre on the sitebounded by Guild Street, North Wall Quay and theformer railway lines. The development is to consistof hotel facilities (including 218 rooms) and anexhibition/Banquet Hall seating 2,000 people. Intotal, the development will extend to an area of78,172m2.

In summary, land use in the docklands area isundergoing considerable change, and it is expectedthat future developments will continue this trend.Current development proposals are in keeping withthe planning and development context for thearea, and it is likely that the development of LuasLine C1 will have a positive impact on the futuregrowth of the area. The DDDA Masterplan statesthat ‘The construction of this Luas extension at anearly stage, prior to development of sites, wouldensure that it acts as a tool for regeneration, stim-ulating early redevelopment of the North Lottsarea’ (1) .

It is forecast that population through the area willincrease from 2,000 to 12,000 by 2016 with themajority of this growth concentrated in the NorthLotts area. In the same period it is expected thatemployment in the area will reach 29,000 as com-pared to 20,000 in 2002. The growth in employ-ment is again forecast to be concentrated east ofCommons Street.

A significant development in the area will be theprovision of Spencer Dock Station. This will be theterminal station for all Western Suburban servicesfrom Maynooth/Mullingar and possibly the termi-nal location of other commuter and intercity servic-es.

(1) DDDA Masterplan 2003, p.63

46

The delivery of this station can only occur in con-junction with the provision of high quality publictransport links to the city centre.

5.3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

5.3.1 OverviewThis section reviews the statutory and non-statuto-ry guidelines, strategies and plans, which are rele-vant to Luas Line C1 development within the NorthWall/Dublin Docklands Area:

• Regional Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area(SPGs) 2004.• Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011.• Dublin Docklands Masterplan 2003.• Dockland North Lotts Area Planning Scheme2001.• National Spatial Strategy.

The content and intent of each of these documentsis discussed in greater detail in the subsections thatfollow.

5.3.2 Regional Planning Guidelines for theGreater Dublin Area (RPGs) 2004The Regional Planning Guidelines for the GreaterDublin Area were produced on behalf of the Dublinand Mid-East Regional Authorities in 2004. TheGuidelines set out a broad strategic planning anddevelopment framework for the Greater Dublin

Area (GDA), which provide an overall context forthe preparation of Local Authority DevelopmentPlans and are consistent with the national develop-ment strategy outlined in the National SpatialStrategy. The RPGs are an update of the 1997Strategic Planning Guidelines.

Under the Planning and Development Act 2000,Local Authority Development Plans must have‘regard to’ the guidelines and the strategy forfuture investment in housing, transport, sanitaryservices and other infrastructure within the overallGDA.

The Strategy distinguishes between the DublinMetropolitan Area and the rural Hinterland Area.In line with the overall vision, the strategy for theMetropolitan Area is to follow a development paththat will:

• Consolidate development within the area.• Increase overall densities of development.• Thereby facilitate the provision of a considerablyenhanced public transport system and facilitateand encourage a shift to public transport (1).

The Regional Planning Guidelines, ‘support theprojects proposed under the Infrastructure andServices Improvements element of the Platform forChange, the implementation of which will aim tocreate extensive, high quality, fully accessible, inte-

grated networks for DART/suburban rail, Luas,Metro, bus and roads.’ (2)

The guidelines see the development of a rail stationin the Docklands (Spencer Dock Station) as being ofstrategic priority for the development of high qual-ity rail services in the region and assumes that theprovision of Luas to this point will exist to alloweasy interchange between the different rail modes.

The location of Luas Line C1 is in accordance withRPGs development and public transportation objec-tives for the Dublin Metropolitan Area. The devel-opment will also encourage and facilitate majorsustainable development on brownfield lands with-in the Docklands area.

5.3.3 Dublin City Development Plan 2005 -2011The Dublin City Development Plan 2005 sets outDublin City Council’s strategic transportation, plan-ning and development, and conservation aims,policies and objectives for the city-at-large.

(1) Regional Planning Guidelines, 2004, p.15(2) Regional Planning Guidelines, 2004, p.143

47

Transportation

Chapter 7 of the City Development Plan sets outthe Transportation aims, policies and objectives forthe Plan period. The Plan states that:

‘Dublin City Council is committed to providing effi-cient access to the city core and maintaining andconsolidating this core as the primary economic,cultural and social heart of the wider metropolitanregion. To achieve this objective the City Council ispledged to working with the relevant transportagencies to create a connected city with improvedlinkages and accessibility at peak and off-peaktimes for work shopping and leisure purposes. It isalso committed to strengthening the link betweenland use policies and the implementation of anintegrated set of transport policies’. (1)

(Dublin City Development Plan, Section 7.0.0.)

Within the Dublin City Development Plan, thetransportation policy objectives that are relevant tothe proposed light rail development, are PoliciesT1, T2 and T4. Policy T1 aims to ensure that land use and zone areintegrated with transportation. Policy T2 aims topromote modal change within the city from privatecar use towards public transport. Policy T4 aims toprovide additional rail capacity and efficiency with-in the city through cooperation with the relevant

transport agencies including the RailwayProcurement Agency.

It may be noted that Dublin City Council also sup-port the measures currently being proposed by theRailway Procurement Agency, namely the extensionof Luas to the Point (2).

Land Use Zoning

Chapter 14 of the Plan entitled ‘Land Use Zoning’sets out the zoning objectives and developmentcontrol standards for all lands within the adminis-trative area of Dublin City Council. The CityDevelopment Plan makes provision for fifteen LandUse Zoning Objectives, which cover land use issuesranging from commercial and residential conserva-tion to open space and river amenities. A numberof zonings are relevant to the proposed light raildevelopment.

The proposed Luas route traverses, or is locatedadjacent to, seven zoning objective areas withinthe North Wall/Dublin Docklands Area, as set out inthe Dublin City Development Plan (Maps E and F).These zoning objectives are described in Table 5.3abelow.

(1) Dublin City Development Plan, Section 7.0.0(2) Dublin City Development Plan, Section 7.4.0

48

Table 5.3a Description of Relevant LandUse Zoning Objectives

5.3.4 Dublin Docklands Masterplan 2003 The Dublin Docklands Masterplan 2003, (adoptedin September 2003) which replaces the original1999 Masterplan, guides the social, economic andphysical regeneration and development of the‘Dublin Docklands Area’ (526 ha surrounding thenorth and south banks of the Liffey to the east of

Amiens Street and Pearse Street, as defined by theDublin Dockland Development Authority Act,1997). The 2003 Masterplan aims to ‘secure the sus-tainable social and economic regeneration of theArea, with improvements to the physical environ-ment being a vital ingredient (1)’ and outlines arange of objectives for the area, including:

The development of sustainable neighbourhoodswith sufficient ‘critical mass’ that will support serv-ices such as quality public transport, improved retailfacilities and other new amenities.

The development of sustainable transportation forthe area, including the promotion of public trans-port, walking and cycling as alternatives to the pri-vate car and improved circulation within the Area.

The improvement of infrastructure of amenities inthe Area concurrently with, or in advance of resi-dential, commercial and industrial development.

The renewal of Dublin City as a whole and the link-ing of the city centre to Dublin Bay and in turn,connecting the Docklands Area to the life of thecity.

The proposed light rail route is in accordance withthe above objectives and the general spirit of theDocklands Masterplan 2003. Indeed, the develop-ment will enable the realisation of the Masterplan’slong-term objectives and will facilitate the social,physical and economic regeneration of theDocklands Area.

(1) Dublin Docklands Area masterplan,2003, page 45.3.5 Docklands North Lotts Area PlanningScheme 2002The Docklands North Lotts Area is an area of 32.7

Zoning Objective Dominant Land Use ObjectiveZ1 Residential To protect, provide and improve residential amenities.Z4 Mixed Use Facilities To provide for and improve mixed services facilities.Z5 Central Business Area

(CBD)/Central Area To consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area,and to identify, reinforce, strengthen and protect its civic design character and dignity.

Z6 Enterprise To provide for the creation and protection of enterprise and facilitate opportunities for employment creation.

Z9 Recreational Amenity and Open Space To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and

open space.Z11 Canal, Coastal and River

Amenities To protect and improve canal, coastal and river amenities.Z14 Social, Economic and

Physical Rejuvenation To seek the social, economic and physical rejuvenation of an area with mixed use of which residential and ‘Z6’ would be predominant uses.

Source: Dublin City Development Plan, Chapter 14.4.0.

49

ha (80.8 acres) located immediately east of the IFSC,which is bounded by the Campshires on North WallQuay, East Wall Road, Sheriff Street Upper/Lowerand Guild Street and extends to the centre line ofthe River Liffey.

For the purposes of implementing the planningscheme, the North Lotts Area has been divided intoeight development zones. Proposed developmentswithin the area include:

• residential – density ranging from 247 units to325 units per ha;• retail – e.g. 500 sq m gross at Station Square,3,000 sq m at the Point Village, etc.• office and enterprise – e.g. Types A and B.• entertainment, culture, events and tourism – e.g.National Conference Centre.

According to the Planning Scheme, the nature andextent of the proposed development within theDocklands North Lotts Area will:

‘be dependent on the delivery of theInterconnector and other transport proposals’(1).

With a view to optimizing the development of thenorth Docklands area, the Docklands Authority hasproposed a number of draft amendments to theNorth Lotts Planning Scheme which focus specifical-ly on the Point Village area. The amendments pro-

posed include the expansion of the Point Theatre;the increase in height of the permitted tower to100 metres; the facilitation of the Luas extensionbeyond the Point; and the development of a retailcentre close to the Point.

The Planning Scheme also outlines the creation of acentral public transport spine along Mayor Streetincluding provision for bus movements, particularlyin the short term pending the introduction of LuasLine C1. Mayor Street Upper and Lower wouldtherefore effectively be linked and the new MayorStreet would integrate Luas, bus, private vehicleand underground rail Interconnector access to thenew area of development.

5.4 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED

PLANNING REGIME

The development of Luas Line C1 to The Point is inaccordance with the relevant statutory and non-statutory development plans for the Dublin Region,Dublin City and Docklands Area. The proposeddevelopment also complies with the objectives forthe proper planning and sustainable developmentof the Docklands Area.

The proposed extension is also in accordance withthe long-term objectives for the development ofthe City and will enable the realisation of the plan-ning objectives and the desired long-term land use

in the area.

5.5 CONCLUSIONS

In summary, there is a very strong case for Luas LineC1 development, under the provisions of the rele-vant statutory and non-statutory developmentguidelines, plans and strategies.

In addition, it is considered that the proposal is anappropriate response to the need for a modern andsustainable transportation system within DublinCity, to facilitate the social and economic regenera-tion of the Docklands Area and economic growth inthe wider City area.

(1) Docklands north Lotts Area Planning Scheme 2002, page 19

50

Proposed New Bridge

THE POINT

ProposedTerminus

STO

RE

ST.

RO

YA

L C

AN

AL

GU

ILD

ST.

DART

EW

WA

PP

ING

ST.

TLE

FO

RB

ES

RO

AD

CUSTOM

MAYOR ST.

SHERIFF ST.

MAYOR ST. UPPER

INNER DOCK

HARBOURM

ASTER

PLACE

GEORGESDOCK

TALBOT

AM

IEN

S S

T.

Busaras

Connolly

Busaras

Proposed New Bridge

THE

MAYOR ST. UPPER ProposedTerminus

SHERIFF ST.

MAYOR ST.

CUSTOM

STO

RE

ST.

INNER DOCK

GEORGESDOCK

RO

YA

L C

AN

AL

GU

ILD

ST.

DART

SHERIFF ST.

HARBO

URMAS

TER

PLAC

E

AM

IEN

S S

T.

Busaras

Connolly

Busaras

Proposed Option A (source: RPA Consultation Newsletter see page 175)

Proposed Option B (source: RPA Consultation Newsletter see page 175)

51

HARBO

URMAS

TER

PLAC

E

SHERIFF ST.

Proposed New Bridge

ProposedTerminus

CUSTOM

STO

RE

ST.

SHERIFF ST.

MAYOR ST.

MAYOR ST. UPPER

INNER DOCK

GEORGESDOCK

RO

YA

L C

AN

AL

GU

ILD

ST.

DART

WA

PP

ING

ST.

OR

BE

S R

OA

D

THE

AM

IEN

S S

T.

Busaras

Connolly

Busaras

Single Track

Approved Stop

Possible Stop

Double Track

Legend

Proposed Option C (source: RPA Consultation Newsletter see page 175)

Proposed New Bridge

STO

RE

ST.

RO

YA

L C

AN

AL

GU

ILD

ST.

DART

SHERIFF ST.

MAYOR ST.

INNER DOCK

HARBOURM

ASTER

PLACE

GEORGESDOCK

AM

IEN

S S

T.

Busaras

Connolly

Busaras

Luas Line C1

Note: This shows the deltaarrangement on Amiens St.for Proposed Option A. Thisis the preferred option forLuas Line C1 - Connolly toThe Point.

52

Figure 5.2a Land Use Map

53

6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001,S39.2 (b) (i), includes the assessment of impacts on‘human beings’ and requires that proposed devel-opments are examined in terms of their impacts onpeople. Potential impacts to people arising fromLuas Line C1 include noise and dust nuisance, socialdisruption and severance, improved accessibilityand travel time, urban regeneration, employmentand indirect job creation and improved or reducedpedestrian and vehicular safety. Most of theseissues are addressed in specific chapters within thisEIS including Chapter 7, Traffic and Transportation;Chapter 11, Noise and Vibration; and Chapter 13Climate and Air Quality.

During the Scoping Phase of this EIA, a number ofspecific socio-economic issues were identified asrequiring particular consideration within thisassessment, namely demographic, employment andcommunity severance issues. This Chapter providesan appreciation of the social and economic contextwithin which Luas Line C1 is to be developed andprovides a detailed assessment of these issues.Additional social issues have been referenced.Furthermore, key measures to reduce impacts uponthe community have been identified.

6.2 METHODOLOGY

6.2.1 Development of a Social ProfileA social profile of the study area has been preparedwhich describes the existing social environment.This social profile has been developed based on:

• an analysis of the current and historical demo-graphic characteristics of the study area;• a description of the employment patterns of theresident labour-force;• the identification of existing and proposed localland use;• the identification of local businesses, services andfacilities;• a desk based assessment to broadly identify socialpatterns and linkages; and• a review of available information and documentsfrom previous studies, as detailed in Section 6.2.2.

Based on this information the potential a) construc-tion and b) operation related social impacts of theproposed works have been identified, analysed anddiscussed.

6.2.2 Principal SourcesThe social assessment was based on the followingkey documents:

• CSO Census data from 1991, 1996 and 2002;including the Small Area Statistics for North Dock B

& C;• Williams, J. and O’Connor, M. The Employmentand Socio- Demographic Profile of the DublinDocklands Area The Economic and Social ResearchInstitute, 2000;• Docklands North Lotts Planning Scheme, 2002;• Dublin Docklands Development Authority,“Master Plan”, DDDA, Dublin, 2003;

Environmental Impact Statement of DevelopmentProposals contained in the Draft Planning Schemefor the Extended Custom House Docks, 2001;

• Railway Procurement Agency; Line C1 EIAConsultation: Public Consultation, 2004; and • other relevant Chapters of this EIS supplementedby direct information exchange with the specialistchapter authors.

54

6.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVINGENVIRONMENT – A SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE6.3.1 OverviewIn order to gain an appreciation of how Luas LineC1 will impact the Docklands area and its popula-tion, it is important to understand the existingsocial dynamics of the study area. To this end, theEIA study team has prepared a ‘snap shot’ of theDublin Docklands area, largely based on: 2002 and1996 Small Area Statistics Census data for theDistrict Electoral Division (DEDs) of North Dock Band North Dock C, ‘the northside’, a map of whichis provided below; and on ‘The Socio-Economic andEmployment Structure of the Dublin DocklandsArea’ report undertaken by the ESRI for the DublinDocklands Development Authority (DDDA) (1) in2000 which is based on 1996 and 1999 census andelectoral role data.

Figure 6.3a District Electoral Division

6.3.2 Demographic ProfileHistorical Socio-Economic Context

The social and economic profile of the overallDublin Docklands area has changed considerablyover the past 100 years. The resident populationmore than halved over the period 1900 to 1990;due, it is thought, to the loss of traditional jobsassociated with Dublin Port as many major employ-ers either moved out of the area or went out ofbusiness.

Since 1991, however, the Docklands has seen anincrease in employment opportunities in areas suchas commerce and services, many new residentialunits are being constructed, and there has been aconsiderable increase in population.

Population Size and Change

The population of ‘the northside’ of the Docklandsincreased by 23.3% (1,413 persons) between 1996and 2002. This is compared to a much lower 6.1%growth in the wider Dublin area during the sameperiod and an average of 8% nationally. This recent population increase has largely beenthe result of an increase in the availability ofaccommodation in the area, particularly via theconstruction of a large number of new apartmentcomplexes near the western end of the study area.The local population is expected to increase even

further in the near future with, for example, over2,500 residential units having been granted plan-ning permission in 2003 and 2004 in the central andeastern portions of the study area.

(1) J. Williams, M O’Connor, The Employment and Socio-Demographic Profile of the Dublin Docklands Area,Economic and Scial Research institute, 2000

55

Age Profile

As can be clearly seen in Table 6.3a, the age profileof the Northside Docklands area has changed sig-nificantly since 1996. The number of people thatare aged over 15 has increased, whilst the numberof children has decreased.

Household Numbers

In 2002, there were 2,644 households within thenorth Docklands area, an increase of 419 house-holds (18.8%) since 1996. The average householdsize was 2.83 persons per household, a slightincrease on the 1996 average household size of2.73 persons.

Since 2002, the number of households within thestudy area has increased, and is set to increase evenfurther with additional residential units due to beconstructed.

Household composition information is provided inTable 6.3b below.

Of note, there is a marked decrease in the numberof couples with children (-20.9%) and single par-ents (-11.5%) living in the north Docklands area;and a strong increase in the number of ‘flat share’arrangements between people that are not related(27.4%).

Residential Density

Under the Dockland North Lotts Planning Scheme2002, the overall land use mix is aimed to be 40%commercial and 60% residential. The objective is toachieve a net residential density in the order of 247dwellings per hectare, though higher densities of325 dwellings per hectare will be permitted atStation Square and the Point Village.

Table 6.3a Changes in the Population of the Northside Docklands Area 1996-2002

Source: Census Small Area Statistics, 1996 & 2002, North Docks B & C DEDs.

Area 0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Total Population

1996 Northside2002 Northside

1,4231,142

1,0721,582

1,8732,680

9681,141

730934

6,0667,479

% change in NorthsideDocklands 1996 - 2002

-19.7% 47.6% 43.1% 17.9% 27.9% 23.3%

Table 6.3b Private Household Composition 1991, 1996 & 2002

Source: Census Small Area Statistics, 1996 & 2002, North Docks B & C DEDs

1 person Couple Couple withChildren

SingleParent

2+ peoplenot related

Other Total

1996 669 274 530 355 266 131 2225

2002 713 445 419 314 339 414 2644

% change 6.6% 62.4% -20.9% -11.5% 27.4% 216% 18.8%

56

6.3.3 Employment Profile

Occupational Structure

In 1996, labour force participation rates in theDublin Docklands area were more or less in linewith the rates for the City and wider Dublin area asa whole, although unemployment rates were sub-stantially higher. In 1996, the overall northsideunemployment rate was 16.8% -more than doublethat of Dublin generally (8.1%). Long term unem-ployment was also considerably higher in thenorthside docklands area than in Dublin, with65.8% of those unemployed in this area havingbeen unemployed for 3 years or more.

However, by 2002, the situation had reversed, withthe unemployment rate decreasing to 4.02%. Thismay have been as a result of the influx of new 15-44 year old people living in the area and also dueto the general benefits accruing from the CelticTiger.

Employment

In 1996, some 20,800 persons were employed in theDublin Docklands Area (northside and southside),two-thirds of whom were male. By 1999, this fig-ure had risen to some 32,000 persons, with thelargest increases being in the businesses servicesand the financial sector. Figure 6.3b illustrates the

breakdown of employment types within theDocklands area.

Figure 6.3b Percentage of PersonsEmployed in the Docklands by IndustrialSector

Source: ERSI, The Employment and Socio-Demographic

Profile of the Dublin Docklands Area, 2000

% of Persons Employed in Docklands by Industrial Sector

Industry Sector

25

20

15

10

5

0

% o

f Per

sons

1999

1996

Man

ufac

turin

g

Elect

ricity

/Gas

/Wat

erCon

struc

tion

Reta

il/Who

lesale

Hotels

/Res

taur

ants

Tran

spor

t & C

omm

unica

tions

Finan

cial

Busin

ess S

ervic

es

Publi

c Adm

in/D

efenc

e

Educ

atio

n &

Health

Pers

onal

Serv

ices

57

A significant 8% of those employed were residentin the area. In 1999, the largest employment sectorwas business services, accounting for 22.8% ofthose employed in the study area. Other importantsectors included financial services (20.2%), trans-port and communications (16.7%), and manufac-turing (10%). Employment in more traditional sec-tors for the Docklands area, such as manufacturingand electricity/gas/water, saw a decline in totalemployment numbers between 1996 and 1999,with manufacturing down from 16.4% to 10% dur-ing this time, and electricity/gas/water reducedfrom 4.3% to 2.9%.

Businesses in the Local Area

Businesses currently located in the study areainclude over 300 banks, the insurance industry,stockbrokers, legal sector companies and assetmanagement companies for example. Retail andservice outlets include convenience stores, sand-wich shops and cafes, restaurants and pubs, drycleaners, an optometrist, a florist, hairdressers,medical centre and a crèche.

Proposed new businesses and services in study areainclude a number of new retail units, restaurantsand a pub.As regards the perceived desirability of the DublinDocklands area as a location for setting up a busi-ness, a total of 66% of employers in the area feel

that it is a ‘good’ location, 22% feel that it is ‘nei-ther good nor bad’, and 12% feel that it is a ‘bad’location(1).

6.3.4 Community Profile

Social Patterns and Linkages

Social patterns and linkages reflect the degree towhich an area functions as a community. That is,the amount of social interaction and cohesion ofresidents and people working in the area, includingtheir use of local facilities and participation in anyorganisations or club activities. Areas of exclusiveinteraction and strong community cohesion aretypically more vulnerable to changes.

As demonstrated below, Luas Line C1 will improveaccessibility to, from and within the study area andis unlikely to have negative impacts on social pat-terns and linkages in the area. This is largelybecause of the social change that has occurred inthe study area as a result of the extensive redevel-opment being undertaken independent of LuasLine C1.

Local Land Use

Extensive changes in land use and resultantchanges in social patterns and linkages haveoccurred within the western section of the study

area over the past five to ten years through theconstruction of the IFSC, the new retail develop-ment at Georges Dock, construction of the largecommercial buildings and large apartment com-plexes and associated retail food outlets.

As currently developed, the primary residentialareas of this western end of the Docklands area arelocated along Mayor Street Lower and aroundGeorge’s Dock and Inner Dock and Custom HouseSquare (closely linked with the IFSC). These aremodern, spacious apartments, some of which over-look Mayor Street Lower. The residential popula-tion is increasing due to the completion of theClarion Apartments and the IFSC campus of theNational College of Ireland (NCI), which will accom-modate 286 students. Ground level units withinthe area are generally retail/service outlets, servingthe significant population of daytime workers inthis area. There is also a small amount of housingin this area along Sheriff Street and environs thatpre-dates the recent redevelopment.

The eastern section of the study area (includingSpencer Dock) is of lower density and is less devel-oped than the western section, and is predomi-nantly used for rail freight handling, warehousing

(1) ESRI,2000

58

and light industry with only a small number of res-idential pockets, most of which are over 50 yearsold. There is a small residential community alongMayor Street Upper, represented by three blocks ofredbrick terraced housing around the NewWapping Street junction and near the Point. Thishousing also continues a short distance north alongNew Wapping Street.

Within this eastern end of the study area, theDDDA has approved the construction of a newaccess road, 1,149 new residential units, 50,669m2

of office space, 4,474 m2 of retail space, 1,036m2 ofleisure space, a crèche, a pub/restaurant, 888 newparking spaces, and a new National ConferenceCentre which will include a hotel with 218 roomsand a large exhibition hall seating 2000 people.These new developments will have huge implica-tions on the social profile of the study area and willresult in altered social patterns and linkages as newpeople (many of a higher income bracket) moveinto the study area, and as existing businesses andlocal residents adapt to the altered social land-scape.

Local Services and Facilities

People living in the study area currently travel tothe city centre for most of their shopping andrecreation needs to avail of the greater range ofgoods and services available there. This is particu-

larly the case on weekends, when many of the localservices and facilities are closed. However, theretail outlets in the western part of the study areaare heavily used during the week by the 16,000+people that currently work in the area, and by localresidents. The National College of Ireland campusand its students avail of the ever-improving servic-es being provided locally.

To the immediate north of the defined study area,yet within a five minute walk of the Luas Line C1,there are two government schools and a church,and there is a large amount of social and afford-able housing in the vicinity of Seville Place and tothe north of Sheriff Street Upper. In addition, acrèche and a new restaurant are currently beingbuilt near the corner of Castleforbes Road andSheriff Street Upper.

Entertainment venues within the study areainclude the many restaurants and pubs, The Point,and the proposed National Conference Centre.These venues all attract visitors to the study area.Given the growing residential and business popula-tion of the study area it is also important that ade-quate (quantity and quality) public open space isavailable. Harbourmaster Place, and the walkalong North Wall Quay, for example currently pro-vides such open space. The proposed NationalConference Centre, the Linear Park, improvementsto the Canal, and residential and office develop-

ments will provide additional areas of public openspace.

Access to and from the Study Area

As discussed above there are many options for peo-ple to both live and work in the area, and there isreasonable access to and from the western end ofthe study area via public transport (Dart, suburbanrail and bus) and car. In addition, a number of pri-vate buses provide access for employees to theirplace of work in the Docklands. Access to the east-ern half of the study area is, however, not so con-venient, and will be greatly improved by Luas LineC1. At present, for example, people largely travelto The Point by car, or walk to the venue fromConnolly Station (20 minutes) or the city centre (30- 40 minutes). Public transport within the study areais limited to a small number of low frequency busservices (routes 53, 53a and 90a).

Furthermore, access from the eastern end of thestudy area to the already developed western end ispoor at present as a result of the Spencer Dock rail-way lines that sever the area. However access willimprove as a result of the Mayor Street extensionworks set out in the North Lotts Planning Scheme2002 that has been prepared by the DDDA.

Traffic along the North Wall Quay and East Wall

59

Road, the southern and eastern boundaries of thestudy area is currently heavy, as discussed inChapter 7, Traffic and Transportation. Traffic alongthe smaller streets within the study area, and alongits northern Sheriff Street boundary, is currently ofreasonably light flow; although the convergence oflocal traffic and rat-running to avoid Amiens Streetand the East Wall Road does result in some conges-tion, particularly at the junction of Commons Streetand Mayor Street Lower.

A large number of pedestrians cross Mayor StreetLower, particularly over the bridge at George’sDock to gain access to their office or residence, par-ticularly during week days and this is likely toextend to Mayor Street Upper when the proposedredevelopment works in this area are complete.Thus it will be important that the Luas does notpose a safety risk to these pedestrians. See Chapter7, Traffic and Transportation, for more details.

6.4 DO NOTHING SCENARIOShould Luas Line C1 not be constructed, it is possi-ble that some of the proposed developments forthe study area will not proceed, or that the pace ofredevelopment will decrease, having a negativeimpact on the regeneration of the area.

As discussed, the study area is likely to undergoconsiderable change in the coming years, with the

development of Luas Line C1 playing a highly posi-tive role in this change through the improvedaccess to the area. While it is difficult to determinethe extent of development if the Luas Line C1 doesnot proceed, it is likely that the full extent of theNorth Lotts Development Plan, in particular, willnot materialise.

Conversely, the redevelopment of the study area,to which Luas will contribute, is causing a rise inland and property values in the area. This maymake it difficult for first time buyers or low incomeearners who may have traditionally lived in thearea, to purchase property or to rent social oraffordable housing in the area. Those people thatalready own their property, however, are likely togain significant benefit from the effect on proper-ty prices of the proposed Luas and associated rede-velopment works.

6.5 POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OFTHE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTThis section outlines the potential socio-economicimpacts of the Luas Line C1, and is divided intoimpact for the construction and operation phasesof the development.

6.5.1 Construction Impacts

Disruption, Inconvenience and Severance

During the construction of Luas Line C1 there willbe some disruption and inconvenience to local res-idents, businesses and visitors to the area.

Construction works are likely to restrict vehicle andpedestrian movement within the area, although itis intended that they will occur for only short peri-ods of time in any one location within the overallintended construction programme of 20 months.This issue, however, is of considerable concern tothe local community, as discussed within the RPAConsultation document.

Furthermore, the construction process may gener-ate noise and dust, thus potentially causing disrup-tion and inconvenience. These issues are discussedin Chapter 11, Noise and Vibration and Chapter 13,Climate and Air Quality. Best practice in site man-agement will be implemented to ensure that suchdisruption is kept to a minimum.

Accessibility

It is likely that local residents and businesses willface some form of temporary disruption to localaccess during the construction of Luas Line C1. Thismay be the form of a) changed traffic conditions

60

and b) potential reduction in on street car parking.

Given the nature of businesses in the eastern endof the study area, being predominantly warehous-ing and distribution, it will be particularly impor-tant that continuous access for vehicles servicingthese businesses is provided. This is highlighted asa community concern within the RPA Consultationdocument. As discussed in Chapter 7 Traffic andTransportation, access will be maintained at alltimes, largely via a one-way westbound runninglane along Mayor Street, with eastbound trafficbeing directed along Custom House Quay and EastWall Quay. Ensuring access for wheelchair userswithin the study area is a requirement that will befulfilled during the construction programme.

Whilst the Construction Management Plan willensure that safe traffic and pedestrian access ismaintained to all businesses and residencesthroughout the study area, during the course ofconstruction, traffic disruption is inevitable.

Employment

It is unlikely that direct local employment opportu-nities will be generated in relation to the actualconstruction of the Luas Line C1. It is, however,likely that employment opportunities will be creat-ed through the wider regeneration of the area, towhich the Luas extension is acting as a catalyst.

The construction phase will be temporary and assuch the socio-economic impacts arising during theconstruction phase will be relatively short-lived.For example, the construction works may supportfurther employment in the local economy, via:

indirect effects, which will result from the expendi-ture on goods and services generated by the con-struction process, benefiting local suppliers (e.g. oftemporary buildings, materials and sub-contractorsof subsidiary construction tasks); and

induced effects, which will reflect the spending inthe local economy of incomes earned both in theconstruction process and the production of thegoods and services they purchase. This spendingmay generate further local employment.

It is likely that some 200-250 people will beinvolved in the construction of the Luas Line C1,with this potentially having an impact on the localeconomy, mainly through spending in local retailoutlets on consumables such as food and drink.Additional employment may be generated in theseservices during the construction period.

6.5.2 Operation Impacts

Severance

A key determinant of the nature and extent ofeffects on social patterns and linkages will be theextent of any severance, or change in local basedpedestrian or vehicular patterns to facilities andservices as a result of the operation of the Red Lineextension.

The Luas Line C1 infrastructure and tram move-ments are unlikely to cause any significant barriersto people wishing to cross the road, or to cars trav-elling along the road. Its built form will be suchthat people will be able to continue to cross theroad safely, and traffic will be able to continue touse Mayor Street Upper and Lower, as discussed inChapter 7, Traffic and Transportation. Therefore, itis considered that no significant severance impactswill be incurred.

Accessibility and Mobility

The Luas Line C1 will result in considerableimprovements in accessibility of people to the studyarea; from one end of the study area to the other;and from the study area to the city centre.

Tram stops will be located approximately every500m, and will be designed to allow level boarding

61

and alighting by all passengers. The trams willhave a low floor level for most of its length to facil-itate easy access for the mobility impaired.

Resultant improvements in accessibility to jobs, res-idences and services, to The Point and to the pro-posed National Conference Centre; and from suchlocations to the city centre, Connolly and HeustonStations and the bus depot (via connecting Luaslines) will be an important element of the econom-ic restructuring process taking place within theplanned development of the area.

Regeneration and Impact on General Amenity

Improved accessibility to the Dublin DocklandsArea, in particular by public transport, is an impor-tant and recognised element of a cohesive regener-ation strategy for the area. It will have an impor-tant role in bringing neglected and underused landback into use. The scheme has a positive role inovercoming the negative perception of the invest-ment market of the area on grounds of poor acces-sibility. The negative image of the area is alreadybeing overcome through the high quality develop-ment of Custom House Dock, the IFSC and George’sDock. However, this has only reinforced the con-trast with the North Lotts area in terms of its poorenvironment and image. The Luas will help toopen up the eastern part of the area to investmentopportunities.

The route meets the strategic objectives for theredevelopment of the area in that it provides vast-ly improved access to key transport hubs such asConnolly Station, community and entertainmentvenues such as The Point, and will be a key trans-port feature of the wider development of theDocklands area. This can be expected to contributeto the regeneration of the area, through improvinglocal business confidence and attracting inwardinvestment.

Furthermore, community facilities such as healthservices, child care and quality open space are cur-rently lacking in the immediate study area, thus thedevelopment of the area provides a unique oppor-tunity for such facilities to be provided.

Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety

The Luas Line C1 will result in changed traffic con-ditions within the study area, and therefore willpose a potential danger to pedestrians and to driv-ers who are unfamiliar with the new road condi-tions. Appropriate signage and clear vehicle andpedestrian traffic lights will be required in order topromote pedestrian and vehicular safety.Pedestrian and Vehicular safety is addressed indetail in Chapter 7, Traffic and Transportation.

6.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation measures will be implemented to man-age the impacts of the Luas Line C1 development,including:

• development and implementation of aConstruction Method Statement to limit disruptionto nearby businesses and residents through limita-tions on permissible hours of construction, min-imised noise outputs, dust reduction.• development and implementation of a TrafficManagement Plan to ensure:

• continued traffic flow through the study area; and

• continued vehicle and pedestrian access isprovided to all businesses and residencesalong the route.

6.7 PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

There are no residual impacts associated with thedevelopment.

6.8 CONCLUSIONS

The short term disruption to be caused by the con-struction of Luas Line C1 will be outweighed by theconsiderable social benefits to the existing, andfuture, communities of the study area.

62

7 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.1.1 BackgroundDuring the development of the Luas Line C1 align-ment by the RPA, it was clear from an early stagethat Mayor Street could provide a suitable align-ment for the route between Connolly Station andthe Line C1 terminus at The Point. Mayor Streetprovides a continuous alignment along the fulllength of the route, and there is good potential forintensification of existing land-uses along this corri-dor.

The provision of on-street running is expected tohave an impact on existing traffic flows and othertransport activity along Mayor Street. This sectionof the report examines such impacts and sets outhow they are managed as part of the proposedscheme.

As part of this section of the report, the “StudyArea” has been defined as the rectangle boundedby Amiens Street, East Wall Road, Sheriff Street andNorth Wall Quay/Custom House Quay, and repre-sents the area within which all significant localimpacts of the scheme are expected to occur. Inaddition, relevant impacts of schemes taking placeoutside this study area have also been addressed.

7.2 METHODOLOGY

7.2.1 ApproachThe traffic and transport assessment examines boththe positive and negative impacts on all transportusers arising out of the proposed scheme. It isstressed at this stage that the benefits of a schemeof this sort can be significant, in the form of net-work-wide journey time reductions, reduced vehic-ular emissions, reduced noise, and associated envi-ronmental degradation associated with car activity.The primary purpose of this section is to examinethe more local traffic and transportation impactswhich may arise out of the scheme, the extent ofsuch impacts and the processes or measures neces-sary to manage them.

The traffic and transportation assessment draws oninformation from a number of sources to informthe work, as will be described later in this report. Inessence, the assessment is undertaken in five keytasks as follows:

• Establishing an understanding of existing condi-tions throughout the study area, covering road andpublic transport infrastructure, pedestrian andcycle facilities, and existing safety issues. Thisenables a robust picture of the do-minimum sce-nario to be developed against which the proposedscheme can be assessed;

Defining the details of the proposed scheme,including the alignment, and the traffic manage-ment measures proposed through the area to sup-port it;

Assessment and quantification of the trafficimpacts through the study area, the consequentialimpacts on pedestrian and vehicular safety, and thekey changes in traffic patterns which will resultfrom the proposed scheme;

Discussing the traffic impacts associated with con-struction works as the scheme progresses on site,and how these impacts can be managed; and

Providing an overview of the impacts on existingand future public transport facilities, and the likelylevels of passenger activity that the proposedscheme is likely to attract.

Junction assessments have been undertaken usingtraffic modelling techniques to determine delayand queuing through individual locations. Thejunction assessment has informed the schemedesign, and ensures that the scheme will facilitateforecast peak period traffic activity through thearea over the period to 2016. Further informationon the Junction Assessment is provided in Annex A.

7.2.2 Assumptions and LimitationsThe forecast traffic data over the period to 2016

63

forms the key source of information upon whichthe study has been based, and has been preparedby the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) usingtheir strategic traffic model for the Greater DublinArea. The DTO model has become an accepted toolfor modelling the traffic and transportationimpacts of major infrastructure schemes, and wasmost recently updated in 2001 to more accuratelyreflect observed changes in traffic patterns. Themodel also has the capability to reflect the tenden-cy for increased public transport use as a result ofan improved service, and other management meas-ures throughout the Greater Dublin Area.

Traffic flow information for 2003 (existing), 2008(opening year) and 2016 (design year) was suppliedby the DTO for relevant roads and junctionsthroughout the study area upon which to base theassessment. The data has been supplied for boththe do-minimum and do-something scenarios suchthat the actual impacts of the scheme can be com-pared for each of the assessment years.

The traffic and transport assessment has broadlyfollowed the guidance provided in the UK Instituteof Highways and Transportation Guidance on thePreparation of Traffic Impact Assessments, theNational Roads Authority Design Manual for Roadsand Bridges, and the Irish Department of theEnvironment Traffic Management Guidelines.

7.2.3 Assessment CriteriaContinuing consideration of traffic and transporta-tion issues has been made throughout thePreliminary Design of the Luas Line C1 scheme, andhas allowed the development of a scheme that willlead to a significant improvement to transportaccessibility, mobility, the local environment andthe local economy within the Study Area. Inpreparing this section, the emphasis has been on:

• Determining the adverse impacts of the scheme;

• Identification and development of measures to beincorporated into the scheme to mitigate impacts;and

• Identifying and evaluating the residual impacts ofthe scheme.

In addressing these issues, a set of criteria wasrequired to allow an examination of the relevantimpacts. In establishing such criteria, the followingissues were been deemed most relevant to theassessment:

• Local road and junction capacity – Is congestion orsignificant queuing envisaged through the junc-tions?

• Access and circulation – Are large volumes of traf-fic expected to make large diversions to reach their

destination

• Traffic Safety – Do the proposals lead to concernsregarding the safety of pedestrians, cyclists orvehicular traffic?

• Construction – Can the construction be managedsuch that excessive disruption can be avoided?

• Public Transport – Will the scheme compliment orconflict with existing and proposed public trans-port?

• Residual impacts – Are they significant and canthey be managed?

Addressing all such criteria will ensure that allpotential impacts can be incorporated into theassessment, and a thorough understanding of thenature and extent of each can be developed. TheInstitute of Environmental Assessment Guidelinessuggest broad rules-of-thumb which assist in iden-tifying those impacts which can be deemed to be‘significant’. These are:

• Highway links where traffic flows will increase bymore than 30% (or the number of heavy goodsvehicles will increase by more than 30%)

• Any other specifically sensitive areas where trafficflows have increased by 10% or more. (Specifically

64

sensitive areas would include accident blackspots,conservation areas, hospitals, links with high pedes-trian flows, etc.).

On this basis, traffic flow increases directly attribut-able to Luas of less than 10% were not consideredto be significant. Furthermore, increases of 10-30%were only considered to give rise to significanteffects in specifically sensitive areas, defined in thiscase as any road link with more than 15 accidents inthe last five year period for which data was avail-able.

In deciding on assessment criteria for vehiculardelay, guidance has been obtained from the DesignManual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB Vol. 11Environmental Assessment). This defines potentialfor significant delay where there is predicted to bea permanent decrease in link speeds of more than5km/h, or where there is predicted to be a perma-nent increase in journey length of 500m.

7.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVINGENVIRONMENT

7.3.1 IntroductionThis section outlines the study area in its existingform. The discussion is intended to provide thereader with an overview of existing traffic andtransport infrastructure through the study area, aswell as current provision for taxis, parking, loadingand public transport services. The discussion alsooutlines any road safety issues that have beenobserved based on accident records, and providesan overview of current traffic patterns through thelocality.

7.3.2 Road InfrastructureA number of infrastructural schemes are proposedin the vicinity of Luas Line C1, which will impact ontraffic patterns throughout the area. Proposalsinclude:

Dublin Port Tunnel: The Dublin Port Tunnel willprovide direct access from the National MotorwayNetwork at Whitehall to Dublin Port and East Wall.Although constructed primarily for goods traffic, itis expected that a notable volume of general trafficwill use the tunnel. This will significantly relievedemand along East Wall Road north of Tolka QuayRoad as a result of traffic using the tunnel. Theimpacts of the Dublin Port Tunnel have been incor-porated into the do-minimum scenario for 2008

and 2016;East Wall Road Widening: In order to support thetunnel proposals, a scheme for widening East WallRoad has also been prepared. The scheme willincrease capacity between The East Link and ThePort Tunnel, and combined with the reassignmentof some traffic to the Dublin Port Tunnel will leadto a notable improvement in traffic conditions;

Environmental Traffic Cells: Dublin City Council pro-poses an environmental traffic managementscheme for the Study Area. The indicative schemeincorporates a number of traffic managementmeasures and turning restrictions to reducethrough-traffic volumes as described above, andwill compliment the increases in capacity on theroutes around the periphery of the Study Area.

Macken Street Bridge: It has been assumed that theproposed Macken Street Bridge has been fully con-structed for the design year scenario only (2016).The Macken Street Bridge provides an additionalriver crossing between Matt Talbot Bridge and theEast Link, and is expected to attract significantcross-river trips. This will in itself lead to a notableincrease in vehicular traffic onto North Wall Quay,and as such has been included in the do-minimumand do-something scenarios such that the impactsof the proposed Luas can be identified in isolation.The Macken Street Bridge scheme also incorporatesa turning restriction from Sheriff StreetLower/Guild Street onto Sheriff Street Upper. This

65

is required to remove any potential for trafficaccessing the Dublin Port Tunnel from the pro-posed Macken Street Bridge, which could other-wise lead to a significant increase in traffic volumesthrough the study area. Traffic using Guild Streetwould instead be required to travel to the NorthCity via the Five Lamps and either North StrandRoad or Portland Row. The Macken Street Bridgeand associated traffic management measures hasbeen approved through a separate planning proce-dure and a stand-alone EIS is available from thePlanning Authorities;

Luas Red and Green Lines: The Luas lines recentlyconstructed between the City Centre andSandyford, Tallaght and Connolly Station havebeen included for both 2008 and 2016; and

A number of new road proposals are also proposedwithin the study area. For 2008, the proposed FirstLink Road (Spencer Dock Road) to the east of GuildStreet is included. For 2016, the Second Link Road,located to the west of New Wapping Street, andthe Third Link Road to the west of the Point areincluded. Such link roads are seen as essential toproviding the required levels of access into devel-opment lands within the study area, and are includ-ed in the do-minimum scenario.

7.3.3 Existing Road ConditionsThe North Quays, from Matt Talbot Bridge to thePoint, represents a key approach route into the CityCentre, and provides the main connection betweenthe City Centre and Dublin Port. Similarly, SheriffStreet also provides a continuous route from EastWall Road to Amiens Street, although congestionalong Amiens Street can be considerable duringpeak periods, and hence this is not as attractive aroute for access to the City Centre. Mayor Street,on the other hand, does not presently provide acontinuous route to East Wall Road. Mayor StreetLower terminates at Guild Street to the west ofSpencer Dock, while Mayor Street Upper ends atNew Wapping Street, some 150m to the east.

In addition, a number of north-south routes bisectthe study area providing access between SheriffStreet and North Wall Quay, thereby providing analternative to East Wall Road and Amiens Street.Existing traffic patterns through the study area cantherefore be quite complex, and are as a result of anumber of different requirements of road users.The key features are:

Rat-running to avoid Amiens Street:

Such traffic travels from the Five Lamps via SheriffStreet and either Commons Street or Guild Streetonto Custom House Quay, where onward access tothe South City is available via Matt Talbot Bridge. It

appears that the majority of such traffic routes viaCommons Street as opposed to Guild Street inorder to bypass much of the queuing that can formon Custom House Quay, and this exacerbates queu-ing through the Commons Street/Mayor StreetLower junction. This activity also occurs in thereverse direction during both the AM and PM Peakperiods;

As an alternative, a notable volume of traffic trav-els via Sheriff Street, Commons Street, and MayorStreet Lower to rejoin Amiens Street at StoreStreet. This is possible at present due to the reten-tion of the left turn facility onto Amiens Street, andleads to an increase in vehicular traffic activityalong Mayor Street Lower adjacent toHarbourmaster Place;

Rat-running to avoid East Wall Road:

To the east of the study area, traffic volumes arerelatively light throughout the day. During peakperiods however, congestion is common along EastWall Road as a result of high volumes of trafficdemanding access to Alfie Byrne Road and theNorth City. As such, the use of New Wapping Streetand Castleforbes Road is common by trafficattempting to bypass this congestion. Particularlyhigh volumes are observed on New Wapping Streetduring the PM Peak;

66

Local Access:

At present, the main area of development in thestudy area is in the area to the west of Guild Street,comprising residential units, retail, commercial andgeneral public open space. The area therefore gen-erates a high level of travel demand, which in turnleads to the generation of local traffic activity. Themain vehicular access routes into the area are viaThe Five Lamps, Sheriff Street and Guild/CommonsStreet from the North, and via Custom House Quayand Commons Street from the South. Access is alsopossible from the North East and South West viaAlfie Byrne Road/Sheriff Street and the East LinkBridge.

As a result, local traffic is approaching on almostidentical routes to those currently being used byrat-running traffic. Local traffic therefore experi-ences some congestion through the area, particu-larly at the junction of Commons Street and MayorStreet Lower as a result of this additional trafficload.

Another key feature of the study area is the trafficimpacts of large events at the Point. The Point iscurrently characterised by car-dominated access,with extremely limited public transport provision,despite the proximity to the City Centre. Parking isprovided in the Point Car Park, along adjacent resi-dential roads, and in other private car parks.

Events, particularly those that generate additionalpeak-hour traffic, can result in substantial conges-tion along East Wall Road and North Wall Quay,thereby exacerbating current traffic difficultiesthrough this area.

7.3.4 Other InitiativesA HGV Management Strategy has been publishedin draft form by Dublin City Council, the implemen-tation of which will coincide with the opening ofthe Dublin Port Tunnel. The over-riding objectiveof the strategy is to maximise the benefits of thePort Tunnel by encouraging the maximum possibleuse of the Tunnel by HGV traffic. The strategy isunder consultation regarding the specific objec-tives and means of implementation, and is sched-uled for completion in 2005. It is expected that thekey impact of the strategy will be a further reduc-tion in HGV traffic along North Wall Quay, henceleading to journey time and delay savings to resid-ual traffic in and around the Luas Line C1 studyarea.

7.3.5 Existing Public Transport Provision andAccessibilityAt present, the provision of public transport intothe North Docklands area is limited, with bus 53Aproviding the only scheduled local service betweenthe City Centre and East Wall, and at a frequency ofsome 7 buses per day.

Route 90A has been recently introduced which con-nects the City Centre with Guild Street via MayorStreet, thereby improving accessibility to the west-ernmost extremity of the study area. Although thisdoes provide good public transport access into theheart of the Study Area, patronage of the route90A has been observed to be quite limited. This islikely as a result of the limited frequency of service,the long journey times relative to, for example QBCroutes, and the proximity of much of the existingdevelopment to other public transport services onAmiens Street and the Luas Red Line/DART atConnolly Station.

At present Iarnród Eireann has a rail terminal with-in the study area, which serves part of their nation-al freight business and is not utilised by passengertrains. Longer-term proposals, however, to intro-duce passenger trains to the Spencer Dock terminalcould benefit future development with the studyarea, and proposals in this regard will be discussedlater in this report.

Parking for approximately six taxis is currently pro-vided on Mayor Street Lower immediately to theeast of Commons Street.

7.3.6 Parking and Loading ActivityExisting parking and loading activity was compiledas part of a survey of existing conditions along theLuas Line C1 alignment. A summary of the survey

67

results along key sections of Mayor Street is provid-ed in Table 7.3a below. The table indicates thenumber of “parking and loading events” that occurduring the specified period.

Table 7.3a Parking and Loading Survey(06:00 to 19:00)

The survey results show that significant short stayactivity is taking place along the route. On MayorStreet between Commons Street and Guild Street,some 54 vehicles are stopped in excess of 3 hours.When it is taken that a total of 70 pay & displayspaces are available along this section, it can beconcluded that only 16 short stay parking spaceswere actually available for general use for much ofthe day. Furthermore, some 50% of the total park-ing provision on Mayor Street was taken up by

vehicles parked for periods in excess of six hours.

This type of activity suggests that cars are beingparked for the duration of the working day. Atotal of 294 vehicles stopped at the kerbside for lessthan 30 minutes, which constitutes mainly loadingor drop off activities. No parking is permitted onMayor Street Lower at George’s Dock, although

loading/unloading activity does take place as notedby the surveys.

There are currently no parking restrictions in oper-ation on Mayor Street Upper between NewWapping Street and Castleforbes Road. This areaappears to be used as a long-stay parking area forlocal traffic and, potentially, for those with destina-tions on Mayor Street Lower.

Location Vehicles Vehicles stopped Vehicles stopped Cars stopped (all stopping > 3 hours < 30 minutes < 30 minutesdurations)

Mayor Street Lower between Commons & Guild 571 54 294 225Mayor Street Lower at George’s Dock 340 0 225 159Mayor Street Upper between New Wapping & Castleforbes 121 12 67 39

Source: RPA 2004

68

7.3.7 Existing Pedestrian and Cyclist ActivityExisting pedestrian activity was also compiled usingsurvey data. The surveys measured pedestrianmovements through a number of junctions alongMayor Street, and allowed the pattern of existingactivity to be built up. The results of the survey areoutlined in Table 7.3b below.

Figure 7.3b Existing Pedestrian Activity(06:00 to 19:00)

The table clearly shows a dominance of east-westpedestrian flows along Mayor Street, with somesignificant north-south activity noted alongCommons Street. The highest flows were noted onMayor Street Lower over the bridge at George’sDock where approximately 4,500 pedestrians wererecorded in each direction between 06:00 and19:00. Over half of these pedestrians continuealong Mayor Street Lower and through the junc-tion with Common’s Street. The remainder presum-ably end their trip at office or residential develop-

ments situated around the George’s Dock area.This east-west demand is also reflected on NorthWall Quay and at the junction between SevillePlace / Guild Place / Sheriff Street Upper. Pedestrianactivity is considerably lower at other locations clos-er to The Point, where the area is predominatelyindustrial based as opposed to commercial or resi-dential.

An assessment has also been made of existingcycling activity. The surveys again show cycling tobe most predominant along Mayor Street Lower,accounting for 8% of all westbound traffic move-ments along Mayor Street west of Commons Street.Pedal cyclists contribute to 5% of the total vehicu-lar activity along Mayor Street Lower east of thisjunction.

Location North–South East – West Total Mayor Street Lower – Bridge over George’s Dock 0 9248 9248Commons Street / Mayor Street Lower 1668 5748 7416North Wall Quay / Commons Street 145 2495 2640Seville Place / Guild Place / Sheriff Street Upper 19 1143 1162Mayor Street Upper / Castleforbes Road 53 106 159

Source: RPA 2003

69

A summary of cycling activity is outlined in Table7.3c below.

Table 7.3c Existing Cycling Activity

As for pedestrians, the level of cycling activity ismost concentrated to the west of Spencer Dock.The volume of east-west cycle activity is as high onMayor Street as on North Wall Quay, and impliesthat further increases could be expected with theintroduction of a continuous cycle routing alongthe Luas Line C1 alignment from The Point. Also ofnote is the high north-south volume through thejunctions, which suggests that the study area isbeing used as a through-route for general cycleaccess to the city centre. This pattern of cycle usemay increase considerably following completion ofthe new bridge linking Georges Dock with theSouth Quays

7.3.8 Pedestrian, Cyclist and Vehicular Trafficand Safety Accident statistics within the study area have beencompiled and are presented in Table 7.3d. It is evi-

dent that the number of accidents along MayorStreet is quite low in comparison to adjacent roads,and intersecting roads such as Commons Street,New Wapping Street and Castleforbes Road. This ispotentially as a result of the high levels of rat-run-ning traffic along these intersecting roads asdescribed earlier. Two of the three accidents record-ed on Mayor Street were pedestrian related. Nocycling-related accidents were recorded at anypoint along the proposed alignment.

Over the five-year period for which accident statis-tics are presented only three were recorded alongMayor Street Lower and Mayor Street Upper, all ofwhich were classified as ‘minor’. A total of four‘fatal’ accidents were recorded from 1997 to 2001,on Amiens Street and East Wall Road, which carriessignificantly higher traffic flows. Of the total acci-dents recorded within the study area, 27% involvedpedestrians and 15% involved cyclists.

As indicated in Table 7.3d, the key finding is the rel-atively high proportion of accidents involvingpedestrians, particularly along Mayor Street.Facilities for significantly improving the pedestrianenvironment have therefore been incorporatedinto the scheme design.

Table 7.3d Personal Injury Accident Data1997-2001

The ongoing development of the study area is like-ly to lead to increases in pedestrian and cyclistactivity. The introduction of Light Rail schemesalong a potential pedestrian/cycle desire line hasbeen shown to attract such activity away from par-allel routes primarily as a result of the environmen-

Location Fatal Serious Minor TotalAmiens St 2 5 60 67Commons St 0 0 8 8Sean McDermott St 0 0 1 1New Wapping St 0 0 7 7East Wall Rd 2 5 59 66Sheriff St 0 4 11 15Custom House Quay 0 2 19 21Guild St 0 0 0 0Castleforbes Rd 0 0 7 7Mayor St 0 0 3 3

Source: National Roads Authority

Location North–South East – West Total Commons Street / Mayor Street Lower 237 383 620Mayor Street Lower / Guild Street 81 49 130Custom House Quay / Commons Street 327 343 670Seville Place / Guild Place / Sheriff Street Upr 229 49 278Mayor Street Upper / Castleforbes Road 31 5 36

70

tal improvements and perceived security associatedwith such schemes. This will allow a focusing ofsuch activity onto Mayor Street where it can beaccommodated through the various improvementsproposed.

7.4 DO NOTHING SCENARIO

7.4.1 OverviewThe DTO Platform for Change outlines a definitivetransport strategy for the Greater Dublin Area inthe period to 2016. The Strategy addresses thepotentially serious impact of congestion in futureyears should traffic growth be allowed to continueunmanaged in the Greater Dublin Area, and theconsequential negative economic impacts on theCity.

The Luas Line C1 extension reflects this position, inrecognising that provision of adequate quality pub-lic transport is an imperative part of facilitatingdevelopment on the scale that is currently pro-posed for in the North Docklands area. A relianceon car travel to facilitate this development wouldlead to unsustainable levels of car parking provi-sion, and a significant increase in traffic congestionthroughout the area. This is particularly evident forthose areas to the east of Spencer Dock and GuildStreet which are not within a reasonable walkingdistance of the existing public transport corridoralong Amiens Street and at Connolly Station.

The proposed Line C1 scheme therefore addressesthis requirement by providing a high quality, highcapacity public transport corridor through the cen-tre of an existing and future area of high-densitydevelopment, and will facilitate sustainable travelhabits by users from an early stage.

7.5 PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE

7.5.1 Overview of SystemLine C1 comprises of the installation and operationof an on-street light rail transit system betweenConnolly Station and The Point (East Wall Road).The route is effectively a continuation of the LuasRed Line and will follow the alignment of MayorStreet Upper and Lower. As part of the scheme, anew Luas bridge, which accommodates pedestri-ans, cyclists and access to the proposed NationalConference Centre is to be constructed across thecanal at Spencer Dock, connecting Mayor StreetUpper with Mayor Street Lower. The RPA identified a suitable method for tying theproposed Line C1 into the existing terminus atConnolly Station through a route selection process,where a total of three options were identified. Thechosen option involves two-way LUAS operationfrom the existing Connolly Station stop, pastHarbourmaster Place onto Mayor Street Lower, andcontinuing onto Mayor Street Upper and The Point.

The selected option allows the LRT to focus on

Mayor Street as the primary corridor, along whichall environmental and traffic management propos-als can be concentrated. The preferred option rep-resents the most natural alignment for extendingthe Luas Red Line, and makes best use of the exist-ing platforms at Connolly Station.

There are a total of four new LRT stops proposedalong Line C1. These are located at:

• Georges’ Dock;• Mayor Street;• Spencer Dock; and• The Point (Terminus for Line C1).

It is envisaged that services along the Luas Red Lineand Line C1 will be integrated to provide a singleservice. The following service combinations areenvisaged:

• Through running from Tallaght to The Point viathe Luas Red Line, Connolly Station and Line C1;

• Through running from Tallaght to The Point viathe Luas Red Line and Line C1, but omittingConnolly Station. This would be appropriate forselected services during the peak period, when dic-tated by passenger demands; and

• Tallaght to Connolly Station via the Luas Red Line,terminating at Connolly Station. This acknowl-

71

edges the potential for a reduced level of servicethrough the docklands, particularly during the ear-lier years, pending full development of the studyarea; and

• Short running from Connolly Station to The Point(Terminus for Line C1), as dictated by passengerdemand and as might facilitate special events atthe Point.

In designing the scheme, provision for a publictransport interchange has been made at SpencerDock. This is in line with the Platform for ChangeStrategy, which envisages a through heavy rail linefrom north of Connolly Station to Pearse Street andHeuston via the Rail Interconnector. Spencer Dockwould therefore become an important transporthub, and would potentially support significantassociated activity.

The scheme has been designed on the basis of aninitial 5-minute service frequency along Line C1,which will meet passenger demands up to thedesign year of 2016, and thereafter. Further capa-bility for increased capacity has been incorporatedinto the system in the longer term.

7.5.2 Traffic Management ProposalsThe development of the Line C1 scheme hasrequired a number of traffic management propos-als to ensure that expected traffic volumes can be

managed effectively, to provide for road safetyrequirements, and to protect the Luas from thepotentially severe impacts of congestion. As such,the Line C1 designs incorporate a number of specif-ic proposals as part of the overall scheme to meetthese requirements. These traffic managementproposals include:

New signalised junctions along Mayor Street atCommons Street, Guild Street, New WappingStreet, and Castleforbes Road. All junctions incor-porate dedicated Luas signals and pedestrian cross-ings;

The construction of a bridge linking Mayor StreetUpper with Mayor Street Lower (Mayor StreetBridge) across Spencer Dock. The bridge will pro-vide a route for Luas vehicles, pedestrians andcyclists between Mayor Street Upper and MayorStreet Lower. In addition, the bridge will providevehicular access to the National Conference Centrefrom Guild Street. Other traffic will not be permit-ted to use the bridge, as this would lead to MayorStreet becoming an attractive alternative to NorthWall Quay for traffic to/from the City Centre;

Closure of the road linking Mayor Street Lowerwith Amiens Street, with the exception of Luasvehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Again, thisensures that Mayor Street provides for local accessonly, and further discourages rat-running. A

decrease in traffic volumes along Mayor StreetLower and the junction with Commons Street isexpected as a result.

Provision of a turning hammerhead onHarbourmaster Place for traffic, required due tothe closure of the access onto Amiens Street;

Shared running of Luas and other traffic in a singlelane in each direction along Mayor Street Lowerbetween Harbourmaster Place and CommonsStreet. This is required due to the limited availablestreet width, and is protected from attractingthrough-traffic by the closure at HarbourmasterPlace;

One way eastbound for traffic on Mayor StreetLower, between Commons Street and Guild Street.The eastbound lane is provided alongside the Luastracks, and hence no shared running is required;

No right turn from Mayor Street Upper onto NewWapping Street or Castleforbes Road. In 2008, alltraffic, including Luas vehicles is required to use asingle approach lane on Mayor Street to NewWapping Street and Castleforbes Road, and theintroduction of a right turn restriction is necessaryto ensure that Luas vehicles are not impeded bytraffic waiting to turn right. In 2016, the existinglane is designated as Luas-only, with the roadwidened to provide an additional lane for all other

72

traffic. Even with this additional lane, right turningtraffic would still block traffic flow, and the rightturn restriction is therefore retained. Alternativeaccess to both streets is available from SheriffStreet or North Wall Quay;

No right turn for southbound traffic fromCastleforbes Road onto Mayor Street Upper, againas a result of the restricted width of CastleforbesRoad, and the difficulty in providing a pocket forright-turning vehicles;

The proposed First, Second and Third Link Roadshave already been discussed, and are included inthe Do-Nothing and Do-Something scenarios. Suchroads will be signalised at their junctions withMayor Street Upper, and will facilitate pedestriansignals across all arms of each junction; and

Provision for westbound traffic only betweenCastleforbes Road and the Third Link Road.

In addition, loading bays are to be provided alongMayor Street between Commons Street and GuildStreet along the northern kerb to facilitate theretail activity along this stretch of road. The load-ing bays would provide for deliveries to both sidesof Mayor Street Lower.

7.6 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

7.6.1 Construction TrafficLikely Construction Programme

The construction of any linear project has differentcharacteristics to that of a contained site develop-ment, which would be likely to start at a number ofdifferent locations simultaneously with many workactivities running concurrently. This ensures com-pletion of the construction works within a reason-able timeframe and minimises construction costs.Construction works in essence will incorporate:

• site preparation, utility diversion and excavationfor the foundation• Installation of ducting and drainage along andadjacent to the route• installation of trackbed and rails• surface finishes and installation of electrical andoperating equipment

In this section, the particular impact of constructionon traffic and transportation activity, and the pro-posed mitigation measures will be discussed.

Construction Traffic Impact

It is accepted that the traffic impact during the con-struction phase can be significant, primarily as aresult of road closures and major decreases in junc-tion efficiency as a result of restricted lane widths.

For the current scheme, it is likely that the mainimpact will arise out of the requirement to tem-porarily occupy roadspace for construction works,resulting in partial or full closure of particularroads. This may not necessarily be the case onMayor Street however, where significant trafficcongestion resulting from reductions in junctionefficiency would not be expected, due to the lowvolumes of traffic that currently use Mayor Street.While traffic along much of Mayor Street will sig-nificantly increase as the intensity of developmentgrows throughout the study area, this is not likelyto become an issue before 2008, when the con-struction work is expected to be complete.

The traffic impacts of site preparation are likely tobe minimal, as no extended occupation of the pub-lic highway is required, and such works can beundertaken over a relatively short timescale. Onthe other hand, the traffic impact of the diversionworks can be significant if not adequately man-aged, particularly along more restrictive areas ofMayor Street. Maintenance of a one-way runninglane along Mayor Street would be sufficient tofacilitate necessary access to adjacent propertiesand underground car parks. Facilitating one-waywestbound on Mayor Street at all times, with alleastbound flows along North Wall Quay/CustomHouse Quay would provide a possible solutiongiven the low levels of congestion eastbound onCustom House Quay and North Wall Quay Quay,and would take advantage of the easy access from

73

Amiens Street onto Custom House Quay.

Construction of the trackbed may require partialclosure of certain sections of road for limited peri-ods where restricted width is available, in order tofacilitate construction of the full width as a singleprocess. The requirement for such would be dis-cussed with local representatives as part of the con-struction programme, and access to propertieswould be maintained at all times. Following surfac-ing, completed sections can be open to traffic whilethe installation of the power supply is taking place.This will ensure that the duration of road closurescan be kept to a minimum in the most sensitiveareas.

The project as proposed will also require the con-struction of a ‘Delta Junction’ in the railway at thejunction of Amiens Street and Mayor Street Lower.This junction will be required to facilitate through-running of trams from the Luas Red Line to Line C1without the requirement to enter the ConnollyStation terminus. The construction of such a facili-ty will inevitably disrupt services using the existingLuas Red Line into Connolly Station and wouldrequire trams to terminate at, for example, AbbeyStreet. This work will also require temporary traf-fic management measures to facilitate continuedtraffic flow along Amiens Street during the periodof construction of the Delta Junction.

Mitigation Measures

In order to successfully limit the impact of the con-struction period, a number of key mitigating meas-ures are proposed. These are:

• Frequent liaison and information exchanged withinterested parties;• The possibility of partial possession of roads andstreets (i.e. working in two halves);• Temporary ramps across trenches for divertedtraffic;• Temporary footpaths and footbridges;• Temporary access to properties;• Nightly reinstatement of trenches (where practi-cal and appropriate);• Safety procedures and fencing around trenches;• Clear sign – posting for road traffic and pedestri-ans;• Strict control of construction vehicles;• Co-ordination by the clients’ representatives ofworks of the utility companies and their contrac-tors; and• Co – ordination by the clients’ representatives ofworks of the infrastructure contractor.

It is noted that the limited traffic activity alongMayor Street to the east of Spencer Dock, willensure that traffic congestion issues are significant-ly less than would be expected in a city centre sitewith very high traffic flows, limited alternative

routes and significant street frontage. As a conse-quence the construction impact will, in itself, bemore limited as a result.

The requirement to maintain access to the variousunderground car parks on Mayor Street Lower willbe an important element of the construction stage,particularly along the section of Mayor StreetLower between Commons Street andHarbourmaster Place. Two-way access to car parkswill be maintained at all times during the construc-tion period.

As part of the construction process, the selectedcontractor will be requested to supply a TrafficManagement Plan as part of their contractual obli-gations for agreement with the RPA. The TrafficManagement Plan would set out in detail the pro-posed programme of works, how appropriateaccess can be retained throughout the works, andhow the environmental impacts of operating anurban construction site can be managed.

7.6.2 Operational Traffic ImpactsOverview

As part of the Traffic and Transport Assessment, adetailed analysis of the traffic and transportationimpacts of the scheme during the operation phasewas undertaken using traffic modelling software.This would ensure that the design could cater for

74

the future traffic flows through the area whichwould arise following implementation of the LineC1 scheme and the supporting traffic managementmeasures. This section of the report outlines theassessment undertaken, the findings, and theresulting impacts. A discussion of the safety impli-cations for pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicleswill be addressed later in this section, making refer-ence to the particular problems outlined earlier.

Within the study area, the following junctions weredeemed to be most relevant for the purpose of thetraffic assessment:

• Amiens Street / Mayor Street Lower;• Harbourmaster Place / Mayor Street Lower;• Commons Street / Mayor Street Lower;• Guild Street / Mayor Street Lower;• New Wapping Street / Mayor Street Upper;• Castleforbes Road/ Mayor Street Upper; • Commons Street / Custom House Quay / NorthWall Quay; and• First, Second and Third Link Roads at their junc-tion with Mayor Street.

Traffic Forecasting

The traffic forecasting procedure was undertakenby the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO), andwith reference to the DTO Multi-ModalTransportation Model. The traffic forecasting is

outlined in full in the Traffic Forecasting report,prepared by the DTO, which outlines the assump-tions, methodology and findings of the traffic fore-casting. The results of the DTO work were adoptedby the RPA for the purpose of the Luas Line C1 EIS.

In addition, an understanding of the impact ofshared Luas/vehicle running lanes on traffic flowwas required. The key issue is the bunching effectcaused by Luas vehicles stopping at an upstreamLuas stop, and requiring other traffic to remainbehind the Luas vehicle. This can lead to large gapsin approaching lane flows, and reduce the efficien-cy of traffic lanes. A microsimulation model wasconstructed to test this effect, and demonstratedthat for a single lane, lane efficiency was reducedby some 20% with shared running of Luas vehicles.This was taken into account in the assessment ofjunctions.

General Traffic Impacts

The construction of the proposed Line C1 and asso-ciated traffic management measures will lead tosome notable changes in the pattern of trafficmovement through the study area, predominantlyas a result of the various road closures and turningrestrictions.

In essence, the main impact on local traffic willrelate to those accessing Amiens Street from MayorStreet and Harbourmaster Place. At present, alltraffic exiting onto Amiens Street from Mayor

Street is required to cross the river at Matt TalbotBridge due to the compulsory left turn at AmiensStreet. With the proposed closure of the link ontoAmiens Street from Mayor Street, the alternativeroute to Matt Talbot Bridge is to travel viaCommons Street and Custom House Quay. Sharingroadspace with Luas vehicles will not be expectedto result in any significant additional delay, as Luasflows are quite low relative to general traffic.

The turning restrictions at Castleforbes Road andNew Wapping Street, as well as the one-way west-bound on Mayor Street between the Third LinkRoad and Castleforbes Road would not be expect-ed to impact on existing traffic to any significantdegree. The main activity through this area duringthe peak periods is rat-running traffic, and wouldbe better managed by such restrictions.

On Mayor Street Lower, between Commons Streetand Guild Street, a one-way eastbound is proposed.This will require some minor rerouting to access carparking along this section of Commons Street.Traffic will be required to access this section ofMayor Street Lower from Commons Street, which isfor the most part a relatively minor diversion. Themeasure also removes traffic flow turning rightfrom Guild Street onto Mayor Street, of which asignificant amount is rat-running traffic, and reas-signs it onto other North South links includingCommons Street, New Wapping Street and the new

75

Link Roads.

There is an existing taxi bay on Mayor Street Lowerimmediately to the east of Commons Street. Thescheme proposals require a relocation of this facili-ty, which currently has space for approximately sixvehicles. Alternative locations will be identifiedduring the detailed design stage of the works withdue regard for the requirements of taxi operationsand the convenience of taxi users. Detailed propos-als will be developed by Dublin City Council in dis-cussion with the RPA, the taxi regulator, the Gardaiand the Dublin Docklands Development Authority,and will lead to the identification of alternativelocations. An alternative taxi facility is being pro-posed on Harbourmaster Place.

Access to the underground car parks along MayorStreet Lower will not be affected by the subjectproposals. West of Commons Street, all traffic willshare a running lane with Luas vehicles in eachdirection, and traffic turning right into car parkswill be required to cross the opposing Luas line.This is, however, no different to crossing any con-ventional opposing traffic lane. Level access acrossthe lines will be available at all such locations andhence no impact on traffic flow to/from under-ground car parks will therefore occur.

Traffic Flows on Links

The redistribution of vehicular traffic through thestudy area lead to a change in traffic volumes usingmost roads. In order to describe the significance orotherwise of such changes, a summary table show-ing link flows in 2016 is presented below in Table7.6a. Increases deemed to be significant (ie: exceedthe thresholds outlined in section 7.2.3) are high-lighted.

76

The table shows a small number of significantchanges to traffic flows throughout the network.Within the immediate study area, the significantincreases are on:

• Guild Street, south of Mayor Street during theAM peak, where flows increase by some 47%. Thisis mostly as a result of the closure of Mayor Streetwestbound between Guild Street and CommonsStreet;

• The Second Link Road north of Mayor Street, andCastleforbes Street south of Mayor Street duringthe AM Peak. Although the percentage increasesare significant, this growth is on top of very lowexisting flows, and the traffic flows resulting fromthe scheme can be easily managed;

• Mayor Street from the Second Link Road to NewWapping Street. Again, while the percentageincrease is high, the actual increase is to the orderof 358 vehicles during the AM Peak Hour, and canbe easily managed within the road network;

• Amiens Street north of Mayor Street, which seesan increase of 10% as a result of the reassignmentof traffic to other routes outside the study area;

• Custom House Quay to the west of CommonsStreet, where an increase of 35% is expected. Thisresults from the restrictions on traffic movements

77

through the study area. The increase is to the orderof 400 vehicles during the PM Peak hour. It is notedthat this link sees a decrease in traffic movementsduring the AM Peak; and

• The First Link Road north of Mayor Street. Again,the percentage increase at 58% would suggest asignificant increase. The actual increase is, howev-er, low at 76 vehicles during the PM Peak hour.

Junction Impacts

The junction impacts have been assessed usingappropriate junction modelling software. Thisapproach allows expected queuing and delay to beassessed, and hence a conclusion to be drawnregarding the efficiency of the operation of thejunction. The significant findings of the junctionassessment for the Design Year (2016) are:

A significant reduction in westbound traffic alongMayor Street Lower between Commons Street andHarbourmaster Place during the Peak Periods. Thereduction is to the order of some 80% to 90% ofthe existing traffic volumes over both peak periods;

A significant reduction in traffic volumes throughthe Commons Street/Mayor Street junction. Duringthe AM Peak hour, hourly traffic reduces by over20%, while the reduction during the PM Peak isapproximately 40%. This effect arises out of a gen-

eral reduction in traffic travelling northboundalong Commons Street, and the removal of west-bound traffic along Mayor Street Lower betweenCommons Street and Guild Street. The junctionassessment at Commons Street/Mayor Street Lowerhas shown that maximum queues through the junc-tion would be reduced by roughly 40% during thePM Peak as a result of the scheme, which wouldlead to notable benefits for residual traffic;

A significant improvement in traffic conditionsthrough the junction of Mayor Street and GuildStreet with the scheme. Although traffic flowsthrough the junction do not change considerably asa result of the scheme, it is the removal of west-bound traffic from Mayor Street Lower betweenGuild Street and Commons Street that releasesmuch spare capacity from this junction. Queuingthrough this junction decreases by up to 80% dur-ing the PM Peak as a result of the proposals;

A reduction of 32% in AM Peak traffic movementsthrough the junction of Mayor Street and the FirstLink Road. Traffic flows remain low through thisjunction and very low levels of queuing and delayare expected;

An increase of 169% in traffic movements throughthe junction of the Second Link Road and MayorStreet during the AM Peak. Despite this high levelof increase, traffic flows remain low in comparison

to nearby junctions, and no significant congestionor delay is expected through the junction. Much ofthis increase is as a result of the restrictions furtherwest on Commons Street. Once again, however,traffic flows remain low through this junction andvery low levels of queuing and delay are expected;

Reductions of up to 20% through the junction ofNew Wapping Street and Mayor Street, althoughflows remain low with minimal levels of queuingand delay expected;

A significant reduction in traffic through the junc-tion of Castleforbes Road and Mayor Street duringthe AM Peak, where a reduction of 32% in peakhour traffic is expected. The impact of this reduc-tion is limited, as no queuing/delay is expectedthrough this junction without the scheme; and

Limited impact through the junction of CustomHouse Quay and Commons Street. Traffic flowsthrough this junction increase by 12% during theAM Peak, but decrease by 10% during the PM Peak.Nevertheless, capacity through this junctionremains an issue in future years, particularly giventhe requirement for a pedestrian facility throughthis location following the construction of the newpedestrian bridge. As a result, proposals have beenmade to provide additional capacity through thisjunction while providing for the pedestriandemand. The proposals reduce queuing by up to

78

85% during the AM Peak hour, with a correspon-ding reduction of some 50% in queuing during thePM Peak hour. This will be addressed later in thissection.

In summary, the scheme appears to generallyreduce east-west movements through the studyarea, displacing this traffic onto the surroundingroad network. The closure at Amiens Street has astrong impact in reducing traffic along MayorStreet Upper, and leads to significant reductions intraffic through the junction with Commons Street.

Although not specifically as a result of the Luas pro-posal, the junction of Guild Street/Mayor Street isexpected to come under significant pressure infuture years as a result of the National ConferenceCentre. As part of the assessment, it has beenassumed that traffic exiting the Conference Centrewill be allowed to turn left onto Guild Street only.

Pedestrian, Cyclist and Vehicular Safety Impacts

The issue of traffic safety is also relevant to the EIS,and the implications of Luas operation on a sharedroad environment require to be addressed.Existing safety records have been presented earlierin this report, and highlight the key issues as:

Pedestrian safety along Mayor Street; and

General traffic and pedestrian safety along inter-secting roads;

With the expected pace of development of the areaover the coming years, one would expect a generalincrease in risk to users as a result of the increase inassociated traffic and pedestrian activity. As such, anumber of features have been incorporated intothe scheme design to address existing and potentialsafety issues.

The key impacts on safety as a result of the safetyfeatures can be outlined as follows:

An area–wide improvement to provision for pedes-trians. All proposed signal junctions on MayorStreet Upper and Lower would have pedestrianfacilities, activated by push – button. This allows acontinuous pedestrian route along Mayor Streetfrom Connolly Station to The Point Square, withfull provision of pedestrian crossings;

Dedicated Luas signals at all junctions where sepa-rate Luas and traffic lanes are provided. The Luassignal would be activated by approaching Luasvehicles and would stop all conflicting movementsto facilitate Luas vehicles. This approach will min-imise the safety risk through the junction arisingout of lack of familiarity of drivers with Luas vehi-cles;

Provision of appropriate vehicle signage on side-road approaches to Mayor Street to warn drivers ofLuas activity. This will improve overall awareness ofdrivers and will prove most beneficial during theinitial years of the scheme;

General pedestrian and cyclist safety benefits as aresult of the closure of road access onto AmiensStreet, and the consequential reduction in trafficactivity along Mayor Street. This will be particular-ly evident during the peak periods when heavy con-gestion occurs on Amiens Street leading to rat run-ning.

The design therefore addresses the existing prob-lems of pedestrian safety along Mayor Street withthe provision of improved crossings. The proposalsalso remedy some of the traffic safety concerns onthe intersecting routes, by better managing trafficthrough the junctions with Mayor Street.

For cyclists, the scheme will lead to a greatlyimproved environment as a result of the environ-mental improvements along Mayor Street. The riskof injury to cyclists is, however, relevant, and canoccur as a result of bicycle wheels running intotramlines, or as a result of skidding on wet rails.The safety of cyclists in the vicinity of the tramwaywill therefore be reinforced through the provisionof dedicated cycle lanes such as is proposed alongMayor Street Upper between Castleforbes Street

79

and new Wapping Street, and at other locationswhere space permits. Elsewhere, adequate widthbetween the track rail and kerb will be provided toensure sufficient space exists for cyclists withoutencroachment into the tracked area. At crossingpoints, appropriate signage and positive directionwill be provided to cyclists to minimise the poten-tial for oblique crossing of tracks. These and otherproposals will be developed in conjunction withDublin City Council, interest groups and local stake-holders during the detailed design of the scheme.Following construction, cyclist safety will continueto be dealt with through an awareness campaign,as is the normal approach in other countries.

Other Traffic and Transport Impacts

Mention has been made of traffic congestion thatcurrently results from events at the Point. Line C1will greatly improve accessibility to The Point byPublic Transport, and will facilitate high qualityaccess from all railway stations throughout theGreater Dublin Area and beyond via either Heustonor Connolly Stations. This will, in itself, introducepublic transport as a realistic alternative to travelby car for events at The Point, and will allow areassessment of parking management at thevenue.

The reduction in car traffic that will result from thescheme will extend far beyond the immediate

Study Area. The provision of end-to-end accessibil-ity is an important feature in providing for publictransport use, and will facilitate the long-termreduction in car use throughout the Greater DublinArea. The wider impact of such a scheme cantherefore be significant, in that as well as providingan attractive alternative to car travel, the corre-sponding reduction in car use will improve journeytimes for residual traffic on the road network.

Other Mitigation Measures

The assessment of impacts at junctions outlinedpotential for queuing and congestion at the junc-tion of Custom House Quay and Commons Street.Although not on the alignment of the proposedscheme, congestion at this junction has the poten-tial to impact on the road network and Luas oper-ation within the study area. A scheme has there-fore been considered which can improve the over-all efficiency of the junction, achieved by a redesignof the traffic signals to provide a dedicated rightturn lane into Commons Street. The proposedmeasures greatly improve the operation of thejunction and mitigate queuing and delay whichwould otherwise be expected during peak periods.

It is also likely that a notable volume of pedestrianactivity will result from the proposed environmen-tal improvements along Custom House Quay andNorth Wall Quay, and as a result of the construction

of the pedestrian bridge linking the South Quays.As a result, the redesign of the junction ofCommons Street/North Wall Quay has included afacility for pedestrian crossings to cater for suchdemand.

7.6.3 Conclusions General

In this section, the particular construction and oper-ational impacts of the scheme on traffic and trans-portation have been outlined, along with a numberof mitigation measures to overcome related issues.

Construction Impacts

While the construction of the Luas Line C1 can leadto notable traffic and environmental impact, it isnoted that much of the alignment of Line C1 isthrough undeveloped areas with low traffic flows,particularly so for the section of Mayor Street eastof Guild Street. As such, the local impact will belower than that normally expected for an urbansite and hence a shorter construction programmecan be achieved.

For the section of Mayor Street Lower betweenGuild Street and Amiens Street, and for the workson Amiens Street, a carefully programmed trafficmanagement scheme will be implemented in con-sultation with the Garda Siochána, the local

80

authority and local stakeholders. The TrafficManagement Plan will be submitted by the con-tractors and will outline the key environmental andtraffic management mitigation measures, includingthe maintenance of access to properties while facil-itating a rapid construction programme.

Operational Impacts

The scheme notably affects traffic patterns throughthe study area, with the main effect being a reduc-tion in traffic along Mayor Street Lower andCommons Street as a result of the closure atHarbourmaster Place. The discussion has outlinedthat the various junctions along the route will oper-ate efficiently, and no significant congestion is tobe expected. This was concluded following adetailed modelling of the operation of individualjunctions using appropriate modelling software.The net impact of the scheme is a reduction in traf-fic activity within the study area, most noticeable inthe area to the west of Spencer Dock.

The scheme greatly improves safety for vehicles,pedestrians and cyclists through the Study Area byproviding an excellent network of pedestrian cross-ings, and managing vehicular conflicts through thearea by means of proposed traffic signals alongMayor Street. Impacts on accessibility to The Pointhave also been noted, with a potential dramaticimprovement to the current situation of car-dependency for access to this site.

The traffic and transportation impacts, which havebeen outlined, have therefore been fully addressedwithin the design of the scheme, and by the sup-porting mitigation measures as proposed.

Finally, additional measures have been proposed toimprove the overall traffic and pedestrian environ-ment based on the results of the TransportAssessment. The key proposal involves a reworkingof the existing signalised junction at North WallQuay/Commons Street to provide additional junc-tion capacity, and to provide a pedestrian linkthrough this junction to link with the South Quaysvia the new pedestrian bridge.

7.7 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

7.7.1 Impact of Proposed SchemeAs expected, the key public transport relatedimpact of the proposed Line C1 would be a signifi-cant increase in the share of public transportthrough the study area. A number of key effectsare expected:

Those who currently walk from residential areasthrough the North Docklands into the City Centrefor work, or transfer to bus and rail services wouldswitch to Luas for their connecting trip. With theintroduction of integrated ticketing, it is likely thatsuch activity would further increase as the attrac-tion of multi-leg journeys improves;

Business-related trips throughout the day to thegrowing commercial district in the study area.Although such activity would be currently privatecar-based, a shift onto Luas from private car-basedtrips would be expected given the current andfuture restrictions on car parking throughout thecity centre; and

The system will make best use of the 2-way carryingcapacity with the development of a successfullymixed pattern of land use. The provision of mixedland uses ensures that the peak flow is well bal-anced in both directions along the line.

81

The preliminary transport modelling undertaken bythe RPA has allowed expected patronage levels onthe proposed extension to be established for 2016with proposed traffic management measures inplace, and expected levels of developmentthroughout the study area. The results are outlinedin Table 7.7a below.

Table 7.7a Luas hourly passenger flows,AM Peak 2016

Link AM Peak (2-way)

Connolly – Georges Dock 3209Georges Dock – Mayor Square 3139Mayor Square – Spencer Dock 2400Spencer Dock – The Point 604

The assessment demonstrates that for the AM Peak,considerable passenger flows are expected, at up to3209 passengers/hour. At a tram frequency of 5minutes in each direction, this leads to an averagetram loading of 120 persons. This confirms that thecatchment of the proposed scheme is significant,and reflective of the intensity of development pro-posed for the locality.

In addition, the expected loading of the system in2016 ensures an element of spare capacity for theadditional passenger trips which would result from

the construction of the proposed Irish Rail SpencerDock terminus, the Interconnector Tunnel linkingSpencer Dock with Heuston Station, or any futureLuas links from Spencer Dock to Barrow Street asoutlined in ‘A Platform for Change’.

Looking at the broader picture, while the exactimpact has not been determined, the provision ofLine C1 would lead to network-wide increases inPublic Transport patronage as end-to-end accessi-bility is improved. This is in line with local andnational policy for provision of transport accessibil-ity in urban areas, and will build on the correspon-ding effects of Luas Red and Green Lines, as well asQuality Bus Corridors and potential future metrolinks to form an overall integrated transport net-work for the Greater Dublin Area.

7.7.2 Consideration of Other SchemesThe proposed Luas Line C1 forms part of an overallstrategy to improve access to the Docklands as partof the development of the area. The various othertransport schemes proposed to support this areoutlined in the Dublin City Development Plan andthe DTO ‘A Platform for Change’, and in additionto the Luas Line C1 include:

• The Irish Rail terminus at Spencer Dock• The Interconnector Tunnel from Spencer Dock toHeuston Station; and• A Luas connection from Spencer Dock to Barrow

Street and the South City.

The above schemes focus on Spencer Dock as animportant transport node in the Docklands area.The proposed Line C1 will therefore provide animportant feeder route between Spencer Dock andthe City Centre, and hence sufficient spare capacityhas been incorporated into the design proposals tofacilitate future patronage which will arise out ofthe schemes outlined above. In addition, provisionfor a transport interchange at Spencer Dock hasbeen made as part of the design proposals.

7.7.3 ConclusionsThe proposed scheme has been shown to result inthe generation of a significant additional numberof public transport trips through the NorthDocklands area, as well as knock-on benefitsthroughout the entire network as a result ofimproved overall transport accessibility.Furthermore, the importance of the developmentof an appropriate mix of land uses along the pro-posed corridor has also shown to be crucial inachieving a balanced flow during the peak periodsand hence maximum utilisation of the new infra-structure. The Line C1 scheme will provide the firstpassenger rail connection into the Docklands areaand has been developed to successfully integratewith and compliment future railway schemes forthe area, and the development of a transport inter-change at Spencer Dock

82

7.8 PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT

7.8.1 Overview The EIS has identified all relevant impacts of theproposed scheme on the Study Area and beyond,outlined the extent of such impacts, and describedthe mitigation measures proposed to manage suchimpacts. Nevertheless, the scheme will lead to traf-fic impacts, both positive and negative, throughoutand after the construction period. These impactsare summarised below:

7.8.2 Traffic ImpactsIn essence, the main impact on local traffic willrelate to those accessing Amiens Street from MayorStreet and Harbourmaster Place. At present, alltraffic exiting onto Amiens Street from MayorStreet is required to cross the river at Matt TalbotBridge due to the compulsory left turn at AmiensStreet. With the proposed closure of the link ontoAmiens Street from Mayor Street, the alternativeroute to Matt Talbot Bridge is to travel viaCommons Street and Custom House Quay. This is anegative impact, although the level of impact is notdeemed significant.

On Mayor Street, between Commons Street andGuild Street, a one-way eastbound is proposed, andwill require some minor rerouting to access carparking along this section of Commons Street.

Traffic will be required to access this section ofMayor Street Lower from Commons Street, is a rel-atively minor diversion. The measure removes traf-fic flow turning right from Guild Street ontoCommons Street, of which a significant amount israt-running traffic, and reassigns it onto otherNorth South links including Commons Street, NewWapping Street and the new Link Roads. Thisimpact is negative, although potentially insignifi-cant due to the low length of the diversion.

A scheme has been considered for the junction ofNorth Wall Quay/Commons Street to addresspedestrian and traffic demands for the period to2016. A redesign of the signals and incorporationof pedestrian facilities has been proposed to sup-port the expected draw of pedestrian traffic fromthe North Quays, and address an unrelated trafficcongestion issue. The operation of this junctionwill improve as a result of the proposed improve-ments, and will lead to a net increase in junctionefficiency as compared to the do-minimum. Thenet impact at this location is therefore positive,despite an increase in traffic flow.

Finally, a net reduction in traffic activity throughthe study area is expected, which will lead tonotable improvements in the operation of a num-ber of junctions, with significant reductions inqueuing and delay through Commons Street,Castleforbes Road and on Mayor Street to the west

of Commons Street. This is a significant positivelocal impact, which will address a number of issuesincluding traffic safety, delay and the general envi-ronment.

The net impact on traffic flow is therefore positive,with the negative impacts of closures and turnrestrictions offset by the general reduction in traf-fic through the study area and the associatedimprovements to traffic management.

7.8.3 Pedestrian ImpactsThe overall quality for pedestrians will improve sig-nificantly, with the provision of new pedestriancrossing facilities along the length of Mayor StreetUpper and Lower, and from Commons Street ontoNorth Wall Quay. The general environment willalso improve as a result of the environmentalimprovements associated with the scheme. The netpedestrian impact will therefore be positive in theshort and long term.

7.8.4 Safety ImpactsThe proposals will notably improve safety through-out the area, through the provision of pedestriancrossings along Mayor Street, the signalisation ofexisting junctions, and the use of dedicated Luastraffic signals. This will manage all potential con-flicts between pedestrians, vehicles and Luas vehi-cles along Mayor Street. Safety issues previouslyoutlined on Commons Street, New Wapping Street

83

and Castleforbes Road will also be addressed withthe introduction of traffic signals through the junc-tions of Mayor Street. The net impact on trafficsafety will therefore be strongly positive.

7.8.5 Public Transport ImpactsThe scheme will improve public transport patron-age levels through the study area and, to a lesserextent, throughout the Greater Dublin Area. Giventhat the success of public transport is dependent onattracting adequate patronage, the expected pas-senger demand will serve to support the feasibilityand success of the public transport system in gener-al. The net impact is therefore positive.

7.8.6 Construction ImpactsThe construction stage of the proposed scheme willlead to some level of disruption throughout thestudy area, most relevant to the west of GuildStreet where the highest volumes of existing activ-ity occur. A number of mitigating measures havebeen proposed to address the impacts of the con-struction stage, and which will minimise hindranceto general activity in the area, while allowing theconstruction period to be progressed as fast as isfeasible. Appropriate safety measures will be putin place to mitigate any safety risk to the generalpublic. A scheme of traffic management measureswill be adopted to manage traffic impacts. The netimpact of the construction stage is therefore of ashort - term negative nature on traffic impactgrounds.

7.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.9.1 SummaryThis section of the EIS has been prepared to focusspecifically on traffic and transportation issuesassociated with the proposed Luas Line C1 exten-sion from Connolly Station to The Point on EastWall Road. The proposed alignment runs alongMayor Street Upper and Mayor Street Lower, con-nected at midpoint by a new Luas bridge across theexisting railway yard (Spencer Dock Bridge). LuasLine C1 will support the proposed developmentalong this corridor, providing fast and direct accessto public transport nodes at Connolly Station,O’Connell Street and Heuston Station.

Following the undertaking of an Options Study forintegrating Line C1 into the Connolly Station termi-nus, Option A was selected as the preferredapproach to constructing Line C1 and togetherwith the other options was taken through PublicConsultation. Option A represents the most natu-ral alignment for extending the Luas Red Line, andmakes best use of existing platforms at ConnollyStation.

A number of traffic management proposals are tobe implemented as part of the proposed Luas LineC1, comprising mainly turning restrictions andsome one-way operation as necessary to protectthe Luas alignment. A number of new link roads

are also proposed to connect Mayor Street withNorth Wall Quay and which will provide improvedaccess to potential development lands within thestudy area. The development of such infill areaswould further strengthen the position of the Luasand improve the finances of operation.

Mayor Street currently supports a considerable vol-ume of pedestrian and cycling activity, in particularalong Mayor Street Lower. The design caters forsuch activity and envisages an increase in pedestri-an and cycling volumes both as a result of the LuasLine C1 scheme and of continuing developmentthroughout the study area.

The impacts of construction activity have beenexamined as part of the traffic and transportationassessment. For the current scheme, it is likely thatthe main impact will arise out of the requirementto temporarily occupy roadspace for constructionworks, resulting in partial or full closure of particu-lar roads. This may not necessarily be the case onMayor Street however, where significant trafficcongestion resulting from reductions in junctionefficiency would not be expected, due to the lowvolumes of traffic that currently use Mayor Street.While traffic along much of Mayor Street will sig-nificantly increase as the intensity of developmentgrows throughout the study area, this is not likelyto become an issue before 2008, when the con-struction work is expected to be complete. The

84

details of traffic management during constructionwould be outlined in a Traffic Management Plan, tobe submitted by the contractor as part of their con-tractual obligations, reviewed by the RPA and dis-cussed in detail with An Garda Siochána, DublinCity Council and local representatives.

An assessment has also been undertaken to deter-mine the impact of the scheme on queuing anddelay during the operational stage. The assessmentdemonstrated a net improvement to traffic condi-tions through the study area as a result of the gen-eral decrease in traffic volumes, and consequentialimprovements to the operation of the junctionsalong Mayor Street.

The impacts on public transport will be significantand immediate, opening up access from the dock-lands area to the key transport interchanges alongthe North Quays, and at Heuston Station. WithLine C1 in place, commuter travel by rail will bepossible from areas as far as Kildare or Drogheda toThe Point with good interchange at HeustonStation and/or Connolly Station. This improvedaccessibility would be expected to lead to networkwide increases in public transport patronage asend-to-end accessibility improves. This would befurther strengthened by the introduction of theIntegrated Ticketing, also a short-term city objec-tive, which would reduce the financial penalty ofinterchange trips that currently exists.

7.9.2 ConclusionsIn addition, the traffic and transportation assess-ment has concluded that:

The North Docklands area is developing at a rapidpace, with development currently focused on thewestern end of the study area. The provision ofLuas will facilitate an eastwards extension of thisdevelopment, and is required to run through thecore of the development (Mayor Street) to achievethe highest catchment population;

That the existing study area with the exception ofthe area in the vicinity of Harbourmaster Place sup-ports very limited development, and hence limitedlocal traffic movements. At present, key trafficdemand is currently along the boundaries of thestudy area on the main routes to and from the CityCentre, and the scheme has been designed bearingin mind the risk of reassignment of much of thistraffic onto Mayor Street, should an additionaleast-west route be created. This has required theclosure of Mayor Street at Harbourmaster Place,and provision of the Spencer Dock Bridge for Luas-only running and access;

A considerable increase in cycling and pedestrianactivity would be expected to result through thearea, both along the Luas Line C1 alignment as aresult of the continued development along theMayor Street corridor, and along perpendicular

roads as a result of the new pedestrian bridge atGeorges Dock. Provision for pedestrians andcyclists has therefore formed a key element of thedesign proposals, and will be further elaboratedduring the detailed design stage; and

That the scheme as proposed can be successfullyaccommodated within the existing road network.There are a number of positive impacts resultingfrom the scheme which centre around improve-ments to traffic conditions within the study area,improved transport accessibility, and improvedroad safety; particularly for pedestrians. The onlysignificant negative impacts relate to increases intraffic flow on surrounding distributor roads(Amiens Street and Custom House Quay), and resultfrom the removal of rat-running traffic from thestudy area. Such surrounding roads are, in anycase, more suited to catering for such traffic move-ments, and the relocation of such traffic furtherimproves road safety within the study area wherethe majority of pedestrian movements occur.

85

8 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

8.1 INTRODUCTIONThis section of the EIS assesses the impacts of LuasLine C1 on ecological resources along the route.

The scope of the study of potential impacts on eco-logical resources is defined as including the follow-ing key issues:

• biodiversity of flora including habitats and criticalecosystem functions that may be impacted by theproject (e.g. drainage, changes in hydrology andpotential pollutants);• fauna: habitats, breeding/feeding/roosting infor-mation (as appropriate), resident or visiting mam-mals/birds/insects, including vulnerability to distur-bance, and any existing management; and• statutory designated areas within 500m of LuasLine C1.

Impacts upon water resources and water qualityare not covered in this section, although it isacknowledged that they have a strong interactionwith ecological impacts. These are dealt with inChapter 10, Water Resources.

8.2 METHODOLOGY

8.2.1 OverviewIn order to assess the impact of Luas Line C1 on eco-logical resources and develop appropriate mitiga-tion measures, the following tasks were carriedout:

• collection of data sources through desk topreview, consultations and a site walkover;• assessment of the significance of ecologicalimpacts based on the assessment criteria describedin Section 8.2.4;• provision of mitigation measures in order to min-imise any ecological impacts;• identification of any residual impacts; andprovision of an appropriate management and mon-itoring regime.

8.2.2 Survey Methodology Information on ecological resources was collectedfrom a range of sources, with the level of detailbeing dependant upon the importance of the eco-logical resource and the extent of likely impact.Ecological data of relevance to the Line C1 align-ment were collected in the following manner:

Desktop Study

The desk-based assessment focused on the pro-posed development site (and those areas directly or

indirectly effected by the consequences or require-ments of the development) and its broad ecologicalcontext.

Site Walkover

A Site Walkover was undertaken by the Study Teamin mid-August 2003 to identify species and habitatsthat existed along the proposed Luas Line C1 route.Habitats were identified according to the HeritageCouncil’s Guide to Habitat Classification (HeritageCouncil, 2000).

Consultations

Baseline data on designated areas and the presenceof rare and sensitive species (flora, fauna and avi-fauna) were collected during consultations withvarious conservation agencies and groups, namelythe National Parks and Wildlife Service (formerlyDúchas), the Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI) andDublin City Council.

8.2.3 Principal SourcesThe principal sources of information that werereferred to during the desktop review are outlinedbelow.

a review of the National Parks and Wildlife Servicedatabase in order to identify any statutory andnon-statutory designated sites within 500m of the

86

proposed route; and

a review of existing published ecological informa-tion(1)

As indicated in Section 8.2.2 above, additionalinformation was gathered during consultationswith various conservation agencies and groups.

8.2.4 Assessment CriteriaThe significance of ecological impacts has beenevaluated taking into account the following:

the vulnerability of the habitat or species to thechange caused by the development;

its ability to recover; and

the rarity/value in nature conservation and ecolog-ical terms, of affected species, populations, commu-nities, habitats and ecosystems.

High value receptors are habitats/species consid-ered being vulnerable or rare, or having a low abil-ity to recover; low value receptors arehabitats/species that are considered to be common,less vulnerable and have a strong resilience tochange.

Significance impacts are defined as high wherelarge effects on receptors of high value are identi-fied; low significance impacts are defined as small-er effects on receptors of low value.

8.2.5 Limitations There has been no ranger from the National Parksand Wildlife Service (formerly Dúchas) operating inthe Docklands area within the last 3 years.Consequently information provided by theNational Parks and Wildlife Service was limited.

The area through which Luas Line C1 passes isunder active redevelopment. As a consequence,the ecological resources are subject to significantalteration. The information presented in this sec-tion represents the ecological status of the studyarea in summer 2003

8.3 DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

The proposed route of Luas Line C1 traverses large-ly artificial urban habitats including built features,walls, pavement, waste ground and derelict sitesand transport infrastructure such as roads. Abridge will be constructed at Spencer Dock toenable the trams to cross over the Royal Canal.

8.3.1Habitat DescriptionHabitats identified were primarily urban in nature.In line with the Heritage Council’s Guide to HabitatClassification(2); these may be broadly classified as:

• BL3: Buildings and artificial surfaces; and • ED 2: Spoil and bare ground

A summary of the habitat classifications recordedalong the route is provided in Box 8.3a.

Box 6.3a Summary of Urban Habitats

Buildings and Artificial Surfaces (BL3): This classifi-cation includes all buildings (domestic, agricultural,industrial and community) other then derelict stonebuildings and ruins (BL1). It also includes areas of landthat are covered with artificial surfaces of tarmac,cement, paving stones, bricks, blocks or Astroturf (e.g.roads, car parks, pavements, runways, yards, and sometracks, paths, driveways and sports grounds).

Spoil and bare ground (ED2): Includes heaps of spoiland rubble, and other areas of bare ground that areeither transient in nature, or persist for longer periods oftime because of ongoing disturbance or maintenance.Spoil is generally associated with the excavation or con-struction of roads and buildings, or with drainage anddredging activity. Once the disturbance ends spoil isreadily colonised by plants.

(1) C.Moriarty, Exploring Dublin Wildlife, Parks andWaterways, 1997 and S. Reynolds, Flora of CountyDublin, 1998(2) J. Fosset, 2000

87

8.3.2 FloraVegetation is largely confined to the margins of atimber yard on Mayor Street Upper (at the junctionof Castleforbes Road) and to the unused land with-in the CIE yard as the route approaches SpencerDock. Flora in both areas is typical of derelict sitesand includes thistles (Cirsium spp), nettles(Urtricaceae), Brambles (Rubus fruticosus) and theButterfly bush (Buddleia,).

In addition, a number of open amenity areas existalong the route. For example, a number of Oaktrees (Quercus spp) have been planted at CustomHouse Square, whilst Field Maples (Acer campestre)have been planted at The Point. Immature limetrees (Tilia spp) are found along Mayor StreetLower in the IFSC region; these latter specimens areillustrated in Figure 8.3a below.

In addition there are narrow areas of landscapingaround a number of the recent developments with-in the Georges Dock and Mayor Street area. Forexample species such as Privet (Ligustrum vulgare),Beech (Fagus sylvatica), Fuschia (Fuschia magellani-ca) and a range of annuals (including Allium spp)have been planted around number 3 Georges Dock.These pockets and corridors of vegetation are like-ly to support a narrow range of typical invertebratespecies.

Figure 8.3a Planted Lime Trees (Tilia spp) inIFSC area

A number of studies (including Reynolds, 1996)have noted that Dublin Port and Docklands haveprovided an entry point for many of Dublin’s alienspecies. For example, the exotic Pineappleweed(Matricaria discoidea) was first recorded in theDocklands area in 1894. Although a number ofnon-indigenous floral species were identified(including, for example, Buddleia), these are com-mon and widely distributed in Ireland and nounusual or rare alien/exotic species were identifiedduring the site walkover.

8.3.3 FaunaDue to the limitation of habitats along the routeand the urban location of the proposed Luas LineC1, the sites support a species-poor fauna assem-blage.

A desktop review, supplemented by consultationwith the National Parks and Wildlife Service, hasindicated that there have been no large mammalsightings at the site of the proposed development.Although spraints of the European Otter (Lutralutra) have been recorded along inland sections ofthe Royal Canal, due to the industrial /urban loca-tion of the section of the Royal Canal within thefootprint of the Luas Line C1 route, it is unlikelythat this species is present in the vicinity of LuasLine C1.

A number of avifauna species typical of urban set-tings are present in the general area of the pro-posed extension. These include Starlings (Strunusvulgaris), Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus),Gulls (Larus sp), Wood Pigeons (Columba palum-bus), Pied Wagtails ( Motacilla alba) and Moorhens(Gallinula chloropus).

Consultations with the National Parks and WildlifeService indicated that Mute Swan (Cygnus olor),Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Coot (Fulica atra) are also likely to occur within the vicinity of theroute. In addition, a Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) was

88

sighted above the creek at Spencer Dock on theRoyal Canal in 1994(1) and Great Black-backed Gull(Larus marinus) has occasionally been sighted atDublin Port.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has alsoindicated that there is a possibility that bat species(in particular, Leisler’s Bat (Nyctalus leisleri) andpossibly Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentonii))might be present in old, derelict buildings in thevicinity of the route. Whilst documented evidencefor the presence of bats is lacking, a number of batspecies are known to roost in derelict buildings inurban areas. The potential of these structures toprovide habitats for bats (and other faunal species)is supported by the EIS of Development Proposalscontained in the Planning Scheme for DocklandsNorth Lotts, wherein it was noted that underusedand derelict sites and structures act as “importantsanctuaries for a variety of wildlife not usuallyfound within cities”(2).

8.3.4 Designated SitesConsultation with the National Parks and WildlifeService revealed that there are no designatedSpecial Areas of Conservation (SACs) or SpecialProtection Areas (SPAs) in the vicinity (within a500m radius) of the proposed development.

However, the Royal Canal is a proposed NaturalHeritage Area (Site code 2103) under the provisions

of the Wildlife Amendment Act 2000. This designa-tion ensures that the site is protected from damag-ing activities arising since the date of its proposeddesignation. In addition, the Flora ProtectionOrder 1987 identifies the Royal Canal as having avariety of different habitats found within the canalboundaries including hedgerows, calcareous grass-lands, reed fringe, open water, scrub and wood-land. It should be noted, however, that the sectionof the canal to be affected by the proposed devel-opment is an industrial area and does not containthe habitats described in the Flora ProtectionOrder.

8.4 DO NOTHING SCENARIOUnder a do nothing scenario no significant impactsarise with respect to ecological resources.

8.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

8.5.1 Construction ImpactsDue to the lack of significant ecological resources inthe vicinity of the proposed works, impacts fromthe construction phase on terrestrial ecologicalresources are expected to be minimal.

The Luas Line C1 construction phase has the poten-tial to cause impacts on aquatic ecology at theRoyal Canal near Spencer Dock during construction

of the bridge and during widening works at MayorStreet Bridge. Impacts to flora and water qualitymay arise from run-off or spillages. The proposedbridge development also has the potential to affectbreeding birds and aquatic fauna on the RoyalCanal.

Although the potential exists for derelict buildingsalong the route alignment to contain bat roosts, itshould be noted that the provisions contained inthe development plans for the North Lotts Areaprovide for the demolition of these structures. LuasLine C1 will not materially affect the current plan-ning intention with regard to these structures.

8.5.2 Operation ImpactsThe operational phase of Luas Line C1 does nothave the potential to cause any likely or significantadverse impacts on flora.

No significant impact on fauna is expected duringthe operation of Luas Line C1. Avifauna will beaccustomed to the urban environment thereforelikely impacts on birds during the operation of LuasLine C1 are not anticipated.

(1) C. Moriarty, 1997(2) DDDA, 2001

89

8.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures are required inorder to protect the overall quality of ecologicalresources:

Best practice site management will be implement-ed throughout the construction of Luas Line C1 toreduce the risk of spillages into the Royal Canal.The RPA must also adhere to the objectives out-lined in the Royal Canal Corridor Study 1995 andnotify appropriate environmental bodies should aspillage occur.

The replacement of any trees or shrubs lost duringconstruction.

8.7 PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

There is a potential for residual impacts at theRoyal Canal. However adherence to the mitigationmeasures outlined above should prohibit anyadverse residual impacts to the flora/fauna of theRoyal Canal.

8.8 CONCLUSIONS

No likely and significant adverse impacts are pre-dicted on ecological resources once the mitigationand monitoring requirements outlined above areadhered to.

However, particular care is to be taken during con-

struction works at the Royal Canal. Further detailsare provided in Chapter 17 Environmental andMonitoring Programme.

90

9 GEOLOGY AND SOIL

9.1 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter of the EIS describes the existing soils,subsoils and geology along the length Luas Line C1from Connolly Station to The Point and the poten-tial impacts during both the construction and oper-ational phases.

9.2 METHODOLOGY

9.2.1 General ApproachThe assessment has been prepared in accordancewith good practice, as described in guidance pro-duced by the Environmental Protection Agency (1).Publicly available baseline data (geology and soilscontained within the study area) was obtained dur-ing the route selection study when ERM completeda desktop assessment of the area.

The sources of data used in this assessment were asfollows:

• subsoil and drift maps 6” sheets 18,19,22 & 23 forthe Dublin area from the Quaternary Section of theGeological Survey of Ireland (GSI);• 1:1000,000 series Bedrock Geological Map(Kildare - Wicklow), Sheet 16.• IGSL Geotechnical Report (December 2002) pre-pared on behalf of South Midland Construction forthe Luas Light Rail C-Line;

• EIS of Development Proposals contained in theDraft Planning Scheme for the Extended CustomHouse Docks; and• data on contaminated land from DublinDocklands Development Authority (DDDA) reports.

The baseline data allowed technical specialists toidentify any areas of sensitivity that may exist alongthe route of Luas Line C1. Areas of sensitivityincluded the following:

• outcrops of bedrock;• areas of Karst or other types of highly permeablegeology; and• soil potentially contaminated (physically or chem-ically) by historical or current activities.

The desktop assessment assisted in the scoping ofissues that would require further examination dur-ing the EIA process. The principal issue that arosefrom this exercise was the potential for soil contam-ination to have occurred mainly as a result of his-torical activity (use of warehouses, Connolly Stationand the former site of the North Wall ContainerDepot), which could be exposed, or disturbed dur-ing construction of the line or associated develop-ments. This issue therefore, formed the focus ofthe assessment in the EIA.

9.2.2 Assessment CriteriaConstruction works that disturb contaminated

land, in the absence of mitigation measures, pres-ent a risk of remobilising contaminants and causingadditional contamination through drainage (i.e.surface waters and groundwater) and to the air. Inaddition, exposure to contaminated material canpotentially present a risk to human, animal andenvironmental receptors nearby.

In order to evaluate the significance of thesepotential impacts of the proposed developmentupon the receiving environment, relevant criteriawere developed. These comprise:

nature and level of contamination;

land use and presence of susceptible targets;

mobility and solubility of the contaminants; and

level of exposure likely to result from development.

9.2.3 LimitationsThe data presented and assessed in this chapter arebased on a desktop review of available and otherpublished data at the time of reporting. Althoughno specific site investigations were carried out aspart of this assessment, ERM did undertake areview of available data from a slit trenching reportcommissioned as part of the geotechnical investiga-tions for the scheme.

(1) EPA, Guidelines on the Information to be contained inEnvironmental impact Statements, 2002

91

Data relating to contaminated land is often confi-dential to the property owner and is not alwaysavailable for review as part of a separate EIAprocess. Confidential data could not always beaccessed as part of this desktop review and whereit was possible to access data, precise details couldnot always be referenced.

Nevertheless, the data that was collected is regard-ed as being sufficient and accurate enough to beable to accurately predict the impacts of the pro-posed development on the environment.

9.3 DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

9.3.1 Geological and Soil OverviewPublished geological data indicates that the entirestudy area is on land reclaimed in the eighteenthcentury from the inter-tidal estuary of the RiverLiffey. Available geotechnical intrusive informationfor the area indicates that the shallow geologicalsequence comprises made ground/fill depositsunderlain by alluvial deposits including interbed-ded silts, sands and gravels. The alluvial depositsare in turn underlain by glacial deposits (upper till)with sands and gravels over a Calp Limestonebedrock of Chadian - Brigantian age.

Based on gathered historical information and given

the age of the surrounding area and its industrialheritage, it is considered likely that the madeground/fill materials will comprise reworked allu-vial ‘gravelly’ clay deposits with fragments of glass,clay, brick, plastics, metal, timber, ash and ceramics,amongst others. The fill materials are reported tobe proven to a depth of 5 metres below groundlevel (mbgl). However, the thickness of the fill

deposits may vary across the length of the route.

A summary, based on the IGSL geotechnical report,of the spatial variation in fill material along thelength of the proposed route is provided in Table9.3a below.

Table 9.3a Nature of Ground Encountered in Slit Trenches cut along the Route of Line C1

Location Made Ground Natural Subsoils Slit trench data and Fill

La Touche House Tarmac/slabs, Made ground consisting of ST13: plastic804 material (gravel). dense brown sand and ST 14: No data

gravel with brick fragments.Georges Dock Slabs and bedding concrete. Medium/dense clayey ST 11: No data.

804 material. sandy fine –coarse angular ST 12: Concrete and gravel with occasional red brickcobbles and roots.

Station in Georges Dock Blacktop/slabs, Dense brown very sandy clayey ST 10: No data804 material. gravel with cobbles.

Junction at Common’s Slabs and bedding concrete, Medium dense brown slightly ST 6 and 7: Red brick tarStreet 804 material. clayey sandy fine to coarse gravel ST 8: Plastic.

with some cobbles.and shells. ST 15: No data.Approach to station at Made ground consisting of Medium dense grey brown, very ST 16: concrete and red Custom House Square pavement and fill material. sandy angular gravel with brick

occasional cobbles and pockets ST 17: pockets of light of plastics brick ends and wood brown medium sand.and light brown medium sand.

continued

92

9.3.2 Historical and Current Land UsesLuas Line C1 will run through a classified ‘brown-field’ area of vacant land from Spencer Dock to EastWall Road. Within this route alignment severalpotential areas of environmental concern (PAECs)have been identified as a consequence of both cur-rent (builders yards, timber/oil storage yards,vacant brownfield sites, North Wall ContainerDepot and railway sidings) and historical activities.

9.3.3 Contaminated SitesAccess was granted by the Dublin DocklandsDevelopment Authority (DDDA) to documentationrelating to site investigations within the DublinDockland Development Area. Three reports relat-ing to the currently undeveloped area of theSpencer Docks were reviewed (URS 2003). This isthe area within which Mayor Street Upper is to bere-instated. These reports cover the western half ofthe Spencer Dock area; there are no currently avail-able reports for the eastern part of this area.

The physical stratification below the Spencer DockDevelopment site was reported to generally consistof 2-4m of made ground and fill materials, overly-ing 4-20m of naturally deposited glacial sediments,in turn overlying limestone bedrock generallyoccurring at depths greater than 20m belowground level. The reports indicate that where con-tamination occurs it is generally confined to theupper fill layers which overly the natural geological

Table 9.3a (continued)

Location Made Ground Natural Subsoils Slit trench data and Fill

Custom House Square Made ground consisting of Dense black clayey sandy St 18 No data/concrete and fill material. angular gravel with occasional ST 19: plastic

cobbles.

Commerzbank area at Made ground consisting of Dense black clayey slightly ST 20 and 22: Shells.junction of Guild Street concrete and fill material. gravely medium sand with ST 21: No data.

occasional cobbles.

Houses as Line C1 Concrete. Made ground with cobbles ST 23: Not surveyedapproaches CIE yard

Junction of New Wapping Made ground consisting of Brown/black speckled white ST 24 and 26: Concrete Street and Mayor Street concrete and fill material. sandy gravely clay with and red brick.Lower occasional cobbles. ST 25: No data

Timber Yards Lower Made ground consisting of Sandy gravely clay with ST 27: No data.Mayor Street concrete and fill material. occasional cobbles. ST 28: Red brick and

shells.

Junction of Mayor Street Made ground consisting of Black/grey clayey slightly gravely ST 29: Concrete, Brick and Castleforbes Rd concrete and fill material. medium sand with occasional fragments.

cobbles. ST 30: No data.ST 31: Red brick.ST 32: No data.

Lower Mayor Street, Made ground consisting of Dense black very clayey slightly ST 33: No data.towards Univar Ltd concrete and fill. gravely medium sand with ST 34: Shells.

occasional cobbles

Note: the code 804 (used in the IGSL reports) is British Standard for a pebbly material.

93

deposits. The underlying natural soils are general-ly considered clean. The main type of contamina-tion comes from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(pahs), diesel range organic compounds (dro) andheavy metals (copper, lead, zinc and arsenic). Thegroundwater quality below the site investigatedwas found to be generally good. In some ground-water samples, cadmium levels were found to beslightly elevated but there was no organic contam-ination identified.

The site investigation reports state that up to 50%of the fill material falls above the EPA inert wasteguidelines (reported in the URS site investigationSpencer Dock reports). However, contamination ofa “hazardous” nature was only recorded in isolated“hotspots”. There is some evidence to show thatthis contamination occurs at a deeper level towardsthe south of the site. The solubility of the haz-ardous contamination in the hotspots, and henceits ability to move within the soil profile was inves-tigated and found to be low. The hazardous con-tamination in the hotspots is reported to consist oflead, benz(a)pyrene and benz(b)flouranthene. Atleast one of these isolated hot spots is close to LuasLine C1.

The remediation proposed in the reports for thissite includes the excavation of up to 150,000 m3 ofsoil and fill materials. Some of which will be re-used on the site as part of the proposed develop-

ment, and the remainder will be disposed of inaccordance with the relevant waste managementlegislation.

A number of voids/chambers occurring 2-3m bglwere reported in the made ground in the generalvicinity of Luas Line C1. Lubrication oil and hydro-carbon staining was recorded in some of the voids;others were noted as being partially filled withsands.

9.4 DO-NOTHING SCENARIO

Under the do-nothing scenario, no significantimplications are foreseen in relation to soils andgeology unless future development in the arearequires soil excavation or remediation. In the areacurrently occupied by Mayor Street Lower there isunlikely to be any excavation of soil due to the lackof opportunity to develop this area any further.However, the proposed developments at SpencerDock and the eastern area of the North LottsPlanning Scheme are more likely to involve soilexcavation. This soil would be treated appropriate-ly and would lead to remediation of any contami-nated areas. Therefore in this respect, regardless ofthe Luas Line C1 scheme, there is likely to beremoval of contaminated fill material in the areaaround Spencer Dock and the North Wall ContainerDepot.

9.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

9.5.1 Construction ImpactsThe potential impacts to the soils and geology dur-ing the construction phase are likely to be minimal.A substation will be located underground atSpencer Dock Stop; the overall space requirementsfor the substation are in the order of 450m2. Theconstruction of a new bridge over the Grand Canalat Spencer Dock and the widening of Mayor StreetBridge will have no permanent impact on soil.Potential impacts will arise from the removal anddisposal of excavated spoil.

The potential negative impacts on the soil andgeology during construction work will be from pos-sible spills and waste from other construction-typeactivities. As no large quantities of potentially con-taminating substances are anticipated during theconstruction phase, and with the application ofbest practice in site management, it is likely that nosignificant impacts will occur.

A number of hot spots of hazardous contaminationhave been identified in the Spencer Dock reportsand based on historical landuse activities there isthe potential for limited areas of soil contamina-tion to be encountered. The contaminated areasidentified in the Spencer Dock reports will be reme-diated by Spencer Dock Development Companyprior to Luas Line C1 construction work and as such

94

are unlikely to impact on the construction phase ofthe Luas.

9.5.2 Operation ImpactsThere are no potential impacts to the soils andgeology during the operational phase of the devel-opment. There may be emissions of dust from thevehicle braking systems, but these will be in imper-ceptible quantities.

9.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

In areas where existing soil contamination is possi-ble due to historical land uses, but which has notyet been identified, contamination will beaddressed if and when it is encountered.Construction workers will be obliged to adoptappropriate health and safety management proce-dures. The removal and disposal of excavated soilwill be carried out in line with best practice proce-dures. Appropriate arrangements will be made inaccordance with the Waste Management Act 1996to 2005 for the disposal of any contaminated spoilmaterial, which is excavated during the construc-tion of the Luas Line C1, associated bridge atSpencer Dock and substation.

Standard guidance for construction work is provid-ed in CIRIA’s Environmental Handbook for buildingand Civil engineering projects, part 2: Construction(1).

The excavation of foundations of the bridge mayrequire the disposal of a small amount of existingsoils from the bed and banks of the Royal Canal.Testing of these soils will be undertaken duringconstruction to determine the degree of contami-nation, if any, and the material will be disposed ofin accordance with the Waste Management Act1996.

Appropriate site investigation (intrusive or non-intrusive) will be carried out prior to the construc-tion of the Luas to identify any potential voidsdirectly below the proposed route.

9.7 PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

With the application of the mitigation measuresdescribed above, no significant residual impactswill occur from the construction and operation ofLuas Line C1.

9.8 CONCLUSION

The potential impacts to the soils and geology fromthe construction of Luas Line C1 are not significant.Such identified impacts will be adequately mitigat-ed through contractual agreements and the appli-cation of best practice in site management.

(1) CIRIA, 1998

95

10 WATER RESOURCES

10.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the existing water anddrainage systems along the length Luas Line C1from Connolly Station to The Point. It also describesthe potential impacts of the scheme on waterresources during both the construction and opera-tional phases.

10.2 METHODOLOGY

10.2.1 OverviewERM’s approach to assessing the impacts of LuasLine C1 on surface and sub-surface water resourcesis in accordance with the Guidelines on Informationto be contained in Environmental ImpactStatements published by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Firstly, the collection of baseline data involved acomprehensive review of available data madeknown and available to the consultants. Thesedata sources comprised:

• Ordnance Survey Discovery Series Map (Sheet 50,scale 1:50,000);• Ordnance Survey Dublin City and District StreetGuide; 3rd Edition (scale 1:15,000);• Dublin City Council water services, drainage and

utility maps (various);• proposed RPA Luas Drainage Plans;• River quality data held online by theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA);• Water Quality in Ireland 1998-2000, (EPA 2000);and• Site Investigation Report for the Spencer DockDevelopments.

The review of baseline data took place during theenvironmental desktop review that was undertak-en during the route selection process. This reviewallowed the key water resources to be identifiedfor further investigation in the EIA process. Thekey issues comprised:

• potential contamination of groundwater;• risk of flooding; and• surface water drainage.

10.2.2 Assessment CriteriaIn order to evaluate the significance of potentialimpacts of Luas Line C1 on surface water resources,assessment criteria were developed which describethe following:

• sensitivity of aquifer (if present);• flood risk; • land use; and• sensitivity of surface water bodies.

10.2.3 LimitationsThe findings presented in this chapter are based ona desktop review of available and published data atthe time of reporting. The data that was collectedare regarded as being sufficient and accurateenough to be able to accurately predict the impactsof the proposed development on the environment.There is no published EPA or local authority datafor the Royal Canal in the vicinity of the Docklandsand proposed route of the Luas Line C1.

There are no drainage details provided for the areaaround Spencer Dock and North Wall Quay.

10.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

10.3.1 Surface WaterThe nearest surface watercourses to the Luas LineC1 alignment are:

• River Liffey located 180m to the south of thealignment;• George’s Dock, which is linked to Inner Dock tothe north and the River Liffey to the south; and• Spencer Dock, which links to the Royal Canal.

The route along Mayor Street (Upper and Lower) isparallel to the River Liffey. In the vicinity of the areathrough which Luas Line C1 will pass, the RiverLiffey is tidal and has a width of approximately

96

120m. At the western end of the line, the routecrosses over a canal joining the Inner Dock toGeorges Dock, which is in turn connected to theRiver Liffey. Georges Dock has recently been sub-ject to redevelopment; the southern dock has beenfilled and the basin level has been raised. The RoyalCanal enters the River Liffey from the north imme-diately to the east of Guild Street; this area is calledSpencer Dock. Luas Line C1 will cross the RoyalCanal approximately 200 metres upstream of theRiver Liffey.

In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency pub-lished surface water quality data for the Liffey estu-ary ( ). Water quality in the bay remains high interms of oxygen availability, organic matter, nutri-ent and chlorophyll levels. This reflects the moder-ate impact from the discharges of organic effluentat Ringsend Sewage Treatment Works.

Published information available from the EPA’sonline Water Quality Maps indicates that surfacewater quality in the area ranges between ‘serious’and ‘moderate’ pollution levels. Limited informa-tion is available on the surface water quality ofboth Spencer Dock and George’s Dock. It is likelythat both docks are of poorer water quality thanthe River Liffey in this area, and may be susceptibleto contamination from surface water runoff andgroundwater ingress from the surrounding area.

10.3.2 GroundwaterHydrogeological information is based upon avail-able information that was gathered for the soilsassessment. It is noted that at present no publishedGroundwater Protection Scheme for County Dublinhas been produced by the Geological Survey ofIreland (GSI).

Groundwater quality was investigated as part ofstudies for proposed developments in the SpencerDock area (between Guild Street and NewWapping Street) and was reported in the SiteInvestigation Reports for this proposed develop-ment (1). The following data is derived from thesereports:

The groundwater table -approximately 2-3 metersbelow ground level, fluctuates to some extent withtidal variations.

The water quality was also found to be generally‘good’. Cadmium levels were slightly elevated insome samples, but no organic contamination iden-tified.

From the limited non-site specific geological infor-mation, groundwater vulnerability for the generalarea is classified as being ‘high’ as it overlies thelimestone bedrock aquifer. The general area hastherefore been assigned a tentative ResourceProtection Code of Ll/H, which represents an areaof local importance where the shallow groundwa-

ter unit is highly vulnerable to contamination.

It is reported that shallow groundwater is encoun-tered at depths ranging between 2.5m bgl and3.6m bgl. No specific information is available onthe direction of groundwater flow, although it isanticipated that shallow groundwater is likely toflow towards the River and Dublin Bay to thesouth-south east. No information was available ondepth to groundwater within the bedrock deposits.

10.3.3 Potable Water SupplyThe potable water supply in the area of the pro-posed development is provided via a mains supplyprovided by Dublin City Council. This water origi-nates from reservoirs in the Wicklow Mountainsand is treated at the Ballymore Eustace,Roundwood and Bohernabreena Treatment Works.Treated water is stored at the Stillorgan Reservoirsprior to being piped to the user (Dublin CityCouncil, 2003).

According to data from the GSI, there are noknown private supply wells of potable water in thearea.

10.3.4 Foul DrainageThe drainage details for the route are:• a surface water sewer running alongHarbourmaster Place, La Touche House, MayorStreet Lower, and then draining into the River

97

Liffey;• a combined sewer runs along Sheriff Street,Mayor Street Lower, the intersection of GuildStreet, Mayor Street Upper terminating before ThePoint, and• a surface water sewer runs from Georges Dockalong Mayor Street Lower. Source: Dublin City Council.

All existing drainage patterns in the area under theNorth Lotts Planning Scheme (eastern section ofthe proposed route) follow the existing street pat-tern (i.e. in a grid structure). The main foul sewersrun along the northern boundary of the streets andthe water is distributed along the southern bound-ary.

10.3.5 Flood Risk Assessment DetailsThe highest water level ever recorded in this areaof the city was in the IFSC area (east of Amiens St toGuild Street, and extending from Sherriff StreetLower to the Custom House Quays) on the 1st

February 2003, when water levels reached 2.95mOD. The Draft Greater Dublin Water SupplyStrategic Study expects levels to rise by 450mm in2080 and by 1m in 2200 ( 2). The minimum floodrisk level is considered to be 3.9m OD for the IFSCarea. The vertical alignment of Luas Line C1 hasaccommodated a 4m level around the SpencerDock area and will descend to approximately 2.2mat the Mayor Street/Wapping Street Junction.

Adequate provision is therefore provided for theSpencer Dock area in relation to the minimumflood risk level of 3.9m OD for the IFSC area.

10.4 DO-NOTHING SCENARIO

Under the do-nothing scenario there will be no sig-nificant changes to water resources.

10.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT

10.5.1 Construction ImpactsThe principal potential impact that may arise dueto the construction of Luas Line C1 will be a threatof contamination of the shallow groundwater dueto spillages of hazardous liquids or discharges ofpotentially contaminating substances.

An additional, though minimal, potential impactwould be from reduced runoff and increased filtra-tion of rainfall as it falls on absorbent, open, exca-vated areas.

There is potential for impacts on water quality dur-ing the construction of the Bridge over the RoyalCanal at Spencer Dock. A short-term reduction inwater quality may occur due to a release of pollu-tants or canal bed disturbance.

10.5.2 Operation ImpactsThere are no foreseen potentially significant

impacts to water resources during the operationalphase of the development. There may be a minorincrease in surface water run-off due to theincrease in impermeable surface area in the area ofthe North Wall Container Depot, to the east ofSpencer Dock in the currently undeveloped area.

10.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

Adequate protection will be provided for stormwa-ter runoff and sewer openings and containmentmeasures and procedures will be put in place dur-ing construction work where potentially contami-nating substances are being used or handled orwhere silt from open cuttings may enter the localdrainage systems.

Particular care and protection of the canal is recom-mended during the construction of the Bridge overthe Royal Canal at Spencer Dock.

No mitigation measures are required during theoperational phase of the Luas scheme.

10.7 PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

With the effective implementation of the mitiga-tion measures described above, no significant resid-ual impacts will occur from the construction andoperation of Luas Line C1.

98

10.8 CONCLUSIONS

The potential impacts to water resources from theconstruction and operation of Luas Line C1 areexpected to be minimal and temporary, and thosehighlighted here will be adequately mitigatedthrough legal requirements and implementation ofbest practice in site management.

The effects will be minimised by the shallow depthof excavation and the relatively small amount ofadditional hardstanding area that will be created.

The area will be subject to other impacts on waterresources as a result of parallel developments atSpencer Dock and in the rest of the North LottsPlanning Scheme. However, these impacts will bemitigated by the measures proposed for thoserespective schemes.

99

11 NOISE AND VIBRATION

11.1 INTRODUCTION

This section discusses the potential airborne noiseand vibration impacts that might arise from theconstruction and operation of Luas Line C1.

11.2 NOISE METHODOLOGY

11.2.1 Noise Assessment Criteria

ConstructionThe noise criteria specified in the draft NationalRoads Authority noise guidance have been adopt-ed for this assessment in the absence of an accept-ed national guidance on construction noise. Noisegenerated by the construction phase will be of atemporary nature and is expected to be intermit-tent, depending on the nature of the constructionactivity.

Table 11.1 provides noise criteria for constructionnoise levels.

Table 11.1 Construction Noise AssessmentCriteria – 1 Hour LAeq, 0700 – 1900 hrs

Noise Level RatingLess than or equal to 70 dB(A) NegligibleGreater than 70 dBA Significant

Operation

Noise from a development is often assessed in usingnoise thresholds/standards. By comparing the levelsof noise that are expected to be generated againstan absolute noise standard, such as those that indi-cate likely annoyance or disturbance with an activ-ity (a passing tram for example).

The assessment standards (shown in Table 11.2) arebased on the guidance offered in the UK’s PlanningPolicy Guidance (PPG) 24 and the statutory provi-sions of the Noise Insulation (Railways and otherGuided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996. Thefollowing standards for absolute (free-field) noiselevels can be drawn from them. As these are UKguidance only, they are not legal constraints in theIrish context and hence may be considered as ageneral guide only.

Table 11.2 Noise assessment criteria (LAeq)

Day Night (0700 – 2300) (2300 – 0700)

No impact < 55 dB < 45 dBAbove threshold of impact 55 – 66 dB 45 – 61 dBUnacceptable impact > 66 dB > 61 dB

It should be noted that the threshold levels are notspecifically relevant to new rail development andthere are no statutory/legal requirements toachieve them. However, the criteria do provide anacceptable assessment methodology to assess thepotential impact arising from a rail development.

Noise from the development will thus fall into oneof three categories as follows.

1. Tram noise below threshold criteria (below 55 dB[day]/ 45 dB [night]) – no impact.

2. Tram noise between threshold and unacceptablecriteria (between 55 and 66 dB [day]/ between 45 –61 dB [night]) – impacts dependant upon actualchange in noise level.

3. Tram noise above unacceptable criteria (above 66dB [day]/ 61 dB [night]) – unacceptable noiseimpact.

Regarding the second category, a further sub-divi-sion of the assessment criteria is required. This isbecause there is potentially a large range of noiselevels covered under the second category.

To further sub-divide the assessment criteria forthese noise levels, significance rating criteria givenin the Institute of Acoustics and the Institute ofEnvironmental Assessment and Management’s

100

draft guidance on the Assessment ofEnvironmental Noise (1) is used. This criterion isbased on the absolute increase in noise level overthe baseline noise level, as noted in Table 11.3.

Table 11.3 IoA/IEMA draft noise assess-ment criteria

Change from baseline level Assessment< 1 dB No impact 1 to 3 dB Slight impact 3 to 5 dB Moderate impact 5 to 10 dB Substantial impact >10 dB Severe impact

This additional assessment criteria is only applied(in the case of this project) when assessing noiselevels which are between the minimum noiseimpact threshold (55 dB for the day and 45 dB forthe night) and the unacceptable noise threshold(66 dB for the day and 61 dB for the night).

The additional criteria are not applied below theminimum noise impact threshold as below this noimpact will be noticed (especially in a city centrelocation, as is the case of Luas Line C1).

They are not applied above the unacceptable noisethreshold as any noise above this level is generallyconsidered as unacceptable (hence there is no needfor further division of this impact classification).

Instead a 1 dB increase in the baseline noise levelsis the key criteria and will trigger the need to con-sider mitigation. Thus, in this case, the resultingnoise level will be classified as unacceptable if it is:a) greater than 66 dB (day) and b) results in morethan a 1dB increase over the baseline noise level.

If the noise level is greater than 66dB (day), butthere is a less than 1 dB increase over the baselinelevel (i.e. the baseline noise environment is high),then the impact is not classed as unacceptable, asthe noise from the tram will not increase the base-line noise levels significantly.

Maximum pass-by noise levels (LAmax, the instan-taneous ‘peak’ as the tram passes) are assessedagainst the PPG24 82 dB free-field noise standardfor sleep disturbance.

11.2.2 Prediction Methodology

Construction

The predictions of construction noise have beencarried out using the methodology stipulated in BS5228. The predictions have been based on noisefrom a range of assumed activities; the assumptionshave been derived from the RPA study team’s expe-rience of typical construction activities.

Operation

The established methodology for predicting noisefrom railways is the Calculation of Railway Noise(CRN) (2), produced by the UK Department ofTransport in 1995. CRN is an empirical methoddeveloped for wider application to railways in theUK, and it advocates the use of noise measure-ments wherever possible.

The noise predictions have been carried out using aspreadsheet noise model implementing calculationroutines based on the CRN procedure. The sourcenoise levels were based on measurements taken onequivalent reference light railways, including theUK Croydon Light Rail system. In addition, meas-urements of the Luas trams that are now runningon the system have been made in 2004 (3) and theyconfirmed that the noise levels predicted in theLuas Red Line EIA using the CRN prediction methodand based on data that was similar to that gainedfor the Croydon system showed reasonable agree-ment with the measured noise levels.

(1) Institute of Environmental management and Assessment and

Institute of Acoustics (April 2002) Guidelines for Noise Impact

Assessment, consutation draft.(2) UK Department of Transport (1995) Calculation of Railway

Noise (CRN), DoT, 1995(3) Noise Levels Due to Tram Passbys at EIS Locations Line A and

Noise Levels Due to tram Passbys at EIS Locations Line C, Eanna

O’Kelly & Associates, 2004

101

Positional information relating to receiver build-ings, reflective structures, terrain and the rail trackswere extracted from 1:1000 Ordnance Survey map-ping, engineering drawings and site inspections.

The frequency of the proposed service is anotherimportant factor in determining noise levels. Forthe purposes of this assessment, the followingfuture tram service has been assumed from theperiod Monday to Friday in order to determineworst-case scenario:

• Service starts 0530 hours;• Service finishes 0030 hours;• Trams every 5 minutes in each direction between0700 -10.00 and 1600 -1900);• Trams every 10 minutes in each direction in eachdirection between 0530 and 0700;• Trams every 7.5 minutes in each direction 1000 -1600 and 1900 - 2230; and• Trams every 15 minutes in each direction 2230 -0030.

Thus the figures for the day and night are shownbelow in Table 11.4.

Table 11.4 Number of Tram Movements

Day Night Day Night(0700 to (2300 to (0530 to (000 to

2300) 0700) 0000) 0530)

Single Track 150 18 160 8Double Track 300 36 320 16

Limitations

It is acknowledged that certain information, such asthe types of construction equipment is not avail-able at this stage in the development process.However, wherever possible, data that will allowthe most significant environmental impacts to beidentified have been used.

11.2.3 Baseline Noise SurveyOne consideration in assessing the noise impact ofthe scheme is the change in baseline noise levels.Accordingly, baseline noise surveys have been car-ried out close to potentially affected noise sensitivereceptors to determine the existing noise levels.

Twelve noise level measurements were made at sixdifferent representative locations along the route.The same locations were chosen for day-time and

night-time recordings. These representative noisesensitive receptors are illustrated in Figure 11.1a.(page 111) These noise sensitive receptors havebeen identified on the basis of mapping and sitevisits.

Noise Sensitive Receptors

There are two areas along the route of Luas LineC1:

Area 1 which consists of landuse along UpperMayor Street close to The Point - mostly industrialand timber warehouses, with pockets of residentialhouses; and in contrast

Area 2 nearer to Connolly Station and alongHarbourmaster Place, Sheriff Street Lower andCommons Street (more commonly referred to theIFSC area) - land use largely comprises of apart-ments, offices, retail and financial services.

Representative noise sensitive receptors that maypotentially be subject to noise impacts as a result ofthe operation of the scheme are shown in Table11.5. These have been identified on the basis ofmapping, aerial photographs and site visits.

102

Table 11.5 Noise Sensitive ReceptorsOther potential noise sensitive buildings include ahotel (The Clarion) but this is located further fromthe route than the National College of Ireland andno noise impact is expected at this location.

Night-time weather conditions were dry and coldwith a light breeze and stronger occasional gusts.The conditions were locally sheltered at measure-ment locations. The measured noise levels are con-sidered valid as they exceeded readings due towind gusts by at least 10 dB(A). Daytime weatherconditions were calm, dry and hot.

Location Approx. horizontal Approx no of Nearest Building Usage(s)distance to works (m) properties

within 25mArea 1: Industrial Zone with Planned Mixed Use Development

N1 – Houses next to Unilever 7 6 ResidentialN2 – No.1 Upper Mayor Street 7 8 Residential

Area 2: Zone under Development

Area includes new Spencer Dock offices to the North of and facing Mayor Street. Residential apartments are locatedto the north of these offices and may not have a clear view of the Luas Line depending on building heights. TheSpencer Dock development will have been given planning permission assuming Luas Line C1 would run along MayorStreet. Therefore, it has been assumed that planning controls will have been used to ensure that building layout andglazing systems will have been designed so that internal noise levels will be appropriate with Luas Line C1 in place andthese receptors have not been considered further in this assessment.

Area 2: IFSC (Financial Centre)

N3 – National College of Ireland 7 3 EducationalN4 – Apartments (Custom House Square) 40 4 ApartmentsN5 – Harbour Master Bar 12 2 Restaurant / BarN6 – Offices/Retail/Apartments 7 2 Offices

103

Although these baseline data are considered ade-quate for the EIS, at the detailed design stage, fur-ther surveys will be undertaken to support thedesign process.

Ambient noise conditions along the route are dis-cussed below:

Noise levels in area 2 at locations N1 and N2 weregenerally dominated by industrial noise. Noisefrom construction works affected N1 and noise

from buses that were turning and parking was alsonoted. Road traffic noise from Wapping Road andon North Wall Road was noted during the day andthe night at N2. The railway adjacent to N2 alsogave rise to a noticeable squealing noise.

At N3 to N5 the daytime noise levels were affectedby traffic noise and noise from construction activi-ties. The daytime noise levels were therefore notrepresentative of baseline noise conditions. Duringthe night the noise from construction had finished

and the traffic noise and local noise sources, such asmusic and ventilation fans, were audible. Thesesources were typical of the baseline environment inthe area.

At location N6 traffic dominated the baseline noiselevels during the day and the night.

11.4 DO NOTHING SCENARIO

If the proposal does not proceed it is likely thatnoise impacts from vehicle traffic would increasedue to the on-going development of the area. Thusthe future baseline noise environment is likely toincrease.

11.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT

11.5.1 Construction Impacts

The likely impacts from the construction phase ofthe Luas Line C1 are expected to be higher than theoperational phase. However, they are likely to belimited to a total period of 20 months, and thisperiod covers construction along the approximate-ly 1,500 m construction route. In reality, construc-tion will only be concentrated on a specific pointalong the route for a much shorter period of time.

It is anticipated that construction will be undertak-en within normal working hours: 0800 to 1800Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1600 on Saturdays.

Table 11.6 Summary of Baseline Noise Levels (Free-field dB)

Measurement Location LAeq Daytime LAeq Night-time (0700-2300) (0600-0700 & 2300 to

midnight) (1)

N1 – Houses next to Unilever 66.4 (2)

46.2 (2)

N2 – 1 Upper Mayor Street 70.4 61.2N3 – National College of Ireland 68.1

(2)58.8

N4 – Apartments and Open amenity area 61.0 (2)

55.6N5 – Harbourmasters Bar 66.6

(2)56.6

N6 – Offices/Retail/Apartments 65.3 57.9

Note 1) Night-time noise levels based on measurements between 2300 and 0030 hours.Note 2) Affected by construction noise.

11.3 BASELINE NOISE ENVIRONMENT

104

However, it is likely that some work on specificjunctions and in the IFSC will also take place onSaturday and Sunday outside of these normal con-struction hours. Such working hours and trafficmanagement arrangements will be agreed withthe local authority where required. The planningof such works will also take consideration of theresidents. Night work, if required, would normallycease at 2300 hours unless the area is non-residen-tial.

The principal work site and laying out area is likelyto be restricted to The Point area, which is less sen-sitive to noise than the IFSC area, where there areapartment blocks, open amenity areas and theNational College of Ireland.

The predicted construction noise levels for the con-struction phase of Luas Line C1 are shown in Table11.7.

The upper range of noise predictions presentedhere are based on enabling works (ground break-ing etc.) while the lower range of values representstop construction and track laying. Noise fromsheet piling and bridge construction activities hasbeen assessed separately, as this is an activity totake place at a specific location (see below) ratherthan along the whole alignment.

The distances used in the predictions are 10m fromthe location of construction works for N1, N2, N3,

and N6, 40m from N4, and 12m from N5. It isexpected that the construction programme will beapproximately 20 months in duration. Yet, this cov-ers the whole Luas Line C1 route; in reality, con-struction will only be outside a specific location fora much shorter period of time, ensuring that allconstruction-related noise impacts are of a tempo-rary nature.

For noise due to ground breaking, the results aresignificant, but it must be noted that such workswill be very limited in duration, in comparison tothe rest of the construction activities.

Noise impacts from other construction activities(stop construction and track laying for example)will be lower, as indicated by the lower set of val-

ues in table 11.7. Although the significance thresh-old is exceeded (apart from receptor N4 where thethreshold is not exceeded and thus insignificant),the predicted noise levels are closer to the 70dBthreshold.

Sheet Piling and Bridge Works

For this assessment, a typical location for sheet pil-ing, bored piling and bridge works was assumed –across Spencer Dock. Modelling indicates thatnoise levels of up to 80 dB may arise at the closestof the six receptors in table 11.6 (N3: the NationalCollege of Ireland), during driven sheet piling. Thisfalls to 75 dB for new apartments (the Locks, recep-tor N4) in the Spencer Dock development and isexpected to be below 70 dB threshold for otherreceptors. This is a significant impact, if one that is

Table 11.7 Predicted Day-time Construction Noise Levels - dB 1 hour LAeq, 0700 – 1900 hrs(Façade)

Location Predicted Noise Impact Assessment Significance Level dB(A) Criterion (Day-time) of Impact

N1 – Houses next to Unilever 78 – 88 70 SignificantN2 – 1 Upper Mayor Street 78 – 88 70 SignificantN3 – National College of Ireland 78 – 88 70 SignificantN4 – Apartments and Open 66 - 76 70 Significantamenity areaN5 – Harbourmasters Bar 76 – 86 70 SignificantN6 – Offices or Retail/Apartments 78 – 88 70 Significant

105

also temporary and limited in duration.

Predicted noise levels during bridge works andbored piling are not above the criterion of 70 dBand significant noise impacts are not predicted dur-ing these phases.

11.5.2 Operational Impacts

Tram Noise

Table 11.8 summarises the predictions of noise fromthe operation of trams along the alignment. Thefirst column of noise levels gives the predicted day-time noise level. The second column gives theincrease in baseline noise caused by the operationof Luas Line C1.

The results show that there is predicted to beadverse impacts of slight significance for all recep-tors along the Luas Line C1 route, apart for recep-tor N1 at night, where a severe impact is predicted.

Potential Impacts due to Changes in RoadTraffic

Traffic data for the scheme is derived from model-ling of traffic conditions around Mayor StreetUpper, Mayor Street Lower, Commons Street and

Harbourmaster Place, as well as access roads andjunctions that are affected by the proposedscheme.

The effect of noise from road traffic within theSpencer Dock development has not been quanti-fied since new developments adjacent to this roadwill have been designed with the noise from theroad traffic taken into account. The key noise sen-sitive receptors that have been considered in thisstudy are along Mayor Street Upper and MayorStreet Lower. A conservative assumption has beenmade that noise sensitive buildings may be locatedclose to all existing roads.

Changes in traffic noise of less than 3 dB(A) aregenerally assumed to be insignificant since changesof around 3 dB(A) are generally the smallest noisechanges that might be noticeable under normalconditions. It would be necessary to double orhalve the flow along a road to experience noisechanges of this order (Guidelines for the Treatmentof Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes,NRA, 2004).

In 2008 changes in the AADT (Annual Average DailyTraffic) flows from the Luas Line C1 in the area closeto the new infrastructure are predicted alongMayor Street from minus 32% to plus 70%. Trafficflow increases on all links are less than 100% of thetotal flow which are unlikely to result in significant

noise changes. The only link where flows changeby more than 100% in the Northern Section of NewWapping Street where flow changes are 147%.This is approximately a 4dB increase which may benoticeable but is not expected to result in a majornoise impact.

In 2008, the operational Luas Line C1 results insome changes in vehicular traffic throughout therest of the study area. Where there are increases inflow, these are less than 25% of the total flowwhich is unlikely to result in significant noisechanges.

In 2016 reductions in the AADT flows from the LuasLine C1 in the area close to the new infrastructureare predicted along Mayor Street, ranging from11% to 68% which equate to an insignificantreduction in noise levels. The scheme appears togenerally reduce vehicular traffic activity through-out the rest of the study area, and where there areincreases in flow these are less than 25% of thetotal flow which are unlikely to result in significantnoise changes.

The baseline noise levels outlined in Table 11.6A1.1a in Annex A are likely to increase because ofnatural increases in traffic flow. As a result it isexpected that the noise from Luas Line C1 willresult in smaller changes in baseline noise and itseffect will therefore be reduced.

106

Table 11.8 Assessment of Operational Noise Impacts

Receptor Day (0700 to 2300 hours) Night (2300 to 0700 hours)Predicted Baseline Increase in Significance Predicted Baseline Increase in Significance noise level noise levels baseline LAeq of impact noise level noise levels baseline LAeq of impact

N1 – Houses next to Unilever 64 66.4 2 Slight impact 57 46.2 11 Severe impactN2 – 1 Upper Mayor Street 64 70.4 1 Slight impact 57 61.2 1 Slight impactN3 – National College of Ireland 64 68.1 1 Slight impact 57 58.8 2 Slight impactN4 – Apartments and 54 61.0 1 Slight impact 48 55.6 1 Slight impactOpen amenity areaN5 – Harbourmasters Bar 63 66.6 2 Slight impact 57 56.6 3 Slight impactN6 – Offices/Retail/Apartments 61 65.3 1 Slight impact 55 57.9 2 Slight impact

Note that the Threshold values described in Table 11.2 are exceeded in all cases above, but noise levels are below the Unacceptable Criteria.

107

11.5.3 Mitigation Measures

There are a variety of mitigation measures, whichmay be used to reduce the exposure to noise nui-sance and vibration. Noise can be attenuated(reduced) by screening the source or receptor, byincreasing the distance between source and recep-tor or by changing the operational nature of thesource. The following mitigation measures will beimplemented:

Construction Noise

all construction equipment will be required to meetthe EC Directive on noise emission from construc-tion plant and equipment (including compressors,welding generators, hand held concrete breakersand picks, excavators, dozers, loaders and excava-tor loaders);

Dublin City Council and any other relevant author-ities will be consulted on aspects of the construc-tion programme;

the appointed contractor will agree working hourswith the local authority in advance of the works;

equipment will be located as far from noise sensi-tive receptors as possible during the constructionphase.

Operation Noise

the existing trams have been required to incorpo-rate noise control measures in the design to comply

with noise performance specifications and trackand tram wheels will be maintained in good order;

to reduce the risk of additional noise when lightrail vehicles are moving around tight curves, antiwear and anti squeal measures will be applied tothe rails;

as far as is practicable, operation activities will bekept to hours which will minimise the potential fornoise impact, e.g. keep night-time maintenancenoise to a minimum in residential areas; and

careful design of the tram stops and their audibleannouncement systems. The detailed design stagewill minimise noise impacts from PA speakers.

11.5.4 Residual Impacts

Construction phase

Daytime enabling works for track work phase willresult in temporary noise impacts when the worksare at the closest point to receptors. Such construc-tion activities (e.g. ground breaking) are likely tobe limited and focused in duration.

The impacts are also likely to be significant duringthe track laying and stop construction phase atlocations N1, N2, N3, N5 & N6 and the closest newbuildings in Spencer Dock, although the predictednoise levels are closer to the 70 dB threshold incomparison to other construction activities.

Construction is anticipated to last for a period of 20months, although the periods for which noiseimpacts will result on a receptor-by-receptor basisare expected to be much less than this, in the orderof days and weeks.

A typical location for sheet piling and bridge pilingwas assumed – across Spencer Dock. Modellingindicates that noise levels of up to 80 dB may ariseat the closest receptors (the National College ofIreland, new Spencer Dock Offices facing MayorStreet and the proposed National ConferenceCentre). This falls to 75 dB for new apartments (theLocks) in the Spencer Dock development and isexpected to be below 70 dB threshold for otherreceptors. This is a significant impact, although it isalso temporary and limited in duration.

Operational phase

In assessing the predicted noise levels in relation tothe criteria set out in the PPG 24 UK planning poli-cy guidance threshold levels are exceeded, but nounacceptable levels are exceeded, during eitherdaytime or night-time periods at any noise sensitivereceptor.

Potentially slight adverse noise impacts have beenpredicted for the six noise sensitive receptors inboth area 1 and area 2 during both day and night.

108

The impact is slight due to the generally high base-line noise levels. In all daytime cases, the predictednoise levels are less than the current baseline noiselevels recorded. The baseline noise levels will berechecked during detailed design.

The noise from the tram will result in a severeadverse noise impact in night-time noise impacts atreceptor N1 (houses next to Unilever) where thenoise increase is expected to be approximately 11dB compared to the current baseline noise.However, the noise level is expected to be 6 dBbelow the criterion for an unacceptable impact,which is 61 dB.

During night-time periods, the predicted LAmaxnoise levels at residential properties represented byN1 and N2 range from 78dB to 81dB and are justbelow the assessment criterion for sleep distur-bance of LAmax 82dB.

Noise insulation mitigation measures will be con-sidered by the RPA on a case-by-case basis for eachof these properties, although there is nostatutory/legal requirement to provide them.

11.6 VIBRATION IMPACTS

11.6.1 IntroductionThis section describes the potential effects ofground vibration from the Line C1 extension.

11.6.2 Vibration Methodology Ground Vibration Assessment Methodology

Vibration Dose Value (VDV) is a measure of theaccumulated level of ground vibration over a peri-od and, through the application of BS 6472 (1), isthe standard measurement system for predictingthe likelihood of adverse comments from effectedbuilding occupants. The standard gives the follow-ing VDV levels at or below which the probability ofadverse comments is low:

Day (0700-2300 hours) 0.4 m/s1.75

; andNight (2300-0700 hours) 0.1 m/s

1.75.

Vibration Prediction Methodology

Construction

Vibration levels due to construction works havebeen predicted at receptors along the proposedalignment, based on measurements of typical con-struction plant.

Operation

Estimates of levels of ground vibration from theoperation of Luas Line C1 have been made basedon levels measured adjacent to comparable tramsystems.

11.6.3 LimitationsIt is acknowledged that certain information, such asthe types of construction equipment is not avail-able at this stage in the development process.However, wherever possible, data that will allowthe most significant environmental impacts to beidentified have been used.

11.6.4 Do Nothing ScenarioUnder a do nothing scenario, no significant implica-tions are foreseen in relation to vibration.

11.6.5 Construction Vibration Impacts

Vibration levels due to construction works havebeen predicted at receptors along the proposedalignment. The final choice of constructionmethod will be determined by the contractor andthe work process will be designed to minimise the

(1) British Standard BS 6472 (1984) Guide to the evaluation of

human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80Hz).

109

effects of vibration on surrounding structures.

Ground vibration is likely to be perceptible at allreceptors during the construction of Luas Line C1 attimes. However, VDV levels of ground vibration arenot expected to exceed the 0.4 m/s1.75 daytimeassessment criterion due to the temporary natureand short duration of the construction activity. Asa result, vibration from construction work is notexpected to give rise to adverse comment andimpacts are not expected to occur.

Vibration from construction activity is extremelyunlikely to cause any structural damage to proper-ties along the proposed alignment. However,vibration monitoring should be considered at anylisted buildings within 4m of the compaction workphase, in order to ensure compliance. This mayoccur along Mayor Street near N4 where there is alisted building.

11.6.6 Operational Vibration ImpactsEstimates of levels of ground vibration have beenmade based on levels measured adjacent to compa-rable systems, including a detailed investigationinto vibration levels from Phase 1 of theManchester Metro in 1996. This data set is robustand has been widely used on other planning appli-cations and noise assessments.

The results are summarised below in Table 11.9.

The levels tabulated above are considered to pro-vide a reasonable estimate of the ground vibrationlevels that can be expected provided that thedetailed design stage considers local conditions anduses a high-quality rail design where it is shown tobe required.

Ground vibration will be perceptible at receptorswithin approximately 20 m of the alignment(depending on final design details). However, theestimated VDV levels of ground vibration are notexpected to exceed the 0.4 m/s1.75 daytime assess-ment criterion beyond approximately 4 m from thetracks. Existing receptors are further from thetracks than this. Hence, whilst vibration may be

perceptible in some areas, due to its transientnature and low levels it is not expected to give riseto adverse comment and impacts are not expectedto occur.

The expected levels of ground vibration are belowcriteria which relate to the structural integrity ofbuildings. Consequently, no impacts on vibrationsensitive buildings located adjacent to the schemeare expected to occur.

11.6.7 Mitigation MeasuresAlthough there no statutory requirements to pro-vide mitigation measures for vibration, there are avariety of mitigation measures, which may be used

Table 11.9 Measured Vibration Levels from the ManchesterMetrolink – Street Running Sections at Full Speed

Distance to Peak particle Weighted EstimatedVDVdaynearest rail (m) velocity (mm/s) acceleration (m/s2) (m/s1.75)(1)

1 to 3 1.5 to < 2.0 0.06 to < 0.1 0.5 to < 1.03 to 5 1.0 to 1.2 0.03 to 0.06 0.2 to 0.55 to 10 0.6 to 1.0 0.01 to 0.03 0.08 to 0.210 to 15 0.3 to 0.6 0.005 to 0.01 0.03 to 0.0815 to 20 0.15 to 0.3 0.003 to 0.005 0.015 to 0.03

(1) Vibration Dose Value

110

to further reduce the exposure to vibration.Vibration can be attenuated (reduced) by screeningthe source or receptor, by increasing the distancebetween source and receptor or by changing theoperational nature of the source. The followingmitigation measures are recommended:

Construction Vibration

Control duration of working hours; and

the appointed contractor will undertake all reason-able efforts during construction to minimiseground vibration with the intention that vibrationlevels do not exceed 5mm/sec peak particulatevelocity, when measured near the foundation ofhouse and apartments, and 3mm/sec peak particu-late velocity when measured at listed buildings andother sensitive buildings.

Operational Vibration

To reduce groundborne vibration the need forresilient trackform (typically continuously weldedrails mounted in lined rail trenches) will bereviewed at the detailed design stage for all recep-tors; and

if any new receptors are built within 4 m of thetrack alignment before the Luas tramway RailwayOrder is granted, further vibration isolation tech-niques will be considered.

11.6.8 Summary of Residual Impacts

Construction Vibration

Although vibration may be perceptible in buildingswhen works are being carried out directly outsidethe receptors that are closest to the line, it isexpected that the contractor will be able to controlvibrations so that no significant construction vibra-tion impacts are expected at any of the receptorsdescribed in this report.

Operational Vibration

Ground vibration is expected to be perceptible atsome receptors but not at levels that are likely togive rise to adverse comment or structural damage,provided a high quality track design is used. Theassessment of impacts associated with vibration willalso be subject to further investigation during thedetailed design phase.

111

Figure 11.1a Noise monitoring locations

113

12 ELECTROMAGNETIC ASPECTS

12.1 INTRODUCTION

This section examines the potential for electromag-netic interference on existing receptors and thepotential impacts from stray currents arising fromthe construction and operation of Luas Line C1.

12.2 METHODOLOGY

This assessment involves the identification ofpotentially sensitive receptors along the alignmentand a desktop review of the most up-to-dateresearch relating to the effects and mitigation ofelectromagnetic radiation.

12.3 DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

In terms of electromagnetic radiation, the studyarea does not contain any significant existingsources of electromagnetic radiation. One particu-lar source of electromagnetic radiation is thetelecommunication masts situated on the northside of Sherriff Street Lower, and it is understoodthat there are plans to remove these during theredevelopment of this area. There is also an ESBsubstation located on Sherriff Street Lower, at thetop of Harbourmaster Place.

Electromagnetic radiation also has the potential tointerfere with electronic equipment. This is partic-

ularly important as the route passes in close prox-imity to offices within the IFSC area that are heavi-ly dependant upon telecommunications and have asignificant telecommunications network.

12.4 DO NOTHING SCENARIO

In the absence of the development, electromagnet-ic radiation levels are likely to remain at currentlevels, which do not appear to affect local telecom-munications.

12.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT

12.5.1 Construction ImpactsSensitivity to the electromagnetic fields producedby the Overhead Conductor System (OCS) will beinfluenced by the precise alignment of the OCSlines with respect to potential sensitive receivers.The most sensitive receptors are located within thebuildings fronting Mayor Street Lower andHarbourmaster Place.

Further areas where receptors may be sensitive tothe effects of electromagnetic radiation includeoffices at the eastern end of Mayor Street Lower,developments proposed within the Spencer DockScheme and the terraced houses on Mayor StreetUpper.

Electromagnetic radiation is a potential issue forprojects using overhead power transmission cables.Light rail schemes powered by overhead cables, willgenerally give rise to two types of electromagneticradiation: power frequency fields and high fre-quency fields. However, at receptor locations adja-cent to Luas Line C1, magnetic and electric fieldstrengths from operational use are both consider-ably less than a person would normally experiencefrom natural sources of radiation and radiationemitted from household appliances such asmicrowave ovens, PC monitors and televisions.

The provision of a new substation underground atthe Spencer Dock Stop will be a new source of elec-tromagnetic radiation. This substation will convertexisting ESB alternating current into a direct cur-rent power supply for the trams. The main depotfor the Luas system is sited at the Red Cow Depotand will include the operational base andradio/video communications centres for the wholenetwork. This was approved and constructed aspart of the Luas Red Line. The LRO process and fur-ther details on the depot may be found in chapterfour of the “Environmental Impact Statement LineA Tallaght to Abbey Street, Volume 1, July 1998”.

12.5.2 Construction ImpactsThere are no potential electromagnetic impactsarising from the construction phase as the construc-

114

tion works programmes involve principally civilworks and utilities diversion.

12.5.3 Operation ImpactsThe trams operate on 750 volts direct current (d.c.).Electricity to the trams is supplied via overheadpower lines, at a minimum height of 6.0m abovethe ground in areas where road traffic can rundirectly on the alignment, supported by poles posi-tioned either alongside or between tracks, or bycables fixed to building facades. Power will be sup-plied to the OHLE via multi-tubular cable ducts thatform one edge of the track bed foundation; on theother side of the track bed there will be a parallelset of ducts carrying communications and signallingcables (this is dependant on the utility companies).

One new substation will be required to service LuasLine C1. Substations are required to house the nec-essary equipment to transform and rectify a supplyat 10kv from the national electricity grid and out-put to the tram traction system at 750v d.c. It isproposed that this substation will be located under-ground at the Spencer Dock Stop; the overall spacerequirements for the substation are in the order of450m2. This substation will provide the additionalpower supply required and will be connected to thecontact wire at intervals. Thus the weight of thecontact wire is minimised and there is no need fora mass of overhead wiring. Synthetic cables, whichhave good insulating properties, will be used to

support overhead wiring and this reduces the num-ber of insulators required.

Concerns regarding electromagnetic effects aresometimes raised with regard to electrically-pow-ered railways, both in terms of potential effects onthe population from exposure to electro-magneticradiation and electro-magnetic interference withelectrical equipment. The UK National RadiologicalProtection Board has concluded that there is noclear evidence that electromagnetic fields emanat-ing from a.c. and d.c. currents to which people areexposed during everyday activities give rise toadverse health effects such as cancer(1). The reportconcluded:

“Laboratory experiments have provided no goodevidence that extremely low frequency electromag-netic fields are capable of producing cancer, nor dohuman epidemiological studies suggest that theycause cancer in general”.

The magnetic and electric field strengths from rail-way operations are both considerably less than aperson would normally experience from naturalsources of radiation and radiation emitted fromhousehold appliances such as microwave ovens, PCmonitors and televisions. With regard to sometypes of sensitive electric appliances, whilst somemagnetic fields are very difficult to screen effec-tively, relocation of the affected appliance (even a

short distance from a railway boundary) where pos-sible, is usually enough to solve interference fromelectromagnetic radiation.

In most d.c. systems, any stray currents (electricalcurrents through a path other than the intendedpathway) will return to the substation via a parallelpath provided by the ground itself and by anyother metallic objects such as pipes and cablesheaths. This has the potential to cause currenterosion and put structures at risk if the corrosion isconcentrated over a small area such as on a pipe.Although stray current cannot be fully eliminatedin electrical systems, it can be controlled and min-imised by reducing the magnitude of the tractionsupply current in the rails and by providing a suit-able return path to direct the stray current back tothe sub-station.

12.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

Luas Line C1 will be constructed to meet therequirements of the EU Directive onElectromagnetic Compatibility (89/336/EEC).

With regard to some types of sensitive electricappliances, whilst some magnetic fields are very

(1) National Radiological Protection Board (2001) ELF

Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer: Report of an

Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation. NRPB Vol 12:1

115

difficult to screen effectively, relocation of theaffected appliance (even a short distance from arailway boundary) where possible, is usuallyenough to solve interference from electromagneticradiation.

Measures to minimise stray current have beenincorporated into the design specifications and willbe implemented during the construction and oper-ation of the scheme. These measures may includethe use of a stray current collector system, togeth-er with other design measures such as resilient insu-lating polymer around the rails.

12.7 PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

With the effective implementation of the mitiga-tion measures described above, no significant resid-ual impacts will occur from the construction andoperation of Luas Line C1.

12.8 CONCLUSIONS

Providing the detailed mitigation and monitoringmeasures are implemented, there are no anticipat-ed negative impacts of Luas Line C1 on electromag-netic radiation.

116

13 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY

13.1 INTRODUCTIONThe scope of the assessment of impacts upon airquality and climate comprises the following envi-ronmental aspects:

Impacts on pollutant concentrations at sensitivereceptors as a result of operation of the proposedscheme (including impacts from construction dust).

Impacts on emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas withthe potential for global warming.

13.2 METHODOLOGY

13.2.1 OverviewThe methods used to identify and predict theimpacts of the proposed development upon airquality and climate are as follows:

Reference to existing air monitoring data has beenused to extrapolate the baseline air quality for thesite of the proposed development.

Potential sources of air emissions during the opera-tion of the proposed development have been iden-tified in consultation with the design team.

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)(Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, Highways Agency,

February 2003) has been used to estimate theimpact of the proposed scheme to air quality andgreenhouse gas emissions.

Evaluation of the significance of these impacts hasbeen undertaken by comparing them to air qualitystandards, where appropriate.

Mitigation measures have been suggested in con-sultation with the project design team.

13.2.2 Primary and Secondary SourcesTraffic data predictions for scenarios with and with-out the proposed scheme were derived from thetraffic and transportation assessment (see Chapter7), undertaken by Faber Maunsell. Baseline air qual-ity data were taken from reports published byDublin’s Air Quality Monitoring and Noise ControlUnit.

13.2.3 LimitationsDue to the ongoing development within theSpencer Dock development, the distances frompotential receptors to affected roads were estimat-ed from the Spencer Dock Development plans.

13.3 DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENTBaseline data on air quality within the Dublinregion were obtained from the following reportsproduced by the EPA and by Dublin City Council.

• Air Quality Annual Report 1999, EPA• Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: • Annual Report 2001-2002, Dublin City Council. • Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: • Annual Report 2002-2003, Dublin City Council.

The recommended target values for the differentair pollutant commonly found in the urban envi-ronment are based on European Union Air QualityObjectives and are depicted in Table 13.3a.

117

Table 13.3a Air Quality Target Values for the Dublin Region

Pollutant Averaging Period Target Value EU Limit Values EC Limit ValuesDublin City Council

Sulphur Dioxide 10 minute mean 500 µg/m3

1 hour mean (1) 3 50 µg/m3

24 hour mean (2) 125 µg/m3 100-150µg/m3

Winter (median of 180mµg/m3 if smoke is daily values) <60µg/m3

130µg/m3 if smoke is > 60µg/m3

Annual (median of 120µ g/m3 if smoke daily values) is<40µ/m3

80µg/m3 if smoke is >40 µ g/m3

Nitrogen 1 hour mean (3) 200 µg/m3

Dioxide Annual mean 40 µg/m3

Black Smoke 24 hour mean 150 µg/m3

Annual mean 60 µg/m3 40-60 µg/m3 80µg/m3

Winter 130µg/m3

Particulate 24 hour mean (4) 50 µg/m3 50(PM10) Annual mean 40 µg/m3 40Benzene Annual mean 5 µg/m3

Carbon 8 hour mean (5) 10 µg/m3

MonoxideOzone 8 hour mean (6) 120 µg/m3

Lead Annual mean 0.5 µg/m3

Target values are based on European Union Air Quality Directive (including 80/779/EEC), as follows:1. 350(µg m-3) hourly mean not to be exceeded more than 24 times per year

2. 125 (µg m-3) hourly mean not to be exceeded more than 3 times per year

3. 200 (µg m-3) hourly mean not to be exceeded more than 18 times per year

4. 50 (µg m-3) hourly mean not to be exceeded more than 25 times per year

5. 10 (µg m-3) as a running 8 hour mean

6. 120 (mg m-3) as the highest running 8-hour mean within one day not to be exceeded on more than 20 days per year.

(Source: Dublin Regional Air Quality Management)

118

13.3.1 Baseline Air QualityFigure 13.3a reveals that the highest daily SO2 level of 98 µg m-3 was recordedat Cabra. All measurements were in compliance with EU values.

Figure 13.3a Sulphur dioxide

(Source: Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: Annual Report 2001-2002)

Figure 13.3b presents smoke levels recorded at sites around Dublin in 2001-2002.

Figure 13.3b Smoke

(Source: Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: Annual Report 2001-2002)

SO2 Levels v EU Limit Values

Location

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

ug/m

3

Brunsw

ickS

t.

Ringsend

Clo

ntarf

Herbert S

t.

Bluebell

Cabra

Rathm

ines

Ballyferm

ot

Crum

lin

Finglas

Annual Mean ug/m3

Annual Median

Max. Daily ug/m3

Annual Mean if smokeis < 60 ug/m3

Annual Median if smoke is > 60 ug/m3

Smoke Levels v EU Limit Values

Location

140

160

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

ug/m

3

Brunsw

ickS

t.

Ringsend

Clo

ntarf

Herbert S

t.

Bluebell

Cabra

Rathm

ines

Ballyferm

ot

Crum

lin

Finglas

Annual Mean ug/m3

Max. 24hr ug/m3

Max. 24hr Mean (guidevalue max. ug/m3)Max. Annual Mean (guide value max. ug/m3)

119

Monitoring of particulate matter was carried out from January to December2002. The summary of the monitored concentrations is reproduced below.Figure 13.3c demonstrates that the 5 sites that comply with EU siting criteriaare all in compliance with EU limit values for PM10

Figure 13.3c Particulate Matter (PM10)

(Source: Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: Annual Report 2001-2002)

Table 13.3b Summary of PM10 Concentrations Recorded from Jan- Dec2002

Site Location Annual Mean Total Number of (µg m-3) Days > 50µg m-3

Phoenix Park 15 8College Street (1) 37 66Coleraine Street 21 10Marino 24 12Rathmines 19 12Winetavern Street 23 14Assessment Criteria 40 35(1) It is important to note that the site at College Street does not conform to criteria setdown by the European Union in terms of site selection and particularly in terms of prox-imity to traffic. However the site is maintained to allow trends to be examined.

(Source: Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: Annual Report 2002-2003)

Nitrogen dioxide concentrations were monitored at two sites: WinetavernStreet and Coleraine Street, both within the city centre with significant trafficvolumes in their vicinity(1). The 2002 annual mean concentration was recordedto be 35 µg m-3 at Winetavern Street and 38 µg m-3 at Coleraine Street.

PM10 v EU Limit Values

Location

140

160

180

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

ug/m

3

Pheo

nix Park

Co

llege St.

Co

leraine St.

Marino

Rathm

ines

Winetavern

St.

Annual Mean ug/m3

Max. 24hr ug/m3

EU Annual Avg. 40 ug/m3

EU 24 hr. Avg. 50 ug/m3

(1) Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: Annual Report 2001-2002, Dublin City Council.

120

Existing Urban Pollutants

The Dublin City Council Report, Air QualityMonitoring and Noise Control Unit: Annual Report2001-2002 and Air Quality Monitoring and NoiseControl Unit: Annual Report 2002-2003, reportedthat

• Atmospheric lead levels are currently well withinthe annual mean national limit value. In 2001 themonitoring site on Branch Road within the DublinDocklands area has recorded concentrations of 0.53µg m-3; this has since reduced to concentrations of0.12 µg m-3 recorded in 2002.

• An additional survey of the diurnal variation innitrogen dioxide levels revealed that there is typi-cally a marked increase in levels of nitrogen dioxidefrom early morning peaking in mid morning. This isfollowed by a sharp decline through mid afternoonfollowed by a smaller increase through the eveningand night. It is believed that traffic is the most sig-nificant factor contributing to these trends.

• The annual mean value of benzene recorded in2001 at Winetavern St was 4.9 µg m-3, by 2002 thishad reduced to 3.75 µg m-3.

• Monitoring results for carbon monoxide are wellwithin national limit value of 10mg m-3. The 2002annual 8hour rolling mean recorded at Winetavern

Street was 1.2 mg m-3 and 0.6 mg m-3 at ColeraineStreet.

Dust Deposition

The determination of the baseline with regards todust is frequently done by undertaking a dust-dep-osition monitoring programme. It is recommendedthat a dust deposition survey (to B.S. 1747) wouldbe undertaken by the contractor immediately priorto, and at stages during construction of the pro-posed development. The location of the monitor-ing locations will reflect the potential sources ofdust and the location of sensitive receptors.Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposedLuas Line C1 may include residents in the variousapartments or staff from the various financial serv-ices and commercial developments along the route.Impacts from dust are discussed in more detail fur-ther on in this chapter.

13.3.2 ClimateRainfall and temperature

The existing microclimate can be described usingthe most relevant meteorological data and bydescribing key influences over the microclimate atthe site.

Long-term (30 year) data were collected from Met

Éireann. Data included:

• mean monthly rainfall (Dublin Airport) Figure13.3d;• temperature (Dublin Airport) Figure 13.3d, and• wind speed and direction (recorded at DublinAirport).

Precipitation and Temperature

The data indicates a climate that is described as“maritime” as it is primarily influenced by the sea.This is reflected by the lack of extreme tempera-tures (range from 6OC to 15Oc). Average annualrainfall at Dublin Airport is 732.7mm. Figure 13.3ddepicts mean rainfall and temperature recorded atDublin airport.

121

Figure 13.3d Mean monthly rainfall and temperature, Dublin Airport1961-1990

Wind

The prevailing winds recorded at Dublin Airport, are from the west, withsoutherly winds recorded quite rarely due to the sheltering effects of theDublin and Wicklow mountains.

In terms of wind speed, the mean wind speed is 9.9 knots, with maximum wind

speeds in December (11.8 knots) and January (12.2 knots). Max gusts wererecorded at 75 knots and the mean number of days with gales is 8.2.

There are no major obstructions or natural barriers (e.g. mountains) surround-ing the proposed site. This means that the wind pattern recorded at DublinAirport is likely to be similar to that experienced along the proposed route,although local wind patterns will be significantly influenced by the mass andform of the surrounding built environment.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In Ireland, the principal greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), mainly arisingfrom the burning of fossil fuels in the transport, heating and electricity gener-ation sectors. It is estimated that private vehicles contribute 60% of all trans-port sector greenhouse gas emissions and freight vehicles contribute 35%. In1990, the transport sector contributed approximately 15.7% of Ireland’s CO2emissions and 9.5% of base year greenhouse gas emissions. However, transportsector greenhouse gas emissions are forecast to increase by almost 180% in theperiod from 1990 to 2010.

A significant proportion of this increase is expected to occur in the Dublinregion as over a quarter of the population live and commute throughout DublinCity and the Greater Dublin Area (National Climate Change Strategy, 2000).

Mean Monthly Rainfall and Temperature

Months

70

80

60

5040

30

20

100

14

16

12

108

6

4

20

Rai

nfal

l

Tem

pera

ture

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Mean Rainfall

Mean Temperature

122

13.4 EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES

13.4.1 Do Nothing ScenarioEmissions of carbon dioxide from traffic alongaffected routes in the Do Nothing scenario havebeen estimated using the DMRB, version 1.02(c). Inthe Do Nothing scenario, annual CO2 emissionsrelease approximately 2,793 tonnes a year.

13.4.2 Potential Impacts of the ProposedDevelopment on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Construction Impacts

Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the con-struction of Line C1 are limited to those associatedwith emissions from construction vehicles andmachinery. However, these emissions will be tem-porary in nature and are not considered to be sig-nificant.

13.4.3 Predicted Residual Impacts of TheProposed DevelopmentWhile the Luas Line C1 will generate CO2 emissions(due to the consumption of energy) this calculationtakes no account of CO2 ‘savings’ made by passen-gers using Luas Line C1. If the Luas was not avail-able, these (and, most importantly, future residentsand workers of the Docklands area) people woulduse other transport means to get to work. A largeproportion of these journeys would be undertaken

by cars, resulting in CO2 emissions. Thus the resid-ual impact of the Luas extension is the reduction inCO2 emissions in comparison to the Do-NothingScenario, contributing to the Government’s inten-tion of reducing Greenhouse gas emissions.

13.4.4 ConclusionsLuas line C1 will reduce CO2 emissions, in compari-son to the Do-Nothing Scenario, through encourag-ing a modal shift in mode of transport, away fromcar-based travel.

13.5 AIR QUALITYIn this section, concentrations of pollutants are pre-dicted at sensitive receptors within the study areathat are within 200m of roads with significantchanges in traffic as a result of the introduction ofLuas. Sensitive receptors are defined as locationswhere members of the public are regularly presentsuch as residential dwellings, schools, hospitals andchurches. The main pollutants of concern in termsof traffic are nitrogen dioxide and particulate mat-ter as measured concentrations of these substancesin Dublin are currently close to exceeding objec-tives. Benzene has also been included in this assess-ment as concentrations close to the 2010 objectivehave been recorded at Winetavern Street in 2001,although they have since been reduced. The base-line concentrations included in the assessment arebased on the monitoring results reported in the Air

Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit: AnnualReport 2002-2003. These measured 2002 concentra-tions have been used for the 2008 assessment andrepresent a worst case, as it is almost certain thatbackground concentrations in 2008 will be lowerthan those measured in 2002.

The predicted changes in traffic on 26 streets arepresented in Annex C, Table 1.3. Changes in traffic of less than 10% can usually bescoped out, as they are unlikely to have an impacton air quality(1). Of the 26 routes above, 5 haveincreases in traffic greater than 10% and 3 havedecreases in traffic greater than 10%.

13.5.1 Do Nothing ScenarioDo Nothing pollutant concentrations at sensitivereceptors have been calculated using the DMRBversion 1.02(c) spreadsheet. Background concentra-tions of NO2 and PM10 have been estimated fromthe baseline data presented in Air QualityMonitoring and Noise Control Unit: Annual Report2002-2003. Predicted concentrations of nitrogendioxide, particulate matter and benzene in 2008without the proposed development have been esti-mated and the results are presented in Annex B,Table 1.4.

(1) TAG Unit 3.3.3 Local Air Quality Sub-objective, UKDepartment of Transport, February 2004

123

There are no predicted exceedances of the NO2,PM10 and benzene annual mean concentrations atthe above receptors in 2008 without the Luas devel-opment. The 24-hour particulate matter objective isnot exceeded at any of the receptors.

13.5.2 Potential Impacts of the ProposedDevelopment

Construction Impacts

The impact to traffic in the construction phase mayoccur due to road closures and decreases in junc-tion efficiency (as described in Section 7.6).Emissions from plant and equipment are predictedto be insignificant as are any emissions of blacksmoke from tarmac laying. Fugitive emissions fromplant and equipment will be minimised by theapplication of the mitigation measures. Theremainder of this section investigates the impactfrom construction traffic and dust.

Dust emissions are exacerbated by dry weather andhigh wind speeds. The impact of dust also dependson the wind direction and the relative location ofthe dust source and receptor.

Dust becomes airborne due to the action of windson material stockpiles and other dusty surfaces orwhen thrown up by mechanical action, for examplethe movement of tyres on a dusty road or activities

such as sanding or drilling. The quantity of dustreleased during construction depends on a numberof factors, including:

the type of construction activities occurring (e.g.crushing and grinding);

• volume of material being moved; • the moisture and silt content of the materials; • the distance travelled on unpaved roads; • the mitigation measures employed; and • the area of exposed materials.

There are many types of particulate matter that areincluded in the definition of dust.

A 1980 study(1) from the UK indicated that at leasthalf the people living within 50 m of the siteboundary of a construction scheme were seriouslybothered by construction nuisance due to noise,vibration, dust or loss of amenity due to the pres-ence of heavy construction traffic, but that beyond100 m less than 20% of the people were seriouslybothered.

Residential receptors front onto the proposedalignment along much of its length and are locatedwithin 10 m of construction works. This includesproperties along Mayor Street Upper. There arealso commercial properties within 10 m of thealignment, particularly along Harbourmaster Place

and Mayor Street Lower.

Construction dust is likely to cause a minor impactat sensitive receptors within 100 m of the source ofthe dust generated. However, this impact can beminimised by the application of appropriate miti-gation measures (see Section 13.5.3 below).

The impact of dust, as a nuisance, is partiallydependent on existing deposition rates. Theincrease is more noticeable in an area with lowbackground deposition. In this case, there is noth-ing to suggest that existing local dust depositionrates are unusually high or low for an essentiallyurban area.

Operation Impacts

Pollutant concentrations at the sensitive receptorsassessed above are shown in Annex B, Table 1.5,and are compared to the Do Nothing concentra-tions. Baseline concentrations have been takenfrom the Air Quality Monitoring and Noise ControlUnit: Annual Report 2002-2003 and are the same asthose used in the assessment of the Do Nothing sce-nario.

(1) Baughan CJ (1980) Nuisance from road construction: astudy at the A31 Poulner Lane Diversion, Ringwood(Dorset, UK): TRRL Supplementary Report 562. FromDesign Manual for Roads and Bridges, 1994

124

Operational impacts of the tram have been esti-mated using baseline concentrations from the AirQuality and Monitoring and Noise Control Unit:Annual Report 2002-2003. The introduction of Luasin 2008 has been compared against the results ofthe Do Nothing scenario.

Of the eight receptors assessed, two are predictedto experience a marginal increase in NO2 and PM10concentrations, one is predicted to experience amarginal increase in just NO2 concentrations, fiveare predicted to experience a marginal decrease inNO2 and PM10 concentrations and one is predictedto experience a marginal decrease in just PM10 con-centrations. Benzene concentrations remain thesame at six receptors, and decreases marginally attwo receptors.

Even with the changes in traffic from the Luasscheme, the annual mean NO2 objective is notexceeded at any of the receptors assessed.

The largest impact is predicted to occur at Number5 Upper Mayor Street. NO2 concentrations are pre-dicted to increase by 0.21 µg m-3, PM10 concentra-tions are predicted to increase by 0.08 µg m-3.However, these increased concentrations are stillmarginal.

Five of the eight receptors assessed will experiencedirect benefits in respect of improvements in local

air quality with the largest benefit being predictedto occur at the roadside along the link that isexpected to join up with Spencer Dock, known asthe North First Link Road. Roadside concentrationsof NO2 are predicted to decrease by 0.14 µgm-3,PM10 concentrations are predicted to decrease by0.01µg m-3 and concentrations of benzene are pre-dicted to stay the same.

13.5.3 Mitigation Measures

Construction Dust

The mitigation of construction impacts is discussedin this section. The main focus is on the impactsfrom construction dust.

It is not possible to eliminate emissions of dust fromconstruction activities completely. In order to min-imise the impacts of construction, best site manage-ment practices will be implemented to reduce thelikelihood of dust impacts. Typical measures includewater-based dust suppressors, especially for dust‘intensive’ construction activities such asblock/pavement cutting and ground breaking. Anylose material will be covered to prevent wind dis-persal.

UK DTi Guidance on Control of Dust from

Construction and Demolition Activities

As there are no specific Irish dust guidelines, theconstruction industry in Ireland typically referencesappropriate UK-based guidance. The DTi and sever-al industrial partners have funded a four-year proj-ect to produce guidance on the control of dustfrom construction and demolition activities. Thisguidance will be adhered to, as general best prac-tice, during the construction of the Luas Line C1.

13.5.4 Predicted Residual Impacts There are no predicted residual impacts from theconstruction of the Luas Line C1. Impacts from con-struction dust, likely to be most significant alongMayor Street Upper and Lower, and HarbourmasterPlace will only last for the duration of the construc-tion period, therefore there are no predicted resid-ual impacts from construction dust. A dust monitor-ing programme during construction is recommend-ed to be undertaken.

Changes in traffic flows as a result of the operationof Luas Line C1 are predicted to cause marginalchanges in pollutant concentrations at nearby sen-sitive receptors.

13.5.5 ConclusionsConstruction dust is predicted to have an impact onfrontage properties along the following routes:Mayor Street Upper, Harbourmaster Place and

125

Mayor Street Lower. This will be a short-termimpact and one that is amenable to mitigationthrough the implementation and maintenance ofappropriate best practice measures.

The operation of Luas is predicted to cause negligi-ble impacts to air quality at sensitive receptors.Although there are marginal increases in pollutantconcentrations at two of the eight receptors thereare no predicted exceedances of the target air qual-ity values as a result of Luas Line C1. The overallcontribution of the new Luas line to the local airquality will be positive with reductions in pollutantconcentrations predicted at five of the eight recep-tor locations.

Former Excise Bar

126

14 TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS

14.1 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter presents the impacts on townscapeand visual amenity of the proposed Luas Line C1.Mitigation measures are described to reduce theseimpacts and a description of the residual impacts(predicted townscape and visual impacts with miti-gation measures in place) is presented. This chap-ter is supported by Annex A, Landscape InsertionPlans.

14.2 METHODOLOGYThe methodology used is in accordance with thatpresented in the reference entitled Guidelines forLandscape and Visual Impact Assessment, TheLandscape Institute and Institute of EnvironmentalManagement and Assessment, 2002.

Following a description of the receiving environ-ment or townscape, an assessment of impacts ispresented for both the construction and operationphases of Luas Line C1. Impacts on both townscapecharacter (townscape impacts) and visual amenity(visual impacts) are described.

Townscape impacts relate to the effect of the pro-posed development on the physical elements orfabric that comprises townscape and townscapecharacter. Impacts can range from physical removalof townscape elements to qualitative change in

character caused by the proposals.

Visual impacts relate to the extent to which the pro-posals will cause a change in the existing viewgained by individuals who will be able to see theproposed development.

The sensitivity of a receptor relates to both town-scape elements and individuals who are predictedto experience a change in view caused by the pro-posals; sensitivity is further defined in Table 14.2abelow.

Table 14.2a Definitions of ReceptorSensitivity

Sensitivity Receptor DefinitionLow Townscape A townscape that is not valued for its senic quality and is tolerant

to change.Visual Viewers with a passing interest in their surroundings e.g. motorists

or workers in industrial premises.

Moderate Townscape A moderately valued townscape, perhaps a locally important townscape, tolerant of some change.

Visual Viewers with a moderate interest in their environment such asusers of recreational facilities.

High Townscape A townscape of particularly distinctive character or one that is highly valued for its scenic quality.

Visual Viewers with proprietary interest and prolonged viewing opportunities, such as residential receptors.

127

The magnitude of change caused by the developmentproposals is defined in Table 14.2b below.

Table 14.2b Definitions of Impact Magnitude

Magnitude of change Receptor DefinitionLow Townscape A virtually imperceptible change in components of the townscape.

Visual Few viewers affected by minor changes in views.

Moderate Townscape Moderate changes in townscape components.Visual A moderate number of viewers affected by moderate changes

in views.

High Townscape A notable change in townscape characteristics over an extensive area.

Visual A large number of viewers affected by major changes in view.

128

Evaluation of Impact Significance

The level of impact is arrived at by synthesisingreceptor sensitivity with magnitude of changecaused by the development as illustrated in thetable 14.2c below. Impacts are graded as nil, slight,moderate and substantial and can be either posi-tive (beneficial to townscape or visual amenity) ornegative (detrimental to townscape or visualamenity)

Table 14.2c Definition of Levels of ImpactSignificance

14.2.2 Principal SourcesBaseline information on the landscape of the areawas collected through a desktop study of maps,plans and documents, followed by field surveys inAugust 2003 and January 2005. Information wasalso provided by consultation with relevant parties.

14.2.3 LimitationsThe area between Royal Canal and The Point is cur-rently undergoing large-scale redevelopment andthe proposed Luas Line C1 passes through the cen-tre of this area. As a result of this redevelopment,new large scale built elements will block or changesome of the viewpoints presented in Tables 14.4a to14.4c.

14.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVINGTOWNSCAPE

14.3.1 Townscape Character

The study area, bounded by Sheriff Street on theNorth and the North wall Quay on the south, runsbetween Connolly Stop and The Point. The area iscomposed of landfill claimed from the LiffeyEstuary in the 18

thCentury and land use includes

commercial, residential, light industry, warehous-ing and distribution. Recent developments havebrought a large increase in commercial, retail andresidential land uses. There are also a number oflisted buildings throughout the study area, whichare associated with the historic uses of the dock-lands when this was the main point of contact fortrading and immigration to and from Dublin.

A landscape assessment along the proposed exten-sion to the Luas Red Line was carried out. Thisidentified three distinct townscape character zones

High Magnitude of Moderate Magnitude of Low Magnitude of Townscape or Townscape Townscape or Visual Change Visual Change Visual Change

High Townscape or Substantial Moderate / Substantial Slight / ModerateViewer Sensitivity

Moderate Townscape Moderate / Substantial Moderate Slightor Viewer Sensitivity

Low Townscape or Slight / Moderate Slight No significant impactViewer Sensitivity

129

(referred to as CZs). Definitive boundaries to thesezones are illustrated on Figure 14.2a (page 147) anddescribed below.

Character Zone 1: Dublin Docks Commercial Zone

This area runs from Connolly Stop in the west toGuild Street in the east and is dominated by exten-sive commercial and residential development.

This zone features a range of recently constructedoffice blocks and hotels; cafes, bars and restaurantsline the streets at ground level. The NationalCollege of Ireland has relocated next to a newlydeveloped public square, which has become a pop-ular meeting and resting space. A contemporarylook to the area has been achieved using differentmaterials such as brick, glass, wood and steel whichstrongly contrasts with historic features and build-ings which have been retained and reinstated,(notably at Georges Dock and Customs House) andthe use of swan neck lampposts. The area has beenplanted with avenues of trees.

The townscape quality of Dublin Dock CommercialZone is moderate and its sensitivity to change isalso moderate.

Character Zone 2: Spencer Dock

This area stretches from Guild Street to the westernend of Mayor Street Upper. The area was formerlyused as a maintenance yard for trains and there arerail links from this area to Connolly Stop. Two red-brick buildings, formerly owned by Iarnród Éireannremain in this area as part of the Spencer Dockredevelopment as listed structures.

The site is currently being developed and is there-fore not accessible to the public. The developmentwill include commercial and residential uses andwill include a linear park centred on the GrandCanal. This proposal is expected to bring the areaup to a similar standard of land use and characteras the Dublin Docks Commercial Zone.

The townscape quality of this construction site islow and the sensitivity to change is also low.

Character Zone 3: Dublin Docks Industrial Zone

This area stretches from the western end of MayorStreet Upper in the west to East Wall Road in theEast. The area is characterised by warehouses thatare constructed from a range of modern and his-toric building materials (including Victorian redbrick) with many low quality buildings being used

to house light industry and distribution plants.There are also a number of terraced residentialpremises, usually two storeys high, which line partsof one side of certain streets. There are a numberof protected structures in the area which all lineNorth Wall Quay to the south of the area. Themost notable of these buildings is The Point, whichhas been refurbished to create a popular theatreand indoor concert space.

There are some construction activities in the areawith site clearance and demolition work to thesouth of Sheriff Street Upper, however the majori-ty of the structures and land uses within the areaare proposed to remain as they are today. This con-flicting mix of small-scale residential premisesagainst larger scale, often poorly maintained ware-houses create a fragmented townscape character,which is further amplified by the patches of derelictland and rubbish tips. As a result this area is of lowtownscape quality and the sensitivity to change isalso low also.

130

14.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

14.4.1 Do Nothing ScenarioIf the Luas line C1, or indeed any other form ofpublic transport is not implemented, negativetownscape and visual impacts will result from traf-fic congestion in this area thereby causing an over-all deterioration in environmental quality.

Construction Impacts

Short-term townscape impacts will result from tem-porary alterations to the townscape during the con-struction period. Such activities include temporarytraffic management (both vehicular and pedestri-an), movement of construction machinery, excava-tions and earthworks, storage of constructionmaterials, site compounds, lighting and dust.

The construction activities are predicted to have anegative impact on the townscape in all characterzones. These impacts will be temporary and thustheir significance is not regarded to be as great as

14.4.2 Potential Townscape ImpactsThe impact of the proposals on townscape ele-ments, fabric and associated character is outlined inrespect of both the construction phase and operat-ing phase of the development.

Sensitive Townscape Receptors

Townscape receptors (existing townscape elements)are identified throughout the site and their sensi-tivity is graded according to the methodology andis outlined in Table 14.3a below.

Table 14.3a Sensitivity Rating forTownscape Receptors.

Character Zone Townscape Element SensitivityCZ1 Dublin Docks Avenue of standard trees on mayor Street Lower HighCommercial Zone

High quality stone cobbled paving on Custom House HighSquare and Guild StreetThe inner dock area as an amenity to adjacent residents HighTraditional street lighting which currently occupies the Moderatemain east west street axis.Public square on Mayor Street Lower Moderate

Spencer Dock Royal Canal and linear park HighDublin Docks Industrial Zone Original cobbled paving on Castleforbes Road High

Semi mature tree planting adjacent to The Point Moderate

131

the long term impacts.

Operational Impacts

The construction of the scheme will introduce thefollowing into the existing townscape.

Trams of up to 40m length will travel at 5 minuteintervals during peak periods and at 10 to 15minute intervals during off peak periods, introduc-ing new movement into the townscape, especiallyin pedestrianised areas.

Overhead cables together with supporting polestructures will be installed representing additionalelements which will not benefit the existing town-scape.

Pairs of rails to facilitate two-way traffic will becountersunk into existing paving finishes.Additional track facilities for maintenance will beaccommodated at The Point.

Four tram stops will be located along the lineextension in this area and will include shelters,information display, lighting, vending machines,Smart card validators and advertising drums; CCTVcameras and speakers will be maintained on polesat stops.

The proposed bridge crossing over the Grand Canalis a modern, slender curvaceous design and utilisesmodern materials, namely glass and steel. Thedesign is expected to be visible at short range andto make a contribution to the modern townscape

that has recently evolved in this area.

The magnitude of the change in the physical envi-ronment is judged to be moderate overall, howev-er at each particular location the magnitude ofchange will vary, being higher in locations wherestops are proposed or where significant new infra-structure is required and lower in locations wherechange is limited to the introduction of wires,tracks and passing trams into the existing town-scape.

In addition to the general changes along the lengthof the scheme the following specific impacts upontownscape resources or character were identified.

Character Zone 1: Dublin Dock Commercial Zone

The removal of existing street trees on Mayor StreetLower in order to accommodate trams will result ina substantial negative impact.

Disruption of public open space defined by CustomHouse square will result because of the tram lines,proposed stop and passing thereby generating amoderate negative impact.

Loss of original cobbled setts along a section ofMayor Street Upper between Commons Street andGuild Street resulting in moderate negative impact.

New bridge crossing over the canal between

Georges dock and Inner Dock resulting in slightnegative impact

Character Zone 2: Spencer Dock

Introduction of new access through this site (cur-rently not accessible) that will have a substantialpositive impact.

Introduction of tram movements into an area thatis currently inaccessible to the public that will resultin a substantial positive impact.

New bridge over Royal Canal gaining access to thewestern side of the site, the design of which willgenerate a substantial positive impact.

Character Zone 3: Dublin Docks Industrial Zone

Luas infrastructure that will bring improvements inthe existing streetscape and lighting of the areaand may introduce street planting in an area wherenone exists (substantial positive impact).

Loss of a free standing concrete gable end wall toprovide access for the Luas Line C1 to the proposedend terminal at The Point (slight positive impact).

Introduction of an end terminal and associatedinfrastructure, at The Point, that could have a sub-stantial negative impact on local residents, throughnoise levels and loss of privacy.

Loss of a small area of original cobble setts wherethe Luas Line C1 line crosses Castleforbes Street.Slight negative impact, which will be offset by the

132

overall improvements that the Luas line will bringto the streetscape of the area.

14.4.3 Potential Visual Impacts

Construction Impacts

The construction activities will have negativeimpacts on the viewing experience of all the visualreceptors identified in Figure 14.3 (page 148).Residents, as the most sensitive receptors, will expe-rience the most significant impacts.

Of particular note are the following visual recep-tors that will experience significant negative visualimpacts during construction:

• the many recreational users and office workers inthe commercial zone where construction activitieswill detract from the moderate quality townscapealong Mayor Street Lower;• many residents of the new apartment blocks onMayor Street Lower, all of which front onto roadswhich will be largely reconstructed, widened ordug up to divert services especially the residentsnear the proposed stop at the public square alongthe street who will have elevated views of the con-struction site;• residents of New Wapping Street andCastleforbes Road who will have acute views ofconstruction works at crossroads.

It should be noted that these works will only betemporary and thus their significance is not regard-ed to be as great as the long-term impacts.

Operational Impacts

Visual impacts are recorded in respect of selectedfixed points (viewpoints) throughout the site. Theseare identified, together with a description of theexisting receiving visual environment and predictedimpacts in Tables 14.4a, 14.4b and 14.4c.

Substantial negative visual impacts are recorded inrespect of visual receivers associated with two view-point locations. These are located at the square onMayor Street Lower (Viewpoint 7), and the T junc-tion at Mayor Street Lower and Guild Street(Viewpoint 9). A moderate to substantial negativevisual impact is recorded in respect of Viewpoint 4(Mayor Street lower – Opposite JP Morgan).Moderate negative visual impacts are recorded inrespect of three viewpoints, V1 at Harbourmasterplace, V2 at Georges Dock and V8 at the ClarionHotel.

In terms of positive visual impacts, these are record-ed in two viewpoint locations and are graded asmoderate to substantial, the locations are view-point 17 (crossroads of New Wapping Street andMayor Street Upper) and viewpoint 22 (Eastern endof Mayor Street Upper)

14.4.4 Mitigation MeasuresThe following mitigation measures will be achievedthroughout the construction phase to minimisetownscape and visual disruption in accordance withthe Construction Method Statement to be furtherdeveloped by the Contractor. Please also seeSection 14.9 and Chapter 17, EnvironmentalManagement and Monitoring Programme:

• all site compounds, offices and major works siteswill be fenced off;materials and machinery will be stored tidily duringthe works;

• portable machinery will be stored behind hoard-ing in compounds when not in use;• roads providing access to site compounds andworks areas will be maintained free of dust andmud; • lighting of compounds and works sites will berestricted to agreed working hours and that whichis necessary for security;• temporary hoarding, barriers, traffic managementand signage will be removed when no longerrequired;• contractor’s compounds will be located away fromresidential areas wherever possible;• all existing trees to be retained where possibleand will be protected prior to the commencementof construction in accordance with BS 5837: 1991Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction; and• on completion of construction, all remaining spoil

133

and construction materials will be removed.

Once complete, the proposed Luas Line C1will passthrough a number of areas that could benefit fromenvironmental improvements. The whole area isundergoing redevelopment currently and theremay be opportunities for landscape planting uponcompletion of the redevelopment works.

The following mitigation measure can be carriedout to reduce residual impacts to minimise town-scape and visual disruption of the proposed devel-opment. Specific mitigation measures are detailedbelow:

Street tree planting to enhance the setting of thescheme, anchor it comfortably into the new town-scape (DDDA masterplan 2003) and improve theenvironment of the areas through which Line C1runs.

Street tree planting to filter longer distance viewsof the scheme down side streets from route align-ment. Planting in streets like Castleforbes Road,New Wapping Street, Guild Street and CommonsStreet will have the added advantage of introduc-ing vegetation to an area where there is currentlyvery little or none. The DDDA and private develop-ers will co-ordinate masterplan objectives includingstreet tree planting for the Docklands Area

Protection of specific trees and other landscaperesources of importance for example the walls of

George Dock and Royal Canal. Where features can-not be retained in situ they will be relocated (forexample the original cobble setts along MayorStreet Upper and at the cross roads at Guild Streetand Castleforbes Street).

Mayor Street Bridge Widening: care will be takennot to disrupt the historic walls and these will beprotected during construction and fully retained.The historic lighting posts on the four concrete pil-lars will be stored during this widening phase andreturned to the plinths post-construction. Care willbe taken to integrate the surface drains with thesurrounding materials and high quality detailingwill be provided. Additional infrastructure associ-ated with the bridge widening will be integrated atthe time of construction and a piecemeal approachto signage, which could be visually intrusive, will beavoided.

Spencer Dock Bridge Construction: A design hasbeen developed for the bridge crossing which iscontemporary in style and will be seen to coordi-nate with the urban renewal of the Spencer DockArea. The bridge is consciously designed as a land-mark feature and with the use of modern highquality materials, namely steel and glass, is expect-ed to have a beneficial visual impact in this area.

A distinctive, characteristic and high quality visual‘language’ will be used for all Luas-related infra-structure including the trams, stops, signs, the polesand fixings, the overhead lines, lighting, the substops and equipment boxes and all associatedpaving, kerbing and street furniture. This will be

modern, yet in keeping with the historic elementsof Dublin, and in context to the Docklands area.

Careful location of signage and stops to retainimportant sight lines and vistas, and to avoidunnecessary intrusion into views from housing, forexample, signs and lighting will be located wherethey do not reflect or shine into residents’ win-dows.

Cables will be attached to buildings thereby min-imising the need for supporting poles whichadversely affect townscape character.

Luas rails will be countersunk with the adjacentpaving.

Any barriers (railings, fences or walls) that arerequired for safety, screening or noise reductionwill be designed to fit into and enhance the envi-ronment. Unsightly obstructions will be avoided. Itis not anticipated that there will be any earthmounding or bunding associated with the scheme,with the exception of temporary bunding associat-ed with on site storage of fuel.

14.4.5 Predicted Residual Visual Impacts Moderate to substantial negative visual impacts arerecorded in respect of viewpoint 7 (located onMayor Street Square) and viewpoint 9 (T junctionbetween Mayor Street Lower and Guild Street). Amoderate negative visual impact is recorded inrespect of viewpoint 4 (located on Mayor Street

134

Lower). A moderate to substantial positive visualimpact is recorded in respect of viewpoint 17 (cross-roads of New Wapping Street and Mayor StreetUpper) and a moderate positive visual impact isrecorded in respect of viewpoint 10 (north end ofGuild Street).

14.5 CONCLUSIONS

Construction activities will generally have a nega-tive impact on the townscape character and visualamenity of all three character areas, however thenature of these works is temporary and is notdeemed to be critical. Impacts at the operatingstage are long term and are therefore more critical.These however are restricted, in townscape terms,to the loss of tree planting. In terms of the removalof high quality paving material, these are expectedto be reinstated and indeed, the countersunk finishof the rails outlined in the mitigation measures willresult in a very low overall impact on townscapecharacter. The rail related street furniture at thefour stops locations will detract from the localtownscape in these areas, however, the overallimpact on townscape and townscape character isbeneficial owing to the reduction and removal oftraffic congestion, noise and dust as a result of LuasLine C1.

In terms of visual impact, this is expected to begreatest for residents, workers and visitors located

on or fronting onto the main streetscape throughwhich the Luas will pass. Substantial negative visu-al impacts are recorded for two locations only andindeed positive visual impacts are recorded for atleast two locations. Mitigation measures will ensurethe reinstatement of the high quality new town-scape works. This together with the mitigatingdesign features associated with the Luas and thereduction in traffic volumes will result in an overallbeneficial landscape and visual impact.

135

Visual Amenity

A range of 24 viewpoints were selected for the purposes of the visual assessment. The viewpoint locations are illustrated in Figure 14.3 (page 148)A key to visual receptor types is presented below.

Table 14.4a Existing Visual Amenity

ID Receptor Type of Sensitivity Distance Description of Existing viewLocation Receptor to Change from tram

CZ1: Dublin Dock Commercial ZoneV1 2 Harbour O Moderate Track-side Enclosed views from pavement looking east down tarmac road. 7(+) storey stone and glass

-master Place V modern office developments to each side with smaller red brick retail developments visible near Connolly Stop before road curvesto west. Avenue street planting down roadsides.

V2 Georges Dock R Moderate 0 > 25m Views from seating area at dockside looking west towards bridge with reinstated historic(northern entrance) O features (lighting, stonework etc). Smaller red brick developments in foreground with 7(+)

V storey modern office developments behind with urban street planting at bases. Gap in officesreveals Connolly Stop works, temporary hoarding and cranes in distance.

V3 Georges Dock V Low 100m (+) Distant views of V2 over site work in Georges Dock. Greater surrounding built context visible (southern entrance) from this vantage point and largely composed of (+) 7 storey office developments.

V4 Opposite JP Morgan O Moderate Track-side Views looking east down central spine of Dublin Docks Commercial Area. 6 storey red brick on Mayor Street Lower V offices with urban planting at base on the west and a Listed building now refurbished as CHQ,

Custom House Quarter, a new retail centre on the east featuring Victorian lampposts.

Key to Visual Receptor Types:

H - Residents S - Shoppers O - Office Workers L - Leisure/hotels I - Industrial Workers T - Tourists V - Vehicle users R - Recreational E - Educational (H) – Residents with acute viewing angles

136

Table 14.4a (continued)

ID Receptor Type of Sensitivity Distance Description of Existing viewLocation Receptor to Change from tram

CZ1: Dublin Dock Commercial Zone continuedV5 Inner Dock H Moderate 50m (+) Glimpsed enclosed views looking down antique sett access track with 6 (+) storey office

developments to either side. Semi mature tree and shrub planting on eastern side and youngurban planting on west. Focus of view a 4 storey red brick modern office development.

V6 North end of Commons V Low 100m (+) Distant views down tarmac road enclosed by high stonewall with safety fencing on top to the Street (H) west (residences visible over top). Smaller residential apartments with avenue of young trees

at roadside to the east.V7 Square (northern side) H High 0 > 25m Views from seating in civic square enclosed by tall developments (5 storeys +) with retail

on Mayor Street Lower R outlets at ground level. Hard landscaping features use granite, steel grills and stainless steel O bollards with sculptural elements (painted cows). Oak trees used as feature planting.SE

V8 Clarion Hotel on H Moderate 100m (+) Distant, glimpsed views down tapering pedestrian link (granite flags) towards square on North Wall Quay L Mayor Street Lower. Enclosed by 8-storey residential development on west and similar height

V hotel (The Clarion) on east. Large modern steel lampposts (3 storeys high) line eastern side ofnewly developed pedestrian link.

V9 T-junction at Mayor V High Track-side Enclosed views looking west down road (with reclaimed setts) with red brick 5 storeyStreet Lower and H residential development to north side of street and similar height grey reconstituted stoneGuild Street O finish office development to south side of Mayor Street. Young avenue of trees line both sides

of street (struggling to establish and diseased).V10 North end of Guild St H Moderate 100m (+) Views down wide cobble sett streets enclosed by 6 storey residential development to west and

stone wall with advertisements for proposed Spencer Dock residential development to the east. Glimpsed views of Victorian red brick warehouses on the south side of the Liffey and theDublin Mountains in the distance.

137

Table 14.4a (continued)

ID Receptor Type of Sensitivity Distance Description of Existing viewLocation Receptor to Change from tram

CZ2: Spencer DockV11 Guild Street and North I Low 75m (+) Open views over Royal Canal towards derelict site with rubble and pioneer species plant

Wall Quay corner of growth. Listed train stop brick warehouses to the east and tall office development enclosing works yard western boundary of the site. Stone arch bridge visible on northern side of site with cranes in

the distance piercing the skyline.V12 Showroom apartment S Low 75m (+) Elevated views of V11 with showroom car park and temporary hoarding in foreground.

at Spencer DockV13 Stone arch bridge on V Low 100m (+) Elevated open views over works site towards Listed warehouses and steel fixing rig with

Sheriff Street rubble, skips, scrub and lengths of rusty track visible in foreground. Site enclosed by new officebuildings fronting onto Guild Street with cranes and Dublin Mountains in the distance.

V14 Site entrance to train Vworks yard (North I Low 100m (+) Glimpsed views through iron gate over derelict works yard site with associated machinery WallQuay) including a large steel fixing rig mounted on tracks in foreground. Modern residential

development (Spencer Dock) under construction to the west of the entry gate. Church and spire over the site to the west with rooftops of East Wall visible to the east in the distance.

CZ3: Dublin Docklands Industrial AreaV15 Industrial yard off I Low 50m (+) Views over newly laid tarmac access road over industrial ground with high viewing tower,

Wapping Street waste tips of rubble in centre and low-level brick storehouses in a state of dereliction in the foreground. Industrial buildings in distance with church steeple visible to the west. Site is enclosed by stonewalls with a palisade gate.

V16 South end of New V Low 100m (+) Glimpsed views down tarmac street with no higher than 3-storey timber processing andWapping Street I storage plant to east (mortar finish) and temporary hording advertising Spencer Dock

residential development to the west with elegant Victorian red brick building owned by IrishRail in the background. Glimpse of the rooftops and vegetation of East Wall estate in distance.

V17 Crossroads at New H High Track-side Enclosed views down cul-de-sac end of Mayor street with typical 2 storey houses along north Wapping Street and V western side of crossroads. 2 storey houses with boundary wall on north eastern side of Mayor Street upper crossroads. Church tower visible in background punctuates the sky.

138

Table 14.4a (continued)

ID Receptor Type of Sensitivity Distance Description of Existing viewLocation Receptor to Change from tram

CZ3: Dublin Docklands Industrial Area continuedV18 North end of New V Low 100m (+) Views along tarmac road with red brick 2 and 3 storey residential premises lining the east side

Wapping Street (H) of street (industrial warehouses further down) and site fencing to Treatment Facilities and Systems Co. on the west. Views over Liffey blocked by red brick warehouse on northern side on North Wall Quay, however this is currently under demolition. Cranes and the Dublin Mountains in the distance visible over the top.

V19 Middle of Mayor Street I Low Track-side Enclosed views down concrete road with high (2+ storeys) breeze block walls and mortarUpper between New V finish / concrete warehouses on either side of the street. Upper halves of new residential and Wapping Street and office developments in Dublin Docklands Commercial Zone visible in the distance.Castleforbes Road.

V20 Castleforbes Road V Low 50m (+) Views down cobble sett street with temporary hoarding to west and new flats under opposite Alexander I construction to east. Some residential properties at north end of street. South shore of Liffey Terrace (H) and existing development visible with crane and Dublin Mountains in the distance. Pylons,

lampposts and electricity wires clutter the sky in the foreground. V21 Southern end of V Low 100m (+) Enclosed views between 3+ storey high red brick warehouses down cobble set road with

Castleforbes Road R smaller developments and storage yard boundary walls behind. More industrial buildings in the distance. This view also represents views from the southern shores of the Liffey.

V22 Eastern end of H High Track-side Looking east down tarmac road with corrugated iron warehouses (Crosbie Transport) to the Mayor Street Upper I east of the view and new flats under construction to the west. Some rough scrub outside the

V warehouse to the east and some vegetation in the front gardens of the residential properties.View ends with the gable wall (now freestanding) of a part-demolished warehouse.

V23 Eastern end of Sheriff St V Low 100m (+) Views through palisade fencing over site works towards corrugated iron warehouses. Enclosedto the west by stone warehouses and to the east by Irish Rail yard enclosed by concrete wall.

V24 The Point car park R Low 50m (+) Open views over car park with The Point to west, with semi-mature maples outside. View V enclosed in foreground by freestanding wall that was once part of a warehouse. Petrol stop to

east.

139

Table 14.4b Predicted Visual Impact at operating stage

ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (no mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impactto Change of Change

CZ1: Dublin Dock Commercial ZoneV1 2 Harbour-master Place Moderate Close up views of trams and immediate infrastructure, with some support poles Moderate Moderate

near Connolly Stop and overhead cables seen against the sky. Harbourmaster Place will be reinstated (negative)with tarmac.

V2 Georges Dock Moderate Views of trams and infrastructure in the wider context revealing staggered spacing Moderate Moderate(northern entrance) between support poles, which are seen against the sky in places. Streetscape (negative)

improvements in the immediate vicinity also visible.V3 Georges Dock Low Glimpsed views of sections of trams and infrastructure between smaller Low No Significant Impact

(southern entrance) developments on southern side of Mayor Street Lower. Support poles visible over the top and to a greater extent between smaller developments and set against the context of existing modern developments.

V4 Opposite JP Morgan on Moderate Luas stop proposed for this area, which includes platforms, shelters, signage, High Moderate / SubstantialMayor Street Lower advertising drums, ticket machines and increased lighting that could dominate this (negative)

enclosed view. Acute viewing angle will cause greater clutter by tall structures the further into the distance they are viewed.

V5 Inner Dock Moderate Views of a short section of trams and infrastructure seen against the existing Low Slight (negative)office development.

V6 North end of Low Glimpsed views of a small section of trams and infrastructure that will slowly filter Low No Significant ImpactCommons Street out as existing planting matures (from acute viewing angle of residential

apartments). Trams will increasingly dominate views with proximity.V7 Square (northern side) Moderate Luas stop proposed for this area, which will include platforms, shelters, increased Moderate Slight (negative)

on Mayor Street Lower lighting, ticket machines and advertising. This will alter the character of this area segregating it into two. The RPA will be reinstating all areas of displaced setts and street furniture to accommodate Luas works and maintain functionality of the pedestrian area. Possible glimpse views in the distance of the parapets of the proposed canal bridge crossing. These views will be obscured as development continues in the Spencer Dock area.

140

Table 14.4b (continued)

ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (no mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impactto Change

CZ1: Dublin Dock Commercial Zone continued

V8 Clarion Hotel on Moderate Part of proposed Luas stop will be visible seen as a plan view from hotel and Moderate ModerateNorth Wall Quay residential balconies. This will be seen in the context as part of the square from (negative)

this vantage point and will be set against the existing office developments. V9 T-junction at Mayor High Close up views of trams and infrastructure, which will be filtered (from ground level High Substantial

Street Lower and not from higher residential and office views) as street planting matures. Reclaimed (negative)Guild Street setts will be replaced by modern setts in this area. Canal bridge crossing will be

almost fully in view at street level and will be partly viewed from upper levels of buildings. Windows fronting onto Guild Street will gain maximum views of the bridge.

V10 North end of Moderate Views of a short section of trams and infrastructure that will run through wall into Low Slight (positive)Guild Street proposed residential development at Spencer Dock, which will enclose the view

further, once completed. Overhead cables and support poles will be set against the Dublin Mountains. The bridge crossing will be barely perceptible, filtered through vegetation associated with the proposed canalside linear park.

CZ 2: Spencer DockV11 Guild Street and Low A new bridge and route through the site will need to be constructed to accommodate High Slight / Moderate

North Wall Quay corner the trams and associated infrastructure. This however will not be visible once the (positive)of works yard Spencer Docks residential development has been completed. A part of the long

section or elevation of the canal bridge parapet will be exposed to view as building work continues. Ultimately the views will be filtered by vegetation associated with the linear park.

V12 Showroom apartment Low Support poles and cables will be seen against the existing backdrop of residential High Slight / Moderateat Spencer Dock housing in the distance, however all views will be blocked once Spencer Docks (positive)

development is completed.

141

Table 14.4b (continued)

ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (no mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impactto Change

CZ 2: Spencer Dock continuedV13 Stone arch bridge Low Central new access route will split the site into two and bring extensive upgrading High Slight / Moderate

on Sheriff Street works to the area. Rubble, scrub and dereliction will be cleared and replaced by (positive)trams and infrastructure and modern streetscape. (No views after residential development complete). The proposed canal bridge crossing will be partly exposed to view, in particular the long section view of the parapet.

V14 Site entrance to train Low New access bridge over Royal Canal will enter site at the western foot of modern High Slight / Moderateworks yard (North wall Quay) residential development and dissect the site. Trams and infrastructure will be visible (positive)

with some of the support poles and cables set against the sky in the east. (No views after residential development complete).

CZ3: Dublin Docklands Industrial AreaV15 Industrial yard off Low Views of new trams stop and associated improvements in lighting and street High Slight / Moderate

Wapping Street surfacing. Low-level storehouses and rubble will be cleared to make way for (positive)Luas line to link with Mayor Street Upper (outwith the site). (No views after site redevelopment).

V16 South end of New Low Distant views of short section of trams and infrastructure, with support poles and Low No Significant ImpactWapping Street cables set against the sky. Will be absorbed by to a great extent by existing

lampposts and development.V17 Crossroads at New Moderate Views of new Luas stop. Site wall will be demolished to open up central spine for High Moderate / Substantial

Wapping Street and Luas line through Dublin Docklands. Improved streetscape will be visible. Albeit (positive)Mayor Street Upper Mayor Street is straight and leads the eye directly to the proposed bridge crossing,

views of the bridge may be slight and partially gained.

V18 North end of New Low Glimpsed distant views of trams and infrastructure with support poles and Low No Significant ImpactWapping Street cables set against the Dublin Mountains. Viewing angle from existing residential

premises very acute, therefore reducing the impact.

142

Table 14.4b (continued)ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (no mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impact

to Change

CZ3: Dublin Docklands Industrial Area continuedV19 Middle of Mayor Street Low Views of trams and infrastructure with trams stop in the distance (just past end of High Slight / Moderate

Upper between New dead end street). Luas line will open up a central corridor making it possible to see (positive)Wapping Street and at street level as far as the existing commercial area. Improved streetscape as part Castleforbes Road of overall regeneration will be visible.

V20 Castleforbes Road Low Glimpsed Views of trams and infrastructure at crossroads on street. Streetscape Moderate Slightopposite Alexander improvement and street planting will also be apparent however support poles and (positive)Terrace cables will not be visible over the hoarding once this site is developed. The DDDA

and private developers will co-ordinate responses to the Docklands Masterplan objectives regarding tree planting as well as other broad masterplan objectives.

V21 Southern end of Low Glimpsed view of a short section of trams and infrastructure. Support poles and Low No Significant ImpactCastleforbes Road cables will be seen against the sky however the existing clutter of overhead wires

will absorb them.

V22 Eastern end of Moderate Views of proposed end terminal at eastern end of docks with tram and High Moderate / SubstantialMayor Street Upper associated Luas stop infrastructure. Gable wall to be removed which will open (positive)

up view to Dublin ferry port. Extensive upgrading of streetscapes part of the regeneration.

V23 Eastern end of Low Support poles and cables of Luas infrastructure will be visible over the top of the Low No Significant ImpactSheriff Street fencing, set against the Dublin Mountains and the skyline. Filtered views of trams

and lower parts of infrastructure partially visible through the fencing. (No view after site redeveloped).

V24 The Point car park Low Views of Luas terminus proposed for this area. Freestanding wall will be removed High Slight / Moderateto open views of a central spine through the docks. Support poles and cables and (positive)overhead wires will be seen against the sky.

143

Table Table 14.4c Predicted Residual Visual Impact (with Mitigation Measures)

ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (with mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impactto Change of Change

CZ1: Dublin Dock Commercial ZoneV1 2 Harbour-master Place Moderate Close up views of tram and immediate infrastructure with streetscape Low No significant impact

near Connolly Stop upgrading. Street trees will filter views of cables attached to buildings.

V2 Georges Dock Moderate Cables visible against the sky with new street tree planting to either side Low No significant impact(northern entrance) of bridge. The DDDA and private developers will co-ordinate masterplan

objectives including street tree planting for the Docklands Area. Original features of George Dock retained.

V3 Gorges Dock Low Filtered, glimpsed views of sections of trams and infrastructure between Low No Significant Impact(southern entrance) smaller developments on southern side of Mayor Street Lower. Cables

visible over the top of smaller developments and set against the context of existing modern developments.

V4 Opposite JP Morgan Moderate Luas stop proposed for this area. Swan neck lights retained and used to Moderate Moderateon Mayor Street Lower support cables. Stop furniture thoughtfully placed to minimise clutter (negative)

and promote safe pedestrian movement in this narrow space. Planting and material selected to define the area and give it a unique character.

V5 Inner Dock Moderate Cables seen against existing buildings and screened by street trees down Low Slightaccess roads. Small section of streetscape upgrading also visible. (negative)

V6 North end of Low Cables obscured by increased street planting down Commons Street. Moderate SlightCommons Street (positive)

144

Table Table 14.4c (continued)

ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (with mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impactto Change of Change

CZ1: Dublin Dock Commercial Zone continued

V7 Square (northern side) High Luas stop proposed for this area, which will include a slightly platform, Moderate Moderate / Substantialon Mayor Street Lower shelters, increased lighting, ticket machines and advertising. Stop furniture (negative)

placed to retain singular character of the square and lighting placed on north side of road to reduce glare to residents. Original setts used to pave Commons Street to offset loss. Any glimpse views of the bridge structure that will be gained will be seen as having a positive visual impact. These views are likely to be lost as Spencer Dock develops fully.

V8 Clarion Hotel on Moderate Views obscured by street planting down tapering pedestrian access route. Low SlightNorth Wall Quay (positive)

V9 T-junction at Mayor High Existing street planting increased upon and cables attached to building to Moderate Moderate / SubstantialStreet Lower and reduce linear clutter, which would be amplified from this viewing angle. (negative)Guild Street Views of the bridge structure that will be gained at short range will be seen

as having a positive visual impact owing to its presence as a carefully designed landmark feature.

V10 North end of Moderate Views obscured by street planting. Any glimpse views of the bridge Moderate ModerateGuild Street structure that will be gained will be seen as having a positive visual impact. (positive)

CZ2: Spencer DockV12 Showroom apartment Low Views of the trams, infrastructure, streetscape improvements and new street High Slight / Moderate

at Spencer Dock trees. All views will be blocked once Spencer Docks development is completed. (positive)

V13 Stone arch bridge Low Views of the trams, infrastructure, streetscape improvements and new street High Slight / Moderateon Sheriff Street trees. All views will be blocked once Spencer Docks development is completed. (positive)

Any partial views to be gained of the canal bridge crossing will be considered to have a beneficial visual impact.

145

Table Table 14.4c (continued)

ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (with mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impactto Change of Change

V14 Site entrance to train Low Views of the trams, infrastructure, streetscape improvements and new High Slight / Moderateworks yard (North wall street trees. All views will be blocked once Spencer Docks development (positive)Quay) is completed.

CZ3: Dublin Docklands Industrial AreaV15 Industrial yard off Low Views of new stop and associated improvements in lighting, street surfacing High Slight / Moderate

Wapping Street and street trees. (No views after site redevelopment). (positive)

V16 South end of New Low Views obscured by new street planting. Moderate SlightWapping Street (positive)

V17 Crossroads at New Moderate Views of new Luas stop. Site wall will be demolished to open up central High Moderate / SubstantialWapping Street and spine for Luas Line through Dublin Docklands. Improved streetscape and (positive)Mayor Street Upper extensive planting as part of overall regeneration will be visible. Any part of

the proposed canal bridge crossing will be screened by avenues of trees proposed as mitigation.

V18 North end of New Low Views obscured by new street planting. Moderate SlightWapping Street (positive)

V19 Middle of Mayor Street Low Views of trams and infrastructure with stop in the distance (just past end of High Slight / Moderateupper between New dead end street). Alignment will open up a central corridor; however, street (positive)Wapping Street and planting will absorb the full extent of the development and cables will be Castleforbes Road secured to the new developments, such that support poles will only stretch

to New Wapping Street.V20 Castleforbes Road Low Glimpsed Views of trams and infrastructure at crossroads on street partially Moderate Slight

opposite Alexander filtered by street planting. Displaced original cobbles can be used to repair (positive)Terrace southern end of Castleforbes Street.

146

Table Table 14.4c (continued)

ID Receptor Location Sensitivity Change of View During Operation (with mitigation) Magnitude Significance of Impactto Change of Change

V21 Southern end of Low Views obscured by street planting. Low No Significant ImpactCastleforbes Road

V22 Eastern end of Mayor Moderate Views of proposed end terminal at eastern end of docks with trams and High Moderate / SubstantialStreet Upper associated stop infrastructure. Gable wall to be removed which will open (positive)

up view to Dublin ferry port. Materials and planting will give the terminal its own unique character and furniture will be carefully placed to reduce clutter so the terminal can enhance the area further.

V23 Eastern end of Sheriff Low Support poles of Luas infrastructure will be visible over the top of the Low No Significant ImpactStreet fencing, set against the Dublin Mountains and the skyline. Filtered views of

trams and lower parts of infrastructure partially visible through the fencing and street trees. (No view after site redeveloped).

V24 The Point car park Low Views of Luas terminus proposed for this area. Freestanding wall will be High Slight / Moderateremoved to open views of a central spine through the docks. Opportunity (positive)to use extensive planting and hard landscaping to mirror the existing character of the regenerated The Point.

147

Figure 14.2a Landscape character zones

148

Figure 14.3 Visual Receptor Viewpoints

149

15 CULTURAL HERITAGE

15.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the archaeological and histor-ical context of the area through which the LuasLine C1 is to be developed.

There are no archaeological monuments recordedin the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) andRecord of Monuments and Places (RMP) as beingpresent on the route of the proposed Luas line. Thenearest recorded archaeological sites include thequays and North Wall, and a mill site at TalbotStreet. Amiens Street forms the eastern boundaryof the historic City of Dublin (DU018:020).

15.2 METHODOLOGY

15.2.1 Overview

The purpose of this assessment was the identifica-tion and assessment of the potential impacts asso-ciated with the proposed Luas Line C1 extension onthe archaeological, cultural and historical resourcesof the area.

For the purposes of assessing potential impactsupon cultural heritage, the assessment has focusedupon the following resources:

• site visit(s) to assess the nature of the develop-ment and its impact on archaeological monuments,features and possible deposits;• a detailed record of any upstanding monumentsthat will be affected by the development;• recommendations with regard to visual amenityof the development in relation to the archaeologi-cal landscape; and• recommended mitigation measures to protectarchaeological deposits/features.

These requirements formed the basis of themethodology developed and implemented duringthe assessment of cultural heritage impacts.

In 2004, the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government published theArchitectural Heritage Protection Guidelines forPlanning Authorities under Section 28 and Section52 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.The guidelines relate to development objectives:

• for protecting structures or parts of structures,which are of special architectural, historical, archae-ological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or techni-cal interest; and• for preserving the character of architectural con-servation areas.

Under Section 28 of the Act, planning authorities(including An Bord Pleanála) are required to haveregard to the published guidelines in the perform-

• all sites of archaeological interest:• all pre-1950 buildings and structures;• selected post-1950 buildings and structures ofhigh architectural, cultural and historical signifi-cance and interest; and • landscape and townscape features including sitesof historical events or those that provide a signifi-cant historical record or a setting for buildings ormonuments of architectural or archaeologicalimportance, historic landuse patterns, tracks andcultural elements such as sites referenced in folk-lore, legend, etc.

The geographical scope of the assessment compris-es the proposed alignment of Line C1 plus landwithin a corridor 500m either side of the alignment.Information relating to sites and features outsideof this core area will be referenced where theseprovide insights or parallels to the wider historical,cultural or archaeological context.

15.2.2 Key TasksIn September 2000, Dúchas, the Heritage Service,issued guidance on undertaking archaeologicalassessments within the EIA process, which empha-sised the following:

• documentary and cartographic research regard-ing the location of the proposed development withparticular reference to the archaeological land-scape;

150

ance of their duties.

The baseline investigations involve the compilationand collation of an inventory of recorded historicand cultural resources (including upstanding andburied archaeological resources) of the route align-ment and surrounding area.

15.2.3 Principal SourcesThe following sources were used during the assess-ment of impacts to cultural heritage:

Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) of the NationalParks and Wildlife Service (formerly Dúchas) andthe Office of Public Works. The SMR forms thebasis for the statutory Record of Monuments andPlaces (RMP), which is the list of all archaeologicalmonuments protected under the NationalMonuments Act (Appendix 1).

The topographical files of the National Museum ofIreland (NMI), these identify recorded stray finds,provenanced to townland or city ward or street,and are held in the museum’s archive. Very fewfinds have been recorded in the study area.

the Dublin City Development Plan (2005) was con-sulted to identify buildings, features, sites andother structures listed for preservation or protec-tion. The policy for the listing of buildings forpreservation or protection is set down within thisplan, although this has been superseded by theArchitectural Heritage Act 1999 which regards allbuildings and architectural features listed in the

Development Plan as protected structures. In addi-tion, the Planning and Development Act, 2000(Section 57) prevent developments from materiallyaffecting any protected structure or unique ele-ments of the structure and this will be taken intoaccount when designing the layout of the pre-ferred route. Docklands North Lotts: Planning Scheme 2002 withregard to protected structures.

Members of the study team undertook an initialsite visit and walkover in the autumn of 2001; thearea was revisited during the summer of 2003 toidentify any notable changes. In addition, a reviewof current planning documents was undertakenduring the spring of 2005 to identify whether anyfurther listings or designations had been made inthe interim period.

15.2.4 LimitationsAs this was essentially a desktop review and sitewalk over, no intrusive archaeological investiga-tions were carried out. Nonetheless, this desktopapproach is sufficient for this stage in the assess-ment process.

15.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

15.3.1 Local HistoryThe North Strand was, until the eighteenth centu-ry, a ‘remote wasteland’ between the high and low

tide watermark (De Courcy 1996, 270). Althoughthe city developed throughout the seventeenthcentury towards the south, it was only followingthe establishment of the quays on the banks of theLiffey in the eighteenth century that developmentspilled eastward onto ground that had been afloodplain in the seventeenth century.

During the medieval period the shoreline extendedfrom a small promontory near the Abbey Theatreto the corner of Amiens Street and Store Street. Itcontinued along Amiens Street as far as its junctionwith Portland Row and Seville Street, then ranbetween Ballybough Road and North Strand Roadto Luke Kelly Bridge and on to Fairview andClontarf towards Sutton (De Courcy 1996). Theland above high tide consisted of coarse rivermeadows and would have been dotted with shrubsand trees.

The building of the North Wall (DU018:020564)began in 1710, and in 1717 the city allocated thenew land, which was known as the North Lotts,east of the North Strand to one hundred and thirtytwo individuals.

The reclamation of the area between the city andRingsend on the southern side of the Liffey wasaccelerated by the granting of an estate along thestrand in 1713 to Sir John Rogerson, who immedi-ately began to enclose his new land with a massive

151

sea wall, thus relieving the newly establishedBallast Office of the responsibility. Plans weremade to extend Rogerson’s wall out into the bay toprovide safer entry for shipping into the port,allowing the Ballast Office to concentrate its effortson the northern bank of the river, and as early asMay 1712, work commenced along the line of thepresent-day Eden and Custom House Quays. As thenorthern wall began to extend further into theeastern sloblands, the City Assembly ordered thatthe area between the Tolka and the Liffey rivers,along with the sloblands between the Tolka andClontarf, be re-surveyed and notionally dividedinto 132 lots, to be known as the North Lots(Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin vii, 30-34).

The survey was carried out by Macklin in 1717, andthe resultant schematic map (known as Bolton’sMap after the sitting lord mayor) shows both theplots themselves and the names of the initial lease-holders. The best illustration of what the CityAssembly intended, is Rocque’s Plan of the city ofDublin and the environs (1756), published just asthe reclamation project should have been nearingcompletion.

Rocque depicts the great North Wall as having anunderlying strand extending eastwards for overhalf its length, fronted a wide quayside, withMayor Street running parallel to the north. Thesetwo thoroughfares were linked by six streets,

spaced at regular intervals: an unnamed street tothe west, Commons Street, Guild Street, WappingStreet, Fish Street and the East Wall; the areas inbetween were divided into plots as indicated onthe earlier Bolton’s Map. Further to the north laySheriff Street, again linked to the waterfront byconnecting streets that terminated along its line.The plots between Mayor Street and Sheriff Streetwere wider than those on the waterfront and werepossibly laid out to accommodate the larger housesof the new inhabitants. The area north of SheriffStreet is laid out in larger plots that were accessiblefrom The Strand to the west and from West Road,Church Road, East Road and the East Quay, allangled off Sheriff Street, to the northeast. A poolof water is depicted in the northeastern corner ofthe polder, while there still appear to be streamsrunning through the northern part of the area,indicating the unfinished state of the reclamationwork. The original idea to extend the polder acrossthe Tolka and to lay out the area as far as Clontarfhad been abandoned by the 1730s, and the Tolkawas never channelled into a canal. Reclamation inthis area did not commence until the early years ofthe twentieth century (Myles 2000).

Following the building of the North Quay wall from1710, the development of the North Strand Road,originally known as the Strand, and Amiens Streetbegan. This was an important thoroughfare, and in1717 the Corporation recommended that ‘the road

or strand leading from the Abbotts [Mabbot’s] Walltoward Ballybough Bridge be all eighty feet wide’(De Courcy 1996, 270). Before the end of the cen-tury, the Wide Streets Commission had begun touse the name North Strand. In the final decade ofthe eighteenth century, following the building ofthe Custom House and the development ofBeresford Place, the city end of North Strand wasrelocated at the junction of Store Street andAmiens Street. There had been virtually no build-ing along the North Strand during the eighteenthcentury; however, building continued steadilythroughout the succeeding century. The OrdnanceSurvey map of 1838 shows the west side largelycomplete, although the east side was undevelopedexcept in the vicinity of modern Seville Place. Theuse of the name, Amiens Street, had been adoptedby the Wide Streets Commission by 1826, andapplied to that portion of the North Strand fromthe junction of Portland Row and Seville Place tothe city. The street was renamed after ViscountAmiens, created Earl of Aldborough in 1777, who in1796 built Aldborough House on Portland Row(Sutton 2000).

15.3.2 Buildings of Artistic, Historic andArchitectural MeritThe entire historic core of Dublin is given onegeneric number in the SMR and RMP: DU018:020.All sites within this historic core are prefixed withthis code and are then given their own unique

152

number, e.g. site 505 within the historic core is listed as DU 018:020505. Themaps relevant to the proposed development are sheet 3264D of the Dublin1:5,000 series, and Sheet 18 of the original Ordnance Survey six-inch maps.

Table 15.3a presents the sites recorded in the general area around the C1 LuasLine.

Table 15.3a Buildings of Artistic, Historic and Architectural Merit

15.3.3 Archaeological FindsThe National Museum records very few finds from this area. An iron knife (NMIref. 1954:168), possibly Viking or medieval in date, was found on a gravel bed,presumably the old foreshore, during the digging of the foundations for thechurch on Church Road in East Wall. During the dredging of Dublin Harbour,between the Bull Wall and the North Wall extension in 1970, a wooden boatwas discovered. Although the workmen were not able to lift the boat, they didrecover a rim sherd of red pottery, part of a thin copper vessel, clay pipe frag-ments (NMI ref. 1970:190–197) and a quantity of animal bones.

15.3.4 Protected Structures within the Study AreaThe Dublin City Development Plan (2005) lists a number of structures within thisarea that are to be preserved or protected. This legislation has been supersed-ed by the Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1999, which includes all listed buildings and struc-tures as protected structures. These structures are marked on maps E and F ofthe Dublin City Development Plan.

As the Table 15.3b indicates, most of the buildings in this area are mid-nine-teenth century or later, as one would expect from the date of development ofthe area after its reclamation from the sea. The sites in bold are those situatedon the proposed route. The sites in plain text are in the general area around theproposed routes.

LOCATION: Talbot StreetSITE TYPE: Tide mill and mill pond (site of)RMP NO. DU018:020501 NGR: 31646/23489 MAP NO. 3264D

COMMENT: A tide mill is one in which water is let into a basin at high tide, dammed, andallowed to flow as the tide ebbs, thus driving a mill wheel. Phillips’s map of 1685 showsan extensive tidal pool, which he described as a millpond, between Mabbot’s corner andthe future Mabbot Street (at high tide, two large pools lay behind the shorelinebetween the Portland Row and Amiens Street junction), suggesting that the mill laybehind Mabbot’s Wall and near Mabbot Street. Rocque makes no reference to Mabbot’smill in his map of 1756, as by this time the millpond had been filled in to become pas-ture and gardens.

LOCATION: Abbey St Lower/Amiens StSITE TYPE: Sea wall (site of)RMP NO. DU018:020505 NGR: 31646/23463 MAP NO. 3264D

COMMENT: The sea wall built here is the most southerly element of what was to becomethe North Strand. A wall is shown at this point on de Gomme’s map of Dublin.

LOCATION: Custom House Quay/North Wall QuaySITE TYPE: QuayRMP NO. DU018:020564 NGR: 31801/23439 MAP NO. 3264A/B

COMMENT: This section of the northern city quays was walled from 1710 onwards.

153

Table 15.3b Protected Structures within theStudy Area

Ref. Street Description

99 Amiens Street North Star Hotel100 Amiens Street Connolly Station: all 19th-century portions of the main railway station complex280 Royal Canal Two swing bridges on North Wall Quay over the Royal Canal2135 Custom House Quay Stack A, Stack C (vaults), warehouse2136 Custom House Quay Harbourmaster public house2137 Custom House Quay Swing bridges2138 Custom House Quay The Custom House3205 George’s Dock Limestone ashlar dock walls with granite copings, granite and cast iron bollards, steps, lock gates, cast iron mooring rings,

ladders and winches4062 Inner Dock Limestone ashlar dock walls with granite copings, granite and cast iron bollards, steps, lock gates, cast iron mooring rings,

ladders and winches5166 Mayor Street Lower Former excise building5942 North Wall Quay Royal Canal Swing Bridges5943 North Wall Quay Two Swing Bridges5944 North Wall Quay Granite ashlar quay walls with granite copings, stone setts, bollards, steps, lock gates, mooring rings, lamp standards and machinery5945 North Wall Quay The Wool Store and hexagonal lantern5946 North Wall Quay Former British Rail Hotel5947 North Wall Quay Granite Walls at British Rail Hotel; railings, gates, and adjoining setts in cul-de-sac5948 North Wall Quay Former goods depot (The Point)5949 North Wall Quay CIÉ goods depot, including curved wall and chimneys5950 North Wall Quay No. 47, Campion’s public house5951 North Wall Quay No. 73, façade5952/3 North Wall Quay Nos. 81, 82, business premises8020 Store Street Busáras8021 Store Street Coroner’s Court; façade

154

Among the earliest structures in the area are theInner Dock, George’s Dock and Spencer Dock, all ofwhich were part of the initial infrastructural devel-opment of this area, half a century in advance ofthe railways. Figure 15.3a illustrates the location ofthe protected structures within the study area.

Access to George’s Dock is via a 70m channel andlock leading from the Liffey at an angle of approx-imately 70 degrees. Another channel, 86m inlength, leads into the Inner or Revenue Dock, partof which is now partly occupied by one of theFinancial Services Centre buildings. The continuousroute along the North Wall Quay across theentrance to George’s Lock was originally main-tained by a swing bridge, which was replaced in1935 by twin cast iron Scherzer bridges, similar tothose at the entrance to the Royal Canal at SpencerDock. Of the buildings associated with CustomHouse Docks, Stack A, the Tobacco Store is current-ly undergoing restoration, while only the vaults ofstack C survived the area’s redevelopment for theIFSC.

Luas Line C1 will cross the replacement bridgebetween George’s Dock and the Inner Dock, andthe docks themselves would be the only protectedstructures directly impacted upon by the proposeddevelopment. A section of the proposed route alsocrosses the Royal Canal Dock (at the southern endof Spencer Dock) at Wapping Street. The dock wasoriginally traversed by a bridge (as shown on the

first edition Ordnance Survey maps) before the sev-erance of Lower and Upper Mayor Street by theconstruction of the railway yards to the east of thedock. The second edition Ordnance Survey mapshows the bridge was subsequently removed.

The perimeter of George’s Dock and theHarbourmaster Public House are also in a smallConservation Area, under the Dublin CityDevelopment Plan, (2005). This designation placesrestrictions upon the external appearance of devel-opments in this area, which, as a rule, must notmaterially affect the character of the area. The Planalso lists Mayor Street Lower, Guild Street andSheriff Street Lower as being streets where allstone setts are to be retained, restored or reintro-duced.

The Docklands North Lotts: Planning Scheme (2002)lists the following structures along the proposedroute that require protection:

• Canal Dock at Spencer Dock;• Stone Setts on Guild Street;• Stone Setts on Mayor Street Upper, east end;• Stone Setts on Castleforbes Road;• Stone Setts in the former railway yard adjoiningSpencer Dock; and• The Point at East Wall Road.

The stone setts located on Castleforbes Road andon Mayor Street Upper are the closest protected

structure to Luas Line C1, being located to thesouth of the tracks.

15.3.5 Archaeological Cartographic EvidenceAs described above, Dublin developed on the edgeof the tidal mudflats of the Liffey delta, and thispart of the city was not reclaimed until the late sev-enteenth century. Speed’s map of Dublin (1673)shows the city on the northern side of the Liffeyextending no further east than the approximateline of what would eventually become O’ConnellStreet.

The map entitled ‘The City and Suburbs of Dublinfrom Kilmainham to Rings-End’ by Bernard deGomme, dated to 1673, shows the ‘Road to Howth’,and shows the bay extending from the Strand (nowthe North Strand Road) in a series of tidal islands,as the quay walls were yet to be built. A wallshown by de Gomme running along the Strandroad is believed to be Mabbot’s Wall, mentionedabove. A second map described as ‘A Map ofDublin Harbour 1673’ also by de Gomme describesall of the area now comprising O’Connell Street,Gardiner Street and Abbey Street as ‘marsh ground’(De Courcy 1996).

Charles Brooking’s map of 1728 records that theNorth Quay wall had been built by this time. Thearea was still liable to flooding and the area behindthe North Wall Quay and Custom House Quay, nei-

155

ther of which is named, is marked ‘This Part isWalled in but as yet over flow’d by ye Tide.’Development up to this date has been contained tothe west of Strand Road, which is also unnamed.One structure to the east of this road appears to belocated on what is now Beresford Place or in thegrounds of the Custom House. Mabbot Street, nowCorporation Street, is first named by Brooking.

The plots of land known as the North Lotts, whichwere laid out to the rear of the North Wall, arerecorded on Rocque’s 1756 map of the city ofDublin. The only identifiable structures recordedby Rocque on the newly reclaimed ground are aglasshouse on the quays (DU018:020152), and ‘ThePound’, an enclosure for the detention of stray ani-mals, shown where the entrance to the ConnollyStation vehicle ramp previously stood. Rocque alsoshows The Strand, the newly laid-out Sheriff Street(‘Sherriff Street’) and Mayor Street, which are divid-ed into narrow lots. The reclaimed land ends atwhat is named East Quay.

Duncan’s map of Dublin, published in 1821, showsno additional reclamation, but does indicate thatthe newly reclaimed land was being rapidly devel-oped. The Custom House is shown, as is the newlycompleted Royal Canal. The Royal Canal Dock andSpencer Dock, and the Old Dock (beside the CustomHouse), Inner Dock and Richmond Dock are allshown.

and Western Railway station.

In addition to the Dublin and Drogheda terminus,two other termini were also built: the London andNorthwestern Railway with its stations between theGrand Canal Docks and Wapping Street, and theGreat Southern and Western Railway, with a stationbetween East Wall or East Quay and North Wall.Further land had been reclaimed by the late nine-teenth century and further slips and yards areshown to the east of the East Wall.

As the Wide Street Commissioners laid out StoreStreet and Beresford Place during the late eigh-teenth century, a terrace of vast warehouses waserected on what was subsequently the site ofBusáras (McCullough, 1989). On the 1847, 1866 and1889 Ordnance Survey map editions, the warehous-es, comprising ‘Old tobacco stores’ and ‘Stores forgeneral goods’ extend across Amiens Street at itsjunction with Store Street. The Old Dock beside theCustoms House was not filled in until 1927, andonly as recently as 1952 was Beresford Place extend-ed over the new ground to enclose the CustomHouse in a semicircular street. This extension alsobranched northwards to meet the junction of StoreStreet and Amiens Street to form Memorial Street.

The first edition Ordnance Survey six-inch mapshows increased development around the docks,with timber yards, warehouses, and a variety ofindustries extending down the North Wall. MayorStreet is a continuous line from Commons Street tothe East Wall Road, although the dotted lines alongparts of the street suggest the area had not beenfully developed. There is a ‘Baths’ shown at thejunction of Mayor Street and East Wall Road.

By the time the second edition Ordnance Surveymap was produced in 1875, the ‘Drogheda RailwayTerminus’ had been constructed, but the Stationvehicle ramp, constructed in 1875, would not berecorded until a later addition, published in 1889.An enclosing wall around the site of the new termi-nal on the second edition continues along the lineof Amiens Street to Store Street. This map showsextensive stores around the new Dublin andDrogheda line (subsequently the Great NorthernRailway) terminus, including goods stores, a tobac-co store (Stack A), a sugar store, and two ‘SpiritVaults’. One of the main effects the railways hadwas to interrupt the streets running down throughNorth Wall; while bridges were built over SheriffStreet, Mayor Street was divided between MayorStreet Lower to the west of the Royal Canal, andMayor Street East to the east of the London andNorth Western Railway Station. The street was alsotruncated at the eastern end by the Great Southern

156

15.3.6 Site InspectionThe Luas Line C1 route was walked in November 2001 and August 2003.

The route begins at Connolly Station. The route then runs past the IFSC andover the bridge at Harbourmaster Place, between the two Custom House Docks.The route then crosses Commons Street, and runs down Mayor Street past theformer excise building (now a bar) (image below). There are several survivingareas of cobbling along Mayor Street. The wall along Spencer Dock at GuildStreet is in very good condition, but appears to have been rebuilt in places, assome areas are of roughly coursed limestone, while other areas are stringcoursed.

Excise Bar, IFSC

Spencer Dock is somewhat dilapidated, although the Scherzer bridges are ingood condition, and the dock is relatively clear of debris. The area whereMayor Street crossed the canal is rather disturbed and has been partly rebuilt.The canal is tidal as far as the first lock at Newcomen Bridge. The rest of thewestern side of the yard is largely derelict, although some cobbling and railwaytracks survive, and the eastern side of the yard is still in use by CIÉ. This area iscurrently under redevelopment.

The boundary wall on New Wapping Street is lower than that on Guild Streetand although it appears to be well built, it sags in places. Mayor Street Uppercontinues eastwards from a small truncated portion to the west of NewWapping Street, past several terraces of houses on the junction between thetwo streets, which are shown on the 1935 OS six-inch map, but not on the sec-ond edition.

Mayor Street Upper continues eastwards through somewhat dilapidated yardsand warehouses. There are extant areas of cobbling, as at the junction withCastleforbes Road. The street peters out to the rear of some warehouses builtto the rear of The Point. The IFSC buildings at Harbourmaster Place are visiblefrom the end of the street.

15.4 LIKELY EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENT IN ABSENCE OF DEVELOPMENT

As the area through which the Luas Line C1 extension is planned to pass isscheduled for considerable redevelopment over the forthcoming 10-15 years,some disturbance to subsurface archaeological deposits is likely even in theevent of the Luas Line C1 not proceeding.

157

15.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

15.5.1 OverviewWith the exception of a few sites at the far westernend of the route, there are no archaeological fea-tures recorded within the study area.

The nearest recorded archaeological sites includethe Quays and North Wall, and a mill site at TalbotStreet. Amiens Street forms the eastern boundaryof the historic City of Dublin.

15.5.2 Construction ImpactsExcavation works will take place along the LuasLine C1 route for the preparation of foundations,installation of tracks, associated services anddrainage, hard surfaces and landscaping.

Although such disturbance of subsurface depositshas the potential to impact upon features ofarchaeological significance, much of the route is tobe constructed over areas of fill material importedinto the area during reclamation works in the eigh-teenth and nineteenth centuries. As such the like-lihood of construction works revealing archaeolog-ical deposits is considered slight but should suchfeatures be identified, due process will be imple-mented.

The construction works may result in the distur-bance of the protected stone setts in Castleforbes

Road and Mayor Street Upper; in circumstanceswhere such disturbance is unavoidable, cobbles willbe removed, under supervision, for reinstatementfollowing the completion of construction works.

15.5.3 Operation ImpactsThere are no archaeological features recordedwithin the study area.

Buildings of historical interest such as the Excisebuilding on Mayor Street would not appear to beeffected by the operational phase other than bythe appearance of wires.

Luas Line C1 will have no significant direct or indi-rect impact on these monuments or their settings.

15.6 MITIGATION MEASURES

The recommendations in this report are subject todiscussion with and approval from the NationalParks and Wildlife Service, the City Archaeologist,and the relevant local planning authority.

The RPA will ensure full adherence to the relevantsections of National Monuments Legislation(1930–1994) and Architectural Heritage legislation(1999), which state that in the event of the discov-ery of archaeological finds or remains, the Office ofPublic Works (formerly Dúchas) and the NMI shouldbe notified within four days.

The recently published statutory ArchitecturalHeritage Protection, guidelines for PlanningAuthorities (2005) requires that proposals to widensections of a bridge that is a protected structureshould ensure the least possible structural and visu-al damage to the bridge. However, the George’sDock bridge is not a protected structure. Elsewherewithin the guidelines, where work to canals is con-sidered, the minimum possible impact is requiredand expert advice is identified as a possibility. TheRPA has considered this in the design of the routealignment.

The RPA will make appropriate provision to allowfor and fund whatever archaeological work may beneeded on the site if any remains are noted aftertopsoil removal.

15.7 PREDICTED RESIDUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

The new route will have a positive benefit, in thatit will restore Mayor Street to its former length,rejoining Upper and Lower Mayor Street after theirone hundred and fifty year severance by the rail-way yard, which is now largely derelict, althoughthere are some railway buildings, tracks and cob-bling of historical and architectural interest still onthe site. This will reinstate the street as shown byRocque; whose maps show the street as it was laidout immediately after the reclamation project was

158

completed. The bridge that originally crossed overSpencer Dock or Royal Canal Dock, which wasremoved in the mid-nineteenth century will needto be reinstated to allow the tram to cross the dock.

There are relatively few features that would bedirectly affected by the route under consideration,and these are listed in the preceding tables.Buildings of historical interest such as the excisebuilding on Mayor Street would not appear to beeffected other than by the appearance of wires, asthere is to be no structural element attached to orsituated immediately in front of such buildings,these would not be adversely affected by the con-struction of Luas Line C1. General features of inter-est that should be restored or reinstated after con-struction would include kerbing or cobbling whereencountered along the route, Commons Street andMayor Street Upper and Lower.

15.8 CONCLUSIONS

The route discussed in this report crosses an area ofland that was reclaimed from the tidal mudflats atthe mouth of the River Liffey from the early eigh-teenth century onwards. The area is characterisedby industrial and infrastructural activity includingthe Royal Canal Docks, the Custom House Docksand several railways and rail terminals. With theexception of a few sites at the far western end ofthe proposed route, there are no archaeological

features recorded within the study area.

This route option has the advantage of avoidingthe early eighteenth century docks, and their asso-ciated cobbling quay walls, and other features pro-tected by the Architectural Heritage legislation.Overall the route option is more in keeping withthe industrial heritage of the area, confining thelight rail system to the area of Connolly Station andavoiding the earlier dockland features.

Harbourmaster Pub

Custom HouseScherzer Bridge

159

Figure 15.3a Protected Structures

160

161

16 CUMULATIVE AND CROSS-MEDIA IMPACTS

16.1 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

The scope of this chapter of the EIS has beenderived through reference to the EPA’s Guidelineson the Information to be contained in environmen-tal Impact Statements (2002) and the EuropeanCommission’s Guidelines for the Assessment ofIndirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as ImpactInteractions (E.C. 1999).

The purpose of this chapter is to determine theinter-relationships between Luas Line C1 and thevarious affected environmental media. Thisincludes cumulative impacts (impacts which accu-mulate over space or time to generate a largeroverall impact), cross-media impacts and otherimpact interactions.

The EC Guidelines state why this is an importantpart of the EIA process:

“An impact which directly affects one environmen-tal medium may also have an indirect impact onother media (sometimes referred to as cross mediaimpacts). This indirect effect can sometimes bemore significant than the direct effect.”(E.C. 1999, p8)

For example, in the absence of the analysis of indi-rect impacts, insignificant amounts of soil enteringthe canal may not constitute a significant impact,

ronment” is defined as all aspects of the environ-ment that are described in Chapters 6-15. As such,the geographical scope of the assessment is vari-able with certain impacts not going beyond theimmediate footprint of Luas Line C1 (e.g. impactson archaeology), whilst others may have impacts ata distance from the site (e.g. noise, traffic andtransport etc.).

16.3 IMPACT INTERACTION MATRIX

The proposed development includes both the con-struction and operational phases. These have beensub-divided into aspects of the development thatwere identified as being sources of impacts inChapter 6-15. These impact sources form the verti-cal axis of the matrix in Figure 16.3a and are struc-tured as described in Table 16.3a.

however in combination with an increase in vibra-tion levels, the cumulative impact on aquaticspecies may be more significant.

The scope of study therefore covers all of theaspects of the proposed development and all of theenvironmental media described in Chapters 6-15.

16.2 METHODOLOGY

There are several methods by which cumulativeimpacts, cross-media impacts and impact interac-tions can be identified and evaluated. Key to bestpractice in the evaluation and resolution of theseaspects is their consideration throughout the EIAprocess, thereby ensuring that due account is takenof how the proposed development may affect thevarious environmental media and of how the proj-ect design may be altered to take any significantimpacts into account.

Following the completion of the various EIA techni-cal studies, a validation process was initiated usinga summary matrix that allowed the impacts of cer-tain project activities (e.g. excavation, traffic move-ments) upon certain environmental media (e.g.ecological resources, water resources and quality)to be presented in a readable format. The matrix ispresented as Figure 16.3a below.

For the purposes of this section, the “receiving envi-

162

Table 16.3a Potential Sources of ImpactsStage of Source of ImpactDevelopment

Construction General Construction Works (inc. utility diversion)Re-direction of Traffic Movements of Construction TrafficChanges to local access Erection of temporary ancillary developments Employment opportunitiesAccidental spillages of chemicalsRemoval of vegetationRemoval and disposal of soilInstallation of hardstanding areas

Operation Movement of LUAS vehicles on-streetChanges to traffic flow Changes to local vehicular accessChanges to city-wide accessAccess for pedestrians and cyclistsPresence of permanent structures

The horizontal axis comprises the impact receptor (e.g. human beings, noiseand vibration) that may be affected by aspects of the project. Each of thesecomponents is described in more detail in Chapters 6-15.

The matrix is a method of presenting the results of evaluating the significanceof project impacts on the environment. The significance of the impact isdescribed using specific terms that are defined in more detail in Table 16.3bbelow and are based upon the definitions contained within the revised EPA EIAGuidelines.

Table 16.3b Impact Significance

Positive impact A change that improves the quality of the environment (for example, by reducing vehicular emissions; or improving social mobility and accessibility, or removing nuisances or improving amenities).

Negative impact A change that reduces the quality of the environment (such as, for example,a deterioration in air quality or diminishing the mobility and accessibility; ordamaging health or property or by causing nuisance).

Neutral impact A change that does not affect the quality of the environment.

Imperceptible An impact capable of measurement but without noticeable positive/negative consequences. impact

Slight positive/ An impact that causes noticeable changes in the character of negative impact the environment without affecting its sensitivities.

Significant positive/ An impact that, by its character, magnitude, duration or negative impact intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the environment.

Profound positive/ An impact that obliterates sensitive characteristics.negative impact

163

Figure 16.3a Impact Interaction Matrix 16.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTSCumulative impacts result when a number of distinct impacts are added togeth-er, in time or space, to create one larger, more significant impact. Figure 16.3afacilitates the identification of cumulative impacts resulting from the proposeddevelopment alone, by highlighting where impacts may occur against any par-ticular environmental media more than once. Looking vertically down the col-umn, it can be seen that the impact receptor that may receive impacts from sev-eral sources include human beings, traffic and transportation and noise andvibration.

Cumulatively, these impacts may be significant if they occur close together interms of location and time. Therefore it is important to consider if the impactson human beings etc. may occur in different locations or in one location. In thecase of the proposed Luas Line C1, the impacts will all be concentrated in a rel-atively small area. Whilst this may generate a significant cumulative impact ona local scale, it does mean that the impact does not affect traffic and transportor human beings across other areas of the city of Dublin and that the physicalextent and therefore duration of the impact is limited.

Cumulative impacts may also result from impacts occurring on the environmentas a result of several developments occurring in the same location or at thesame time. Prediction of these types of cumulative impacts is limited by theaccuracy of information on the intended programme for other developmentsthat may occur at the same time as the proposed Luas scheme or the probabili-ty that such development activities will overlap.

For example, as a result of the extensive redevelopment programme for theDublin Docklands area (new housing, office space, National Conference Centreand hotel, proposed new bridge crossing the Liffey, redevelopment of The Pointetc), the impact of Luas Line C1 on local social patterns and local amenity willbe that of a contributor to a wider cumulative impact, rather than an isolated

Impact Source / ReceptorConstruction

Operation

Imperceptible positive/negative:

Slight negative:

Significant negative:

Profound negative:

General Construction Works (inc. utility diversion)

Movement of Luas vehicleson-streetChanges to traffic flowChanges to local vehicularaccessChanges to city-wide accessAccess for pedestrians and cyclistsPresence of permanent structures

Re-direction of Traffic

Changes to local access

Employment opportunitiesAccidental spillages of chemicalsRemoval of vegetationRemoval and disposal of soilInstallation of hardstanding areas

Erection of temporaryancillary developments

Movements of Construction Traffic

Human Beings

Traffic and Transportation

Flora and Fauna

Geology and Soil

Water Resources

Noise and Vibration

Electromagnetism

Air Quality and Climate

Townscape and Visual

Cultural Heritage

Slight positive:

Significant positive:

Profound positive:

164

direct impact. A listing of specific cumulativeimpacts that may arise is provided below.

Construction Cumulative Impacts

Construction noise – the extensive nearby develop-ments being constructed along the route, manybeing constructed concurrently with Luas Line C1.

Traffic and pedestrian disruption – other develop-ments under construction will simultaneously becausing such disruption and associated severanceand reduced access to local residences, businessesand retail outlets at times.

Operational Cumulative Impacts

Regeneration of the Docklands area - Luas will playa key role in allowing and enhancing the futuredevelopment planned for the area, as set out in theDocklands North Lotts Planning Scheme 2002.

Accessibility - Will improve transport access to thearea, and thus attract new businesses and residentsto the area.

Improved traffic flow - In conjunction with theother Luas lines being developed and the DublinPort Tunnel, Luas Line C1 will improve local andregional traffic flow as a result of removing vehiclesfrom the road.

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Indirect impacts are self-explanatory and involve animpact on an environmental component that iscaused by the proposed development influencing adifferent environmental component.

As Figure 16.5a shows, there are a limited numberof indirect impacts that are expected. These arecaused by the impacts on traffic and transport,noise and vibration and townscape and visualimpacts. They all impact upon human beings duringthe construction phase where they have a negativeimpact, albeit temporary, short-term and reversible.There are also indirect impacts upon air quality andclimate and noise and vibration as a result of trafficand transport impacts. Again these impacts aretemporary and short-term and will become positivein nature as operations commence.

165

Table 16.5a Key Indirect and Cross - Media Impacts

Important Source Traffic and Transportation Noise and Vibration Townscape and Visual (horizontal axis) on receptor (vertical axis)

Human Beings Temporary short-term negative Temporary short-term negative Temporary short-term negativeimpacts as a result of restrictions impacts as a result of restrictions impacts as a result of restrictionson traffic flows, access during on traffic flows, access during on traffic flows, access duringconstruction. Will change to long-term construction. Will change to construction. Will change topositive during operation. long-term positive during long-term positive during

operation. operation.

Noise & Vibration Temporary, short-term negative impacts as a result of construction activities. Will change to long-term positive during operation.

Air Quality and Climate Temporary, short-term negative impacts as a result of construction activities. Will change to long-term neutral during operation

166

16.6 RESIDUAL IMPACTSResidual Impacts represent the degree of environmental change that will occurafter mitigation measures are applied. Table 16.6a summarises the residualimpacts that are expected to arise after mitigation measures have been success-fully implemented.

Table 16.6a Summary of Residual Impacts

Environmental Residual ImpactMediaHuman Beings Positive residual impacts on regeneration opportunities and

public transport.

Traffic and Positive residual impacts on traffic and transportation throughTransportation reduction in traffic journey times and reductions in traffic

volumes, resulting in significant residual positive impacts for pedestrians.

Noise and Vibration Daytime construction noise impacts will be short-term but significant near sensitive receptors. Predicted noise levels during operation are less than the current ambient noise levels recorded and are therefore not significant.

Air Quality and Climate The operation of Luas is predicted to cause negligible residualimpacts to air quality at sensitive receptors.

Townscape and Visual Construction activities will generally have a negative impact on the townscape character and visual amenity of all three character areas; however as these works are temporary, impacts are not considered to be significant. There are positive residual impacts associated with improvements in

streetscapes, lighting, access and circulation, although there are some negative residual visual impacts along Mayor Street Lower.

Cultural Heritage Minor positive impacts, with the restoration of Mayor Street toits former length, rejoining Upper and Lower Mayor Street after their one hundred and fifty year severance by the railwayyard.

Chapters 6-15 of this EIS include a range of comprehensive mitigation and man-agement measures, which will ensure that the impacts on the individual envi-ronmental media are reduced to acceptable levels. These measures have beenconsolidated in Chapter 17, Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan,which can be used as a single, consolidated set of measures, which will allowcumulative and cross-media impacts to be mitigated effectively. Nevertheless,there will be measurable changes to the receiving environment that are resid-ual impacts.

16.7 TECHNICAL LIMITATIONSThe judgements and considerations made within this EIS are considered techni-cally valid in light of the available information and technical expertise.

16.8 CONCLUSIONSThe mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be implemented inan integrated manner within an overall framework of measures. This will allowefficient coverage of the different environmental media and permit cumulativeimpacts to be addressed at an early stage.

167

17 STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT

The Environmental Impact Assessment processinvolved several stages. Initially the most appropri-ate alignment for the Luas Line C1 was identifiedthrough a Route Assessment Study. This stage ofthe assessment involved the identification, evalua-tion and comparison of a number of potentialalignments to identify a preferred route or combi-nation of routes. The preferred route, the MayorStreet alignment, that was chosen offered, compar-atively, the smallest environmental impact andmaximum operational, public transport benefits.

A detailed environmental impact assessment wasthen undertaken for this preferred route. This EIAprocess enabled the preferred route to be exploredin more detail in order to enhance its benefits andminimise its negative impacts.

At the heart of the EIA process was a series of tech-nical studies that were undertaken from November2001 to April 2005. These technical studies includ-ed detailed baseline studies, field surveys and con-sultation on the following topics:

• Social and Economic Context;• Planning and Development Context;• Traffic and Transportation;• Ecological Resources;• Geology and Soil;

• Water Resources;• Noise and Vibration;• Electromagnetic;• Climate and Air Quality;• Townscape and Visual; and• Cultural Heritage.

These topic areas, and the methods employed toassess likely impacts, were identified and definedduring the scoping stage as being of potential sig-nificance, either during the construction or opera-tion of the proposed new line extension.

Data generated by the study were then analysed inorder to identify potential impacts and the possibleinteractions of impacts on a variety of media.Consequently, and of particular importance, theEIA identified a range of mitigation and manage-ment measures, which will ensure that the negativeimpacts on the individual environmental media arereduced to acceptable levels, whilst maximisingpotential environmental benefits.

The EIS concluded that although there will be sev-eral potentially negative impacts, once suitablemitigating measures are successfully implemented,none of these will be significant in the long term.Significant positive impacts will result from the pro-posed development, including improved access tothe Docklands area, a reduction in traffic flows andconsequential air quality benefits. The EIS also

recommended several management measures toensure that these key benefits are realised through-out the construction and operation of Luas Line C1.

168

Legend

Landscape Insertion Plans

Store Street to Mayor Street

169

Legend

Landscape Insertion Plans

Mayor Street to Mayor Square

170

Legend

Landscape Insertion Plans

Mayor Square to Spencer Dock

171

Legend

Landscape Insertion Plans

Spencer Dock to First Link Road

172

Legend

Landscape Insertion Plans

First Link Road to Castleforbes Road

173

Legend

Landscape Insertion Plans

Castleforbes Road to The Point Depot

174

RPA Consultation Newsletter March 2003 (outside spread)

175

RPA Consultation Newsletter March 2003 (inside spread)

176

INTRODUCTIONThe data presented in the following tables arederived from the Traffic Modelling undertaken byFaber Maunsell (1) .

Table 1.1 CO2 Emissions from AffectedRoutes in the Do Nothing Scenario

Road Name Annual Emissions ofCO2 from Traffic (tonnes/year)

N. Amiens Street 369Amiens - Harbourmaster 2Harbourmaster Place 2Harbourmaster - Commons 28N. Commons Street 193S. Commons Street 130North Wall Quay West 727North Wall Quay East 706Commons - Guild 99N. Guild Street 97S. Guild Street 59Spencer Dock - New Link 2N. First Link Road 20S. First Link Road 19Second Link - New Wapping 2N. New Wapping Street 18S. New Wapping Street 23New Wapping - Castleforbes 7N. Castleforbes Street 140S. Castleforbes Street 142Castleforbes - Third Link 7TOTAL 2,793

Table 1.2 CO2 Emissions from Affected Routes and the Change from the Do NothingScenario

Road Name Do Nothing 2008 Luas 2008 Annual Change in CO2Annual Emissions Emissions of CO2 Emissions (tonnes/year)of CO2 from Traffic from Traffic (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year)

N. Amiens Street 369 324 -45Amiens - Harbourmaster 2 0 -2Harbourmaster Place 2 2 0Harbourmaster - Commons 28 25 -3N. Commons Street 193 209 15S. Commons Street 130 181 51North Wall Quay West 727 801 74North Wall Quay East 706 846 139Commons - Guild 99 92 -7N. Guild Street 97 98 1S. Guild Street 59 51 -7Spencer Dock - New Link 2 2 0N. First Link Road 20 23 3S. First Link Road 19 22 3Second Link - New Wapping 2 1 -1N. New Wapping Street 18 23 4S. New Wapping Street 23 26 3New Wapping - Castleforbes 7 11 4N. Castleforbes Street 140 129 -11S. Castleforbes Street 142 131 -11Castleforbes - Third Link 7 7 0TOTAL 2,793 3,002 209

Supporting information on Climate and Air Quality

177

Table 1.4 Do Minimum Pollutant Concentrations at SensitiveReceptorsReceptor NO2 Annual PM10 Annual Number Benzene

Mean µg m-3 Mean µg m-3 of days AnnualPM10 Mean24hour µg m-3

mean >50µg m-3

1 Store Street 37.26 20.59 4.16 4.92Commerzbank 38.25 21.17 4.98 4.95Spencer Dock Apart- 37.82 20.75 4.38 4.91ments (NE Corner)(a)

PWH Coopers, 37.74 20.71 4.33 4.91Spencer Dock (a)

Roadside, Second Link 37.14 20.46 3.98 4.90- New Wapping Link(b)

No 5 Mayor Upper St 37.57 20.69 4.30 4.91Roadside, New Wapping 37.15 20.47 4.00 4.90– Castleforbes Link(b)

Roadside, Castleforbes 37.46 20.58 4.14 4.90– Third Link Link(b)

Assessment Criteria 40 40 7 5The distance of these receptors to the roads included in the assessment have been esti-mated from plans on the brochure for the Spencer Dock development. www.spencerdock.ieA worst case estimate of concentrations of pollutants at the roadside has been used, asthere were no identifiable sensitive receptors along the route.

Table 1.3 Changes in Traffic as a Result of the Operation of Luas2008

Road Name Do Minimum With Luas % ChangeTraffic Flows Traffic Flows in Traffic(annual (annual average daily average dailyflows) flows)

N. Amiens Street 20368 20736 2Amiens – Harbourmaster 1518 0 -100Harbourmaster Place 362 363 0Harbourmaster - Commons 2218 2337 5N. Commons Street 8355 8418 1S. Commons Street 7056 7549 7North Wall Quay West 31061 32782 6North Wall Quay East 31110 33290 7Commons – Guild 5270 5043 -4N. Guild Street 8253 7856 -5S. Guild Street 4902 3620 -26Spencer Dock - New Link 506 503 -1N. First Link Road 1202 1828 52S. First Link Road 1048 1693 61First Link – Second Link 0 0 0N. Second Link Road 0 0 0S. Second Link Road 0 0 0Second Link – New Wapping 216 184 -15N. New Wapping Street 1385 1586 15S. New Wapping Street 1548 1686 9New Wapping - Castleforbes 183 215 18N. Castleforbes Street 8124 7449 -8S. Castleforbes Street 8047 7418 -8Castleforbes - Third Link 173 233 34N. Third Link Road 0 0 0S. Third Link Road 0 0 0Source: Faber Maunsell

178

Table 1.5 Pollutant Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors in 2008Receptor Do Nothing NO2 Do Nothing PM10 Do Nothing Benzene Change in NO2 Change in PM10 Change in Benzene

Annual Mean µg m-3 Annual Mean µg m-3 Annual Mean µg m-3 Annual Mean µg m-3 Annual Mean µg m-3 Annual Mean µg m-3

as a Result of Luas as a Result of Luas as a Result of Luas1 Store Street(a) 37.26 20.59 4.92 Decrease of 0.26 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.19 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.02 µg m-3

Commerzbank 38.25 21.17 4.95 Increase of 0.08 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.04 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.01 µg m-3

Spencer Dock 37.82 20.75 4.91 Decrease of 0.14 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.01 µg m-3 No ChangeApartments (NE Corner)(b)

PWH Coopers, 37.74 20.71 4.91 Decrease of 0.13 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.01 µg m-3 No ChangeSpencer Dock(b)

Roadside, 37.14 20.46 4.90 Decrease of 0.11 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.01 µg m-3 No ChangeSecond Link - New Wapping Link(c)

No 5 Mayor 37.57 20.69 4.91 Increase of 0.21 µg m-3 Increase of 0.08 µg m-3 No ChangeUpper StreetRoadside, New 37.15 20.47 4.90 Increase of 0.12 µg m-3 Increase of 0.06 µg m-3 No ChangeWapping – Castleforbes Link(c)

Roadside, 37.46 20.58 4.90 Decrease of 0.08 µg m-3 Decrease of 0.03 µg m-3 No ChangeCastleforbes -Third Link Link(c)

Assessment 40 40 7 5 Assessment Criteria 40Criteria

(a) This road link will be closed once the Luas scheme is in place, hence the data used is taken from the background concentrations for 2002 used in the DMRB assessment. This isa worst case scenario, as it is almost certain that background concentrations in 2008 will be lower than those measured in 2002.(b) The distance of these receptors to the roads included in the assessment have been estimated from plans on the brochure for the Spencer Dock development. www.spencer-dock.ie(c) A worst case estimate of concentrations of pollutants at the roadside has been used as there were no identifiable sensitive receptors along the route.

179

Notes:

180

Notes:

181