An Bord Pleanála
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Mr. Christy O’Sullivan
- Mr. Sean McGrath
- Mr. Matt Harley
- Mr. Robert Kelly
Transport and trafficThis module was conducted on three separate days 23 /04/07, 25/04/07 and 03/05/07 to facilitate absence of Mr. Flanagan (for the planning authority) on 24/04/07 (The proceedings of the first two days are as narrated by Jerry Barnes) First party submissions Mr. Paul Coughlan is a civil engineer and a Director of Arups. He submitted a written text (Submission A) and a number of figures which were extracts from the EIS (Submissions B – F). He read from his evidence. Mr. Coughlan outlined his qualifications and background. He summarised the key findings of the Traffic Impact Assessment. Proposed Development The main transport features of the proposed development are:
Traffic Generation Mr. Coughlan outlined the basis for the traffic generation forecasts. This was based upon estimating the daily passenger numbers which arose from likely aircraft scheduling patterns and converted to numbers of passengers at the Arrivals and Departures gates. The phased development of Terminal 2 was based upon the maximum number of departing passengers that can be handled by the terminal per hour. The Terminal 1 Phase 1 peak was 4,200 departing passengers per hour and Phase 2 was 5,500. Based on the DAA’s Centre Growth Forecast, Phase 1 capacity would be reached by 2015-16 and Phase 2 would be fully utilised by 2021. Employee forecasts are extracted from the Strategic Environment Assessment for the LAP. Table 1 in Mr. Coughlan’s evidence is Table 6.11 of the EIS. Modal choice forecasts were developed and included all public and private bus services and Metro North services to the Airport by 2024. Table 2 of his evidence is extracted from Table 6.12 of the EIS. Based on this, a two way traffic generation (veh/hr) for each impact assessment scenario was calculated. Table 3 of the submitted evidence correlates with Table 6.15c of the EIS. In particular, Mr. Coughlan notes that the increase in car trips for air passengers between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenario is not pronounced in the AM peak because air travel is expected to be concentrated in the early morning for European departures and the middle of the day for European arrivals and trans-Atlantic departures. Thus, Terminal 2’s impact upon the road traffic is mitigated during the peak commuter periods. The decrease in trips in the 2024, in comparison with the 2012, is due to the influence of Metro. Strategic Transport Assessment The assessment has been undertaken for the years 2012 and 2024. The opening year would be 2009. An assessment for 2012 was undertaken as the worst case scenario prior to the opening of Metro. A Do Minimum and Do Something scenario was assessed. Table 4 of his submission is taken from Table 6.16 of the EIS. The text of his submission in relation to the strategic transport assessment is taken directly from the sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 of the EIS. Junction Capacity Assessment A detailed capacity assessment of critical junctions was undertaken for the existing situation (2006) and the 2012 and 2024 forecast years. Table 5 of the submission correlates with Table 6.20 of the EIS, which shows forecast SATURN traffic flows in the AM Peak period (8.00 am to 9.00 am). It shows that the majority of junctions would only be impacted slightly by the additional trips to and from Terminal 2, as most of the increases are below 5%. There will however be significant increases at the following junctions:
AM peak junction capacity assessments have also been undertaken for the following critical junctions - Sites A (M50/M1 interchange) and Q (M50/Ballymun Road interchange). Midday and PM peak assessments were also undertaken. The midday period is the highest Airport traffic generating period. The assessment shows that the junctions generally operate within capacity for the midday and PM peaks. Mitigating Measures Proposed mitigating measures, as outlined in the EIS, include:
Combined with the planned East West Distributor Route and the M50/Ballymun Interchange upgrade, these improvements will provide significant access improvements to this route. Provision for the integration of Metro into the Airport development has also been provided for. Mitigating measures for construction traffic will include:
The MMP encourages non-car based modes of travel. First Party Appeal Mr. Coughlan outlined the applicant’s appeal against condition No.6. In the first instance, he emphasised that the condition will lead to congestion at Dublin Airport. The number of passengers has grown by an average of 6% in the period 200-2005. It is anticipated that the passenger numbers will have grown from 18 million in 2005 to 30 million in 2015-2016. Passenger numbers are expected to grow, irrespective of Terminal 2, and it is anticipated that they would grow to 24 million by 2009. Growth will not abate due to non-completion of the M50, but the travelling experience of the travelling public will continue to decline. Airport traffic would only contribute 2% of traffic flows on the M50 between the M1 and Ballymun and therefore the impact is only marginal. Issues Raised by Third Parties Mr. Coughlan outlined the principal third party grounds of appeal. He addressed each of the grounds of appeal in turn. Terminal should be to the North of Terminal 1 This arrangement would not facilitate better access, as traffic accessing the northern location would have to share the T1 access road which is already constrained. It is not feasible to provide a separate access route. Terminal 2 should be constructed on the western campus to spread ground access In response, Mr. Coughlan highlighted that Airport Master Plan envisaged that a third terminal would be accommodated on the western campus. It is better to maximise the use of the eastern campus to fully utilise infrastructure. Development of Terminal 2 on the western campus would require significant road infrastructure and would be remote from the Metro. The traffic impact assessment indicates that, subject to the proposed road improvements, the eastern campus can accommodate Terminal 2. Deficiency of car parking In response to the suggestion that permission for the new multi-storey car park was not requested by the applicant, Mr. Coughlan highlighted that there is a condition attached to the permission requiring that 1,750 space multi-storey car park be provided prior to the occupation of building. Contrary to the Ryanair suggestion that there is no adequate connection between the proposed terminal and existing parking, the submitted plans indicate a high level pedestrian link, which also connects with the Ground Transportation Centre. A comprehensive road signage and wayfinding system would also be put in place. Road layout to cause confusion Wayfinding and signage system will ensure that those accessing the facilities would be directed to the correct Terminal. The road system allows for cars to recirculate if necessary. Connection to the northern perimeter road An alternative access to the north would be remote from a terminal provided on the southern side of the Northern Runway. Capacity for pickup/set down Contrary to the assertion that there is inadequate capacity for pick up/set down, it has been calculated that the combined kerb lengths will be adequate to serve the development, even without Metro. Departing passenger kerb side length is twice that of Terminal 1. The combined length of the arrivals kerb is 350m, or over 40% longer than that for Terminal 1. Kerbside of Terminal 2 not integrated with Terminal 1 There is a bus link between Terminal 2 departures kerb and the existing Terminal 1 arrivals kerb. Increased congestion on the M50 The results of the strategic modelling exercise indicate that the impact of Terminal 2 is relatively modest. Specifically on the M50 and M1 motorways, it was predicted that the traffic flows would only increase by less than 3% during the weekday AM peak hour in comparison to a situation without Terminal 2. The upgrade of the M50 is anticipated to increase capacity on the M50 by at least 50%, which is significantly greater than the impact of Terminal 2. The opening of Terminal 2 would not be expected to instantly increase the traffic on the M50. Inadequate Mobility Management Strategy Mr. Coughlan responded to the An Taisce contention that the mode split targets of 30% and 40% in favour of public transport in 2012 and 2024 was not ambitious enough. He contended that the targets were aggressive relative to other continental airports. Accentuate existing unsustainable travel patterns In reply to the UPROAR appeal contention that the development would perpetuate unsustainable travel patterns, even with Metro, Mr. Coughlan emphasised:
Dublin Airport already demonstrates a high level of public transport share compared to other airports, which are served by rail links. Metro will have a particular impact on the mode share of employees and airport business related trips. Amalgamation of Conditions 13 and 36 It is suggested that two conditions relating to Metro North alignment be amalgamated to read as follows: “The applicant shall liaise with the Railway Procurement Agency on an ongoing basis, and shall ensure that nothing in this development shall interfere with the timely implementation of Metro North. With regard to technical construction requirements relating to the planned provision of Metro through the site, the underground Metro shall be safeguarded and made available either pre or post construction. Prior to construction the applicant shall inform the Planning Authority in writing of all correspondence to/from the RPA so as to demonstrate the full knowledge of the RPA’s requirements. The applicant shall, on foot of same, submit for written agreement and receive said written agreement regarding any proposed substantial modifications to construction that may occur in future. Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and development of the area.” Mr. Christy O’Sullivan is a civil engineer and managing director ILTP Consulting , which specialises in transportation. He made a presentation on behalf of the planning authority (submission J). He outlined the role which ILTP Consulting had in assessing the transportation impacts and its input into the LAP. His evidence provided a broad overview of the process and ILTP Consulting were not involved in the detailed assessment of the application. He noted that the subject proposal was separate and distinct from the Northern Parallel Runway application. The application for the second terminal requires an upgrading of the current road network and additional parking, as required by condition, are required to comply with the LAP. He provided an overview of the Airport Local Area Plan, from a transportation perspective. External Access The M1 and M50 are sensitive to congestion. Infrastructure in the form of the ‘Airport Box’ was developed to facilitate surface access to the Airport. Infrastructure to serve the Airport must be phased in accordance with the provisions of the LAP. Future Year Forecasts Mr. O’Sullivan outlined how the LAP took into account future commercial development in the area and accounted for the full roll out of Transport 21. External Road Proposals These included the ‘Airport Box’, the Blanchardstown to Baldoyle Airport Road (East West Distributor Road), Link Road to the N2, upgrade of the R108 South, improved additional access from the Forest Little Road and to serve the terminal facilities on the western campus, upgrading of the M50 and a possible Swords Western Bypass. Public Transport These services and infrastructure would include QBC on all upgrades as part of the ‘Airport Box’, reservation for Metro North and West, multi-modal interchange, bus links to DART, bus links for commercial areas, incentivise public transport for staff and passengers. Parking Mr. O’Sullivan highlighted that the LAP acknowledged that an increase in car parking would be required to serve the Airport. He referred to Objective CP9 of the LAP which seeks to control the supply of parking to maximise public transport use and Objective CP10 which seeks to limit the growth of employee parking. Short and long term passenger parking should be phased in accordance with Airport growth. Pier D will result in the removal of 3,800 employee parking spaces and 1,500 will be maintained to the west of the R132. Mobility Management Objective CD6 of the LAP requires the provision of a Mobility Management Plan. Proposed Application The subject application was assessed against the terms of the Airport LAP. A number of conditions have been attached to ensure that the proposal broadly conforms to the LAP. In particular condition 7 i) requires the upgrading of the R132 Swords Road to a dual carriageway between Collinstown Cross and the Airport Roundabout, which would include a dedicated bus lane. This accords with the LAP. Condition 12, requiring the provision of 1,750 short term parking spaces to be provided in a multi-storey car park and additional long term parking to be provided prior to the occupation of Phase 2, accords with Objective CP3 of the LAP. The reservation for the Metro alignment accords with policies of the LAP and an MMP would be provided in accordance with Objective CD6. Mr. Sean McGrath, senior executive engineer with the planning authority, made his presentation to the hearing (submission I). Mr. McGrath outlined his experience in transportation planning and development control. He outlined the policy background in terms of Transport 21, the Platform for Change, Fingal County Council Development Plan and Dublin Airport LAP. The applicant engaged in preapplication discussions with the Transport Department, the National Roads Authority and the Dublin Transportation Office. These discussion covered:
Additional trips are a function of terminal capacity as opposed to runway capacity. The Transport Department has always considered that the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) should consider all the trips generated by the proposed Terminal 2, over and above that generated by Terminal 1 and unconstrained by runway capacity. Mr. McGrath indicated that revised land use forecasts were provided by Fingal County Council and took into account additional development facilitated by the Metro. The assumptions were put into the DTO’s Strategic Model and a Local Area Model was cordoned and found to be well calibrated. The LAM provided traffic flows for the analysis of individual links and junctions. 2012 and 2024 were selected as forecast years. The 2012 forecast year represents the worst-case scenario. Mr. McGrath referred to the trip generation and attraction assumptions detailed in the EIS. The Transport Department is satisfied with the methodology adopted. The junction impact assessment shows that major improvements are required at the South Corballis Road/R132 junction, the Collinstown Cross junction and the Harristown Cross junction. Short term parking is required to serve the development and this is in line with Objective CP8 of the LAP. This would be the subject of a separate application. There is a current application for continued use of 3,600 spaces and an extension to the 3,000 spaces at the South Parallel Road. It is considered that a condition should be imposed requiring that long term parking be agreed with the Council. The application does not include any additional employee parking and this is consistent with the LAP Objective CP10. At the kerbside there is a clear segregation between private cars, taxis, buses, shuttle buses, courtesy buses and car hire buses. The layout at the kerbside is acceptable. The two internal junctions at South Corballis Road/East Link Road and North Corballis Road/West Link Road would be altered and the modelling illustrates that these would operate effectively. Condition 6 requiring the upgrading the M50/Ballymun Interchange corresponds with the TIA assumptions and there is no evidence in the application that that the said junction would operate satisfactorily in the absence of these works. Condition 7 requires various roads to be upgraded and this is consistent with Section 6.6. of the EIS. Condition 8 requires that nothing should interfere with the timely provision of roads. Condition 9 requires the detailed design of cycle paths, footpaths and internal roads. Condition 10 requires Road Safety Audits. Condition 11 relates to a Mobility Management Plan. Condition 12 covers parking supply and management. Condition 13 seeks to preserve the Metro North alignment. Condition 14 requires the implementation of Intelligent Traffic Management measures. Condition 15 requires the developer to produce an Emergency Incident Traffic Management Plan. Condition 16 relates to a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Car trips will be minimised through the provision of Metro and additional road capacity must be in place prior to the opening of the development. Mr. Matt Harley (Portmarnock Community Association) circulated a submission (K) relating to employment assumptions underpinning the Traffic Impact Assessment. Table 6.10 of the EIS shows a difference of 3,700 employees by 2025 due to expansion. The total of 12,500 employees in the constrained scenario becomes 13,700 in the unconstrained scenario. Traffic and parking effects do not appear to have been taken into account. Impacts of induced and indirect jobs are not taken into account. The difference in jobs between constrained and unconstrained by 2025 is: Dublin Airport 3,700, Fingal 3,900, Dublin 5,700, Greater Dublin Area 7,200 and Ireland 11,900. The DAA indicate a total of 7,200 additional jobs in the Greater Dublin Area, yet only assess the traffic impact of 1,800. The traffic impacts are being grossly understated. In his oral submission, Mr. Harley contends that the jobs are not additional to those that would be created in any event. He also makes a number of points in relation to labour productivity. He highlights that the additional runway would have to be place to realise the overall capacity of the development and the cumulative impacts of the two have not been taken into account. Portmarnock Community Association also presented a written submission (L), which considered the impacts upon the Road Network. The following points are highlighted:
Mr. Robert Kelly (Ryanair) presented a number of submissions (O, Q, R and S). His hypothesis is that the EIS underestimates the network impacts. His evidence can be summarised as follows:
Mr. Kelly outlines an alternative location for a low cost terminal to the east of the existing OCTB, which would be well located relative to the Metro station and a new access could be brought in from the Northern Parallel Road. He detailed a series of conflicts between the South Fingal Road Network Assessment Report, the M50 Upgrade EIS, the T2 EIS, the IKEA EIS, the Northern Parallel Runway EIS and the Dublin Airport Transport Masterplan. These conflicts are detailed on pages 5-9 of his presentation. He acknowledges that results and model runs vary depending on inputs and assumptions, but contends that the EIS is fundamentally flawed. Mr. Kelly focused on the strategic link on the R108 to the north of the Ballymun M50 interchange. The T2 EIS showed that this link was carrying 1,602 in the AM peak in 2012 and 2,394 in 2024. The ILTP Masterplan indicated that the link would carry 3,838/4,808 in the AM peak in 2015. The mode share for public transport is unlikely to be taken up without significant demand management on car parking and improved bus priority and the provision of Metro. Inadequate priority has been given to buses on the external and internal road network. He estimates that traffic generation levels would be 3,416 veh/hr in 2012, or 70% higher than that indicated in the EIS, and 4090 veh/hr in 2024. The traffic growth appears to be capped in the EIS. Passenger capacity is planned to increase from 21 mppa in 2006 to 42 mppa in 2024, yet traffic growth in only projected to grow by 17-19%. The current two-way trip profile for 2006 produces a peak in 08.30-09.30 and 16.30-17.30 peak periods. However, the forecast peak moves to 13.00-14.00 period. The conditions requiring the upgrading of certain roads in the vicinity of the ‘Airport Box’ fall far short of providing the minimum road infrastructure to service the development. No financial commitment or work programme is proposed for the Do Something or Do Minimum scenarios. The development constitutes project splitting, as
Directory: news news -> Nonprofit grant application news -> Bulletin 4 Monday July 8, 2002 Backgammon news -> Last year four of the best Afrikaans Christian singers joined forces to tour Down Under with the production ‘Manne wat Glo’ news -> Management and Marketing news -> World Computer-Chess Championship news -> World Computer-Chess Championship news -> World Computer-Chess Championship Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|