An Bord Pleanála
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Mr. Rory O’Connor
- Questions and Clarifications The Inspector
- Mr. Marie O’Brien
- The inspector
- Mr. Hayden
- Mr. Flanagan
- Mr. Barnes
- Mr.OSullivan
- Mr. O’Donnell
- Mr. Lucas
- Mr. McGrath
- Sheila Morris
- Mr. Harley
Mr. Peter Sweetman (Teresa Kavanagh) made an oral submission. He noted that the applicant had appealed condition 6 relating to the M50 upgrade. His principal concern related to the cumulative construction impacts. There is no information on construction compounds and source of materials. The cumulative impacts of the new prison in the area, the incinerator which will be accessed by the Port Tunnel, IKEA and the Parallel Runway need to be taken into account. Mr. Sweetman considered that traffic will relate to availability of car parking. He did not see how the Metro would have any effect, owing to the dispersed nature of development around Dublin. Metro would only benefit those on the Metro line. The impact of the car parks has not been assessed. Mr. Brian Byrne (Bridget Byrne) made an oral submission. Over 60% of those accessing the Airport did so from outside Dublin and therefore most would have to use their cars. The eastern campus can only accommodate 20 million passengers per annum. He raised concerns regarding problems on the M50, particularly in the event of an incident. Congestion also has a severe impact upon business competitiveness. Metro would principally benefit staff. The state will be funding road improvements for this commercial body. There is an absence of car parking and so a full assessment cannot be made. There should be a full assessment of alternative locations for the Airport. Mr. Owen Shinkwin (Dublin Transportation Office - DTO) said that he did not have any additional comments to make those points raised in their letter to the planning authority, dated 4th October 2006. He read the contents of the letter into the record. Mr. Rory O’Connor (Railway Procurement Agency - RPA) had no submission to make, but he was available to answer any questions. Mr. Hugh Cregan (National Roads Authority - NRA) confirmed to the hearing that the NRA supported the decision made by the planning authority. Mr. Derry O’Leary (Dublin Bus) had no specific observation to make, but was available to answer questions. Mr. Lamond and Mr. Coughlan (applicants) made a presentation relating to the building design and surface access arrangements.
Questions and Clarifications The Inspector asked if the high level walkway would pass through the car park. Mr. Lamont (applicant) confirmed that details of this high level walkway required further design. Mr. O’Donnell (applicant) confirmed that it was the intention to provide a multi-storey car park to the north of the terminal. The Inspector asked for a copy of the traffic impact assessment for the LAP. This was provided. She asked if the planning authority made any independent assessment of the throughput of 30 MPPA by 2015. Ms. Kenny confirmed that no separate assessment was undertaken and Mr. O’Faircheallaigh (planning authority) confirmed that Pascal + Watson Piers Study was accepted by the planning authority. The planning authority’s aviation expert did review the Piers Study for the LAP. Mr. Harley (Portmarnock Community Association) asked how the parallel runway and the Terminal 2 projects can operate independently. Ms. Kenny (planning authority) responded that both could be seen as discrete projects, as they had different objectives and timeframes, although they were complementary. The planning authority never considered both projects to be wholly independent, as both were seen as facilitating airport expansion in the context of the Airport LAP. Mr. Flanagan (planning authority) in response to a query from Mr. Hayden (Ryanair) confirmed that the planning authority did have Annex 2 to the Pascal and Watson 2005 Report at the time of the preparation of the LAP, but this was subsequently returned to the DDA, as they said it was confidential. Mr. Hayden also asked how the bus gets from T1 to T2. Mr.Coughlan (applicant) confirmed that buses bus would have to go around the gyratory. Mr. Kelly (Ryanair) asked if the vertical difference for Metro was taken into account of Metro in calculating pedestrian walk distances. Mr. Lamont confirmed that the vertical journey from Metro had not been taken into account. Mr. Marie O’Brien (third party appellant) had a query in relation to an access off Corballis Road North and which was mentioned in the ILTP report. Mr. Coughlan (applicants) presented a number of submissions to the hearing (exhibits AA, AB, AC, AD1, AD2 and AF 25/04/2007). These submissions addressed issues raised by the third parties. Submission AA responded to issues raised by the DTO in its letter of the 4th October. He read this submission into the record. A number of remedial measures to protect buses from congestion in the vicinity of the Airport were proposed. These included the widening of the R132 to two lanes plus one bus lane in each direction. Inside the Airport, the bus lane on Corballis Road South between the R132 and Corballis Way is retained, as is the bus lane on the approach to the Airport Roundabout. As the road system within the campus is designed for freeflow, dedicated bus lanes are not required on all links. Phase1 of works to the coach park, which will ultimately form part of the GTC, have already been completed. The Mobility Management Plan will actively promote new services and this will involve sharing employee travel patterns with operators, thus supporting the business case for operators. The DAA is prepared to consider financial mechanisms for the support of such services in consultation with the service providers, where such services can be demonstrated to deliver an appropriate shift in mode share. Condition 11 allows for corrective measures to be taken if there is congestion, which can include availability or cost of parking, improved cycle facilities etc. Mr. Coughlan clarified the arrangements for taxis and buses for arriving passengers.
There is no proposal to change the premium bus service arrangements for T1 as part of the T2 application. The detailed design of exit routes will allow for greater priority to be given to buses exiting the coach and bus park. In addition, adequate resources will be made available to ensure that the coach park is managed and supervised. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that taxi arrangements for T1 are basically unchanged. A covered walkway between both terminal buildings and the GTC will be provided, in addition to bus shelters and covered walkways within the GTC. In relation to the Mobility Management Plan, which was prepared in August 2006 and submitted as part of the application, a Mobility Manager has now been appointed to work with key stakeholders. The DTO suggest that a higher mode share target for bus should be set, particularly in advance of Metro. The applicant undertakes to review this in the context of the MMP. However, Mr. Coughlan highlighted a number of points:
The reduction in the taxi mode from 26% in 2005 to 14.4% in 2020 is a result of a switch by passengers to public transport modes, particularly Metro and bus. This target will be reviewed. The DTO suggest the following mode share post metro.
Mr. Coughlan highlighted that the DAA’s target of 40% corresponded with the DTO’s objective. The DAA projected car-hire to grow to 7% to cater for demand by tourism and leisure. It is anticipated that the mode share for taxi would be 14% as opposed to the DTO’s target of 20%. This is because it is anticipated that there will a significant shift from taxi to metro. The DAA projects that private car use would be reduced by 5.6% as opposed to 9.2% suggested as a target by the DTO. The DTO suggest that in the post metro scenario the number of long term spaces should be restricted to 26,381 long term and 3,997 short term spaces, based upon a mode share of 34.6% for private car use. Mr. Coughlan highlighted that in general the DAA supported the minimisation of parking, but that each planning application for car parking would be considered on its merits having regard to the ongoing implementation of the MMP. The capping of car parking is complicated by the interim needs prior to metro, the existence of competitive car parking and the policy of granting temporary permissions only. Covered walkways will form part of the application for the short term car park.
TRANSYT analysis was undertaken of the following junctions:
The highest RFC was at the Airport-M1 link with an 81% value. All junctions would therefore operate within capacity. Mr. Coughlan presented submission AC, which related to car parking targets and strategy detailed in the Mobility Management Plan. He read from section 6.1 of the Mobility Management plan. The strategy would deliver long and short term parking in line with the growth in passenger numbers, but having regard to the mode share target established. The dispersed nature of the parking would dissipate the impacts somewhat. Table 6.1 of the MMP details numbers of long and short stay spaces projected for the Airport with 40% public transport mode share in 2020. Long Term Car Parking The strategy in relation to long term car parking was to disperse it around the Airport lands with good access to the road network and would be linked to the terminal by shuttle bus. Short Term Car Parking Short term parking would be provided in the centre of the campus in close proximity to the terminal buildings. Car Hire Approximately 500 spaces would be maintained in the terminal areas. The main car hire facilities and spaces would be relocated to the Eastlands away from terminal areas. Employee It is the objective of the DAA to reduce reliance by employees on private car access and a significant number of spaces will be lost as a result of the Pier D development. It is estimated that there would be a requirement for a further 90 parking spaces in 2024. Employee mode share in 2020 would be 71% by private car, 25% by bus and metro, 1.5% by taxi and 2.1% by bicycle or motorbike. Mr. Coughlan made a presentation in relation to traffic generation and public transport proposals (submissions AD1 and AD2). Assumptions for Traffic Generation Calculations The presentation explained how traffic generation was calculated based upon airline scheduling.
The figures presented were a graphical presentation of Table 6.15a into graphical format. Bus Proposals The number of bus bays would increase from the current 32 to 42, but this would exclude T2 kerb provision. This is an interim measure, until metro is put in place in 2012. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that there were discussions ongoing with Dublin Bus to use the kerbs beyond the existing multi storey car parks. The temporary departure kerb for Area 14 drop-off zone would be replaced after 2009. It is anticipated that scheduled bus services would be accommodated on the inner kerb and long term shuttle bus services would be accommodated on the outer kerb. The circulation for buses include the following options: Kerbside Services - Buses arriving at the Departures Kerb of T2 would have to go via T1 to drop off and pick up, before looping around the campus to return to T2 for collection of passengers at the arrivals kerb. It is calculated that the additional loop journey to return to T2 from T1 would take approximately 3 minutes. Given the layout of the kerbs at T2, and indeed the fundamental layout of the building itself, this would appear to be unavoidable. GTC Only - Buses accessing the GTC only would bypass the kerbsides of both T1 and T2. Kerbside Set Down/GTC Pick up – This allows for buses to set down at T1 and T2 and to pick up at the GTC. This involves the use of bus only link between the multi-storey car park and the church. Mr. Coughlan also presented a rebuttal of the Ryanair submission (AF). This evidence can summarised as follows:
Mr. Coughlan also outlined the review and planning process since the adoption of the Government’s Aviation Action Plan of May 2005. The inclusion of the multi-storey car park in the planning application would have significantly delayed the subject application. Questions and Clarifications The Inspector asked if the planning authority had any comments to make in relation to the evidence submitted. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) confirmed that the peak hour flows were satisfactorily addressed. The level of bus priority in the Airport campus was dealt with adequately. With regard to the public transport priority outside the campus, this can be catered for in a number of different ways (bus lanes, signalised priority, bus gates). It is anticipated that bus lanes would be provided as part of the ‘Airport Box’. He stated that bus priority on Collinstown Lane was the subject of detailed design of the Blanchardstown to Baldoyle distributor road. There is nothing to show that this link is required to serve the development, although junction upgrades at either end of this link are required by way of condition. The planning authority was also satisfied with the approach taken in relation to car parking. Employee parking should be restricted and it is appropriate that there should be no increase in employee parking. With regard to short and long stay parking, it is necessary to provide certainty in relation parking supply, because passengers cannot arrive at the Airport only to find that there is no parking available, as they would miss their flight. He did confirm that unlimited cheap parking could affect the mode split targets. Parking charges is a factor in affecting people’s mode choice. Parking charges can be modelled in the DTO strategic model. Mr. McGrath confirmed that 1,750 spaces permitted under the permission allows for flexibility in the context of the MMP. The DTO’s submission has been addressed in the context of the MMP and by the applicants. It is not necessary to provide public transport services, because there are already operators providing these services. His understanding was that the three bus circulation options outlined by Mr. Coughlan could be operated in tandem. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that the system was flexible depending on the needs of the operators. The Inspector asked if the planning authority was satisfied with the assumptions underpinning the modelling exercise which resulted in a shift from the AM peak to a lunchtime peak. Mr. Christy O’Sullivan (planning authority) emphasised that it was the objective of the LAP to dampen down the employee traffic generation in the peak period. The Inspector asked if the DTO had any comments to make on the submissions. Mr. Owen Shinkwin (DTO) said that they had considered the documents submitted by the applicant. The Inspector asked if evidence submitted satisfied the DTO’s requirements. Mr. Jeremy Ryan (DTO) considered that it remains unclear as to what will be required for bus priority and additional bus services upon opening of T2. A sensitivity test was supplied reflecting the current scheduling pattern, but the would like to have seen an Absolute Do Minimum scenario, as some roads assumed in the assessment are not included in the DTO’s strategy and there may not be a funding stream available. A sensitivity test for 2024 should also be undertaken, as there would be general growth by this date. The commitment to provide a covered walkway between the terminal and the GTC is noted. They consider that mandatory targets should be established for employee and passenger parking. The overall public mode share for 2020 is appropriate, but they are concerned about the public mode share prior to that. Parking charges and controls can affect the mode share. Public transport mode share targets for 2012 are not ambitious enough. He did not however provide a figure for mode share prior to the introduction of metro. Mr. Ryan considered that the ultimate number of long term and short term spaces were too high (4,433 and 29,269 respectively). However, Mr. Coughlan (applicant) indicated that the car parking figures in Table 6.1 of the MMP did not increase on a pro rata basis relative to the increase in passenger numbers. Mr. Ryan referred to the figures on page 6 of the DTO’s submission. He considered that the current parking provision for employees should not be increased. Consideration should be given to a public transport information help desk. He notes the cycle facilities proposed in the MMP and conditioned by Fingal County Council, but he was unclear about cycle facilities between residential areas and the Airport. He welcomed the appointment of a mobility manager and considered that the MMP should be reviewed on a regular basis. Mode share targets should be mandatory and established by the DAA in the MMP. He considered that the targets established in the submitted MMP are not ambitious enough. The Inspector asked if the arrangements satisfied Dublin Bus’s requirements. Mr. O’Leary (Dublin Bus) considered that access to the terminal kerbs should be based upon the principal that those services carrying the most passengers should be closest to the kerbs, rather than on other considerations such as price paid by premium services. He has concerns that scheduled bus services would be located further away from the terminal facilities thus reducing the attractiveness of public transport. The short term car parks users are closer to the terminal than public transport users. Mr. O’Leary would also like to see continuous bus lanes within the campus. Availability and cost of parking is critical to mode share. He would welcome parking charges which could be invested in public transport. Mr. O’Leary also raised a number of queries in relation to the tendering process adopted by the DAA in relation to access for public transport operators. The Inspector asked whether the RPA were satisfied with the evidence submitted. Mr. Rory O’Connor (RPA) highlighted that he wished to ensure that walk distances between the metro station and the terminal were as short as possible. There should also be as much segregation between metro users and other users. Other matters were design details that could be resolved with the DAA. Mr. O’Connor confirmed that the RPA was happy with the indicated location of the metro station. The Inspector asked if the NRA was satisfied with the evidence presented. Mr. Cregan (NRA) responded that they were satisfied with the application and the planning authority’s decision. The Inspector also asked whether impact on climate change was considered as part of the M50 upgrade EIS. Mr. Cregan thought that there had been section on climate change. Mr. Barnes asked the first party where GTC would be accommodated during construction of the metro. Mr. Coughlan (applicant) indicated that the precise location of the metro box had yet to be determined, but that there was potential to use the Church lands and the car hire area. He also highlighted that slide 2 on page 11 of his presentation indicated the possible arrangements of car parks, metro station and GTC. He confirmed that the car park to the north of the proposed multi-storey car park was only indicative and it was not intended to proceed with that at this time. Mr. Barnes also asked a number of questions in relation to the capacity of the GTC and if these related to the number of buses projected to serve the Airport. Mr. Lucas (applicant) replied that the arrangement was based upon operators’ current needs and not necessarily related to additional bus movements associated with the traffic impact assessment. The kerb length in front of T2 did take into account projected bus movements. There is spare capacity in the existing coach park and layover may to be relocated to free up capacity, if necessary. Mr. Lucas confirmed that the DTO’s strategic model was used primarily as a traffic impact assessment tool, as opposed to assessing other strategic matters. No strategic traffic impact assessment for the midday and PM peak periods were undertaken, although AM junction flows were reversed to give PM peak assessment. There were no restraints placed on parking built into the model. Traffic generated by T1 was included in the assessment. Mr. Barnes asked whether a retailing development at Ballymun was taken into account. Mr. Lucas said that higher employment uses were adopted for the Ballymun LAP lands. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) said that it wasn’t included in the AM peak because retailers wouldn’t generate traffic other than employment in that period. Mr. Lucas confirmed that there was only one zone in the strategic modelling exercise. The TIA has probably overestimated the impact upon the R132 as trips would be distributed to long term car parks around the campus. In response to a query from Mr. Barnes, Mr. O’Sullivan (planning authority) considered that long term car parking was a necessity, but this could be provided by a number of different providers. He stated that parking should be provided in line with passenger growth, but would have regard to public transport roll out. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Cregan (NRA) if it was the NRA’s policy to upgrade the M1 to the north of the Airport junction and whether they considered it necessary to defer occupation of the development pending the upgrade of the M50. He confirmed that the M1 was a Transport 21 route and they would be considering whether to upgrade it in the coming months. It was a matter for An Bord Pleanála to determine whether occupation of T2 should be deferred pending the upgrade of the M50, but he stated that the NRA was in the final stages of the PPP competition for its upgrade. The section between the M1 and the N2 should be completed in early 2009. Mr. Barnes posed a number of questions to the DTO. Mr. Ryan confirmed that work was due to commence on the review of the DTO’s strategy. It was unlikely that there would be a LUAS and Metro on the same corridor. A review of the bus network had recently been carried out for Dublin Bus. A series of quality bus priority measures had been promoted in the Greater Dublin Area. There were no other bus priority measures proposed, other than those on the R132. In response to a question in relation to whether it was reasonable to expect the applicant to provide a bus service, Mr. Ryan considered that a review of bus services would be required. The DTO had not undertaken such a review. Mr. Barnes posed a number of questions relating to bus services to Dublin Bus. Mr. O’Leary (Dublin Bus) confirmed that the current bus fleet was approximately 1,200. A strategic review for the whole of the Dublin Region was undertaken two years ago indicated that there would be a requirement for an additional 400 or 500 buses. A local network review would be required. Mr. O’Connor (RPA), in response to questions from Mr. Barnes, confirmed that metro would have adequate capacity to serve the development and that the Airport only accounted for 20% of Metro North’s patronage. There are two proposed orbital alignments for Metro West to join with Metro North to the south of the Airport. This would not directly serve the western campus, although initial options did consider how metro could serve that part of the airport complex. Metro West services would connect at Metro Park to the south of the Airport and could travel through to the GTC. Detailed consideration has been given to the nature of construction and it is likely that tunnels would be bored through rock 20m below ground. Mr. Coughlan (applicants) confirmed that the proposed foundations would be pad foundations, as opposed to piled foundations. Mr. Sweetman (Teresa Kavanagh - appellant) asked if a land take would be required to widen the R132 and was this all within the control of the applicant. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) said that the applicant could submit a preliminary design indicating that all of the land required is owned by either the Council or the applicant. The Inspector asked if this road widening required an EIS. Mr. Flanagan (planning authority) responded by suggesting that applicants must demonstrate that they had sufficiency of interest to carry out the development. The road widening is a mitigating measure in the EIS. He referred to Keane V An Bord Pleanála in relation to sufficiency of interest. An applicant is not entitled to carry out development by merely relying on the planning permission, which only considers that the planning merits of the development and not land ownership issues. He referred to S.34 (13) of the 2000 Act which highlights that the applicant is not entitled by the permission itself to carryout the development. He referred to a Treasury Holdings development at Balgaddy and the question of sufficiency of interest was beyond planning consideration of this issue. Mr. Sweetman asked whether the road widening of the R132 was covered by the public notice. He also asked the NRA if they had taken into account the construction impacts. Mr. Cregan (NRA) confirmed that they had taken into account the construction impacts. Mr. Kelly (Ryanair - appellant) posed a series of questions in relation to sensitivity tests undertaken for the DTO and other matters. He agreed to present this in written form. (A written response was received from the applicant – submission BK, 2nd May). He also asked if the planning authority could appoint the mobility manager. Mr. McGrath (planning authority) responded that it would be inappropriate for the planning authority to make this appointment. Mr. Kelly asked if taxis could use the bus priority measures. Mr. Coughlan (applicant) replied that taxis picking up would use the eastern end of the arrivals kerb. Taxis would use the same departures kerb as cars. Mr. Kelly posed a series of questions in relation to the existing number of buses using the GTC and the number of buses projected to the use the kerbs after T2 is in place. Mr. Coughlan confirmed that walking time to the northern terminal proposed by Ryanair was not taken into account, as this did not form part of the application. Mr. Lucas (applicant) confirmed that a walk time of 1 metre per second was conservative. Mr. Kelly referred to slide 41 of his powerpoint presentation that referred to a 2003 Aer Rianta report on car parking, which identified a higher level of parking thatn that detailed in Table 6.1 of the MMP. Mr. Kelly also asked if the NRA had undertaken its own independent assessment. Mr. Hugh Cregan (NRA) confirmed that they did not undertake their own study, but they did assess the study prepared and were consulted by the DAA. Mr. Jim Callaghan (Ryanair - appellant) asked whether the first party would provide the scheduling information which underpinned the assumptions relating the midday peak. Mr. Kelly said that there were no other airports where there was a lunchtime peak. Mr. Kelly emphasised that the only way that there could be a significant shift to a midday peak was if there was a significant increase in long haul operations by Aer Lingus, although their plans are only to increase their long haul traffic from 1 million to 2 million passengers per annum. This in now way accounts the midday peak. The scheduling information was required to consider if the assumptions were reasonable. Mr. Kelly stated that the data inputs for the sensitivity tests were also needed. The Inspector highlighted that applicant had classified this information as commercially confidential and would not release it. . Mr. Foley confirmed that the scheduling information was confidential. Mr. Coughlan (applicant) emphasised that the sensitivity test undertaken for the DTO projects the existing scheduling profile forward for the forecast years and indicates that there is no significant impact upon the road network. Mr. Coughlan emphasised that passenger vehicle trips became increasingly more important relative to employee traffic generation and this accounted for the shift to the midday peak. Mr. Coughlan cannot answer the scheduling question, as it is not his area of expertise. Mr. Kelly asked whether there was a similar lunchtime peak in any other airport. Mr. O’Donnell highlighted that Ms. Weston’s evidence (applicant) indicated that Dublin Airport was unique. Ms. Angela Lawton (appellant) asked whether the GTC required planning permission. Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that it was included in this application and a number of alterations are proposed to existing arrangements. Did the long term car park users count as public transport users? Mr. Coughlan confirmed that they counted as car passengers. Ms. Lawton asked the planning authority whether free parking for the first 15 minutes was in line with Kyoto protocol. There was no specific response to this question. Ms. Maire O’Brien (appellant) highlighted that staff could not access the Airport by public transport in the early morning, as there were no services available. She posed a number of questions to the first party in relation to the Area D car park adjacent to T2, employee parking, surface water drainage and the nature of short term parking. She acknowledged that car use was necessary to serve the Airport, particularly after hours. She also asked where the GTC would be relocated to during the construction of metro. Mr. O’Donnell (applicant) deferred answering these questions. Mr. Ryan (DTO) considered that if there were gaps in public transport provision, particularly in the early morning, these should be filled by the applicant. She also asked the RPA whether there were any implications for safety zone. Mr. O’Connor (RPA) responded that there were not any implications. Mr. O’Leary (Dublin Bus) asked if the applicant were affecting mode share for public transport use. Mr. Foley confirmed that they were influencing mode share with 22% of passengers and 16% of staff using public transport. Long stay car parking is now subject to competitive provision. In response to queries from Mr. O’Leary, Mr. Coughlan (applicant) confirmed that it anticipated that all scheduled bus services would be accommodated in the GTC, but this would be the subject of agreement with Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann. The inspector (03/05/07) requested two documents- transport study for south Fingal, Aer Rianta planning study for the runway 2002 to be made available. Neil Steen for the Railway Procurement Agency, asked that he be allowed to speak in relation to supplementary contribution condition. Starting his questions, Mr. Hayden (Counsel for Ryanair ) referred to a number of documents provided earlier in the hearing. He reiterated he still did not get the information he required in relation to forecasting and if he did not he would refer to them again in the end. In response to question from Mr. Hayden, that the assessment assumed the designated road improvements were in place (s.4.2 of the master plan) Mr. Coughlin said yes in part, dualing of the east- west distributor road. The whole thing had to be looked at as a package. In 2012, ‘do minimum’ would be the road improvements set out in figure 6.17, and significant land use assumptions regarding population growth and development in the area. They had set out a baseline for the 2012, population and network improvements when the T2 is in operation, it was not dependent on them being finished. Other land use assumptions were incorporated in consultation with FCC and DTO in relation to what is happening in the area. In response to question about different results for the Ballymun link road and interchange, he stated that they looked at it as ballymun LAP lands development, and they agreed on trip generations in and out of b lands with the planning authority. Mr. Hayden wanted to question him on rebuttal paper, Slide 12., and why the figures were different. What was the basis for choosing a different network analysis, from what had been done in the south fingal network study. Two were different exercises. His understanding was that the South Fingal Study was a stress test, assessment of the road network. They went through the network and reach agreement with Fingal County Council on what would be the most likely improvements to the network in 2012. He was not involved in the study carried out by Fingal County Council. The two could not be compared. They had extensive discussions with County Council in relation to the methodology in how they were going to carry out the study, but there was no formal scooping exercise. In response to question by Mr. Hayden that the airport box included internal and external roads and there had to be a continuous QBC, (s.3.1.4), Mr. Flanagan (FCC ) clarified that the study referred to was not LAP but South Fingal Study . Mr. Coughlan stated that the first section of the EIS set out 35mppa. He provided the list of assumptions they input (network assumption, land use assumptions for 2012 and trip generations) . He also provided a copy of the traffic modelling certificate from the DTO. Hayden referred to DTO website which sets out the parameters for use of their model. In relation to peak traffic at lunch time, (new departure at 3pm with new arrival at noon) that would be unique, Mr. Coughlan did not agree with the conclusion drawn by Mr. Hayden. In relation to question on kerb side traffic in mid-day (that it does not happen today) he stated that they introduced sensitivity tests to remove the effects of scheduling. Assumptions on demand management were agreed with various agencies, and included in 2024 scenario. There was no agreement that there would be no demand management before 2024. The NRA had not yet made their mind in relation to demand management and when it would be introduced. Their own assumptions were that no demand management in 2012 and demand management in place in 2024. In response to question if they asked any of the agencies when the demand management would be in place, he responded that the agencies were happy with the methodology and assumptions. The inspector did not accept references to NRA submissions in the IKEA hearing, as NRA was not present in today’s hearing to confirm. In relation to bus services to the airport, and whether it was necessary to provide QBCs, he referred to Swords QBC ran through the airport, they had provided bus priority measures within the campus, and LAP showed the intentions to provide QBC around the airport box by FCC. While using Saturn modelling bus lanes were not modelled separately from the traffic, but was included in the junctions. Three lanes would be constructed, but two lanes would be used in the model. It took into account of other developments in the area, and all the land use assumptions in Ballymun were taken into consideration. He repeated that T2 EIA set out to assess the impact of T2. The South Fingal Network Study set out to stress test the road network, an as such had different objectives. In response to the question whether he considered the EIS had taken into consideration of the cumulative impacts the traffic that would be generated from planned and permitted development he said yes. Mr. Flanagan (FCC) referred to a number of studies and stated that the measures referred to in these studies prepared in advance of the LAP they should not be confused with the objectives of the LAP (such as transport master plan accessibility study) Mr. O Sullivan for ILTP (consultants for FCC) stated that there seems to be confusion between bus priority and bus lanes or QBC. There was no objective in the LAP to provide bus lanes. They could take a variety of forms (intelligent form giving priority, or dedicated lanes) at the M50 public inquiry there was no bus lane priority on any of the approaches because there was no need. Bus lanes would be introduced at the detailed design stage not at the strategic modelling stage. The decision of the Board in M50 required a demand management study in 2015 not that it should be introduced in 2015. Tolling on the tunnel was a demand management measure. Strategic modelling looked at what happened in a large conurbation over a time line, in a broad manner, as it grew couple of hundred thousand. It did not look at specific locations. Planning applications looked at specific impact of development, and had more precise information. Strategic modelling could not do this. Mr. McGrath (FCC) agreed. In relation to the question of exactly when the demand management on the M50 would come into play was irrelevant. Platform for change had included demand management around 2016. The question of when exactly it would happen between 2012 and 2024 was irrelevant. Condition number 7 of the decision of the board in relation to M50 was related to demand management and was be provided. ( it referred to publication and did not give a specific date for implementation) In response to statement by Mr. Hayden to Mr. McGrath that what was agreed in the meetings constituted scoping, Mr. Flanagan stated that it was not. Again referring to different results in relation to Ballymun junction, Mr. Hayden asked whether the authority agreed with the DAA that they could use a different methodology. Mr. McGrath said there are different assumptions based on time of study and objectives of the study. what strategic study wanted to find out was different from Saturn. On the Ballymun interchange there were on-going discussions between the roads authority and DTO and themselves. There were a number of options. Two general traffic lanes of a bus lane and a traffic lane. What happened on that link had implications on the junctions. There were concerns by the roads authority that additional traffic would put pressure on the Ballymun junction. They did not want queues on the Ballymun interchange stoping traffic getting through in the vicinity of the airport. In response to the question by Mr. Barnes the issue was whether the link should be two plus one or one plus one. The M50 upgrade had allowed for it (condition number 1 of the M50 upgrade, required facilitating of QBC on Naul Road) In relation to timing of the infrastructure, he stated it was still under discussion. O’Sullivan said that in their ILTP study underpinning LAP, they had given prediction that in 2200 the two-way traffic flow on the Ballymun road, with the airport doubled its capacity. On the M50 public inquiry at the opening of completion of M50 it was 2400 (very similar figures). FCC were doing studies on the airport box. Major commercial developments in and around airport including Metro Park lands, which would have its own LAP, and liked to provision of Metro, than the road connecting Baldoyle to Cherry hound would have its own LAP. The 30-35mppa in the LAP was exactly what the M50 upgrade had assumed it would be. In response to the question by Mr. Barnes he said there was already an airport box. The concept they were referring to was upgrading of the airport box. There were discussions regarding which parts of the roads were being discussed. In response to question by Mr. Hayden that there was an assumption of dualling the road, and that three different studies provided different numbers for the same road, he stated the decision on dualling of a road depended on various numbers of factors, including level of service, and quality of driving experience. In M50 the problem arose because of troubles at interchanges. The studies were not saying you have to put them into dual carriageway standard. The most important section was required by the planning condition. In response to question by Mr. Barnes (Figure 6.19 V3 of the EIS), in relation to east west distributor, and the conditions imposed, Mr. McGrath stated that decision on what should be required from the applicant was based on the margin of impact from T2 on the background network. The link between Cherryhound and Baldoyle was being currently studied but they did not feel T2 would have impact on the same so there was no condition imposed. In relation to the time frame in the east west distributor, the consultants have carried out quite a bit, main constraints, topography etc but there was still consultations, route selection, EIS for the CPO needed to be prepared. They envisaged completion of non statutory period by the end of the year followed by another year for the completion of study and autumn 2008, then the construction would be another 18-24 months. Mr. Hayden repeated why there was no condition to require dualling of the other road, and why they had agreed to parameters which resulted a lower number. Mr. McGrath stated that what was agreed was the input into the model, not output. Mr.O’Sullivan referred to p18 (4.2.1) of the ILTP report included three elements, they could not be identical. What was changing the assumptions were the DTO forecast. It was based on assessment by DTO and seven local authority based on zonings and development plans. Land use plans provided employment figures. Then these were compared with Regional Planning Guidelines (2004-2006). When it came to T2, County Council looked at the work done by RPA in relation to Metro which had looked at putting as much traffic into the road network in the vicinity of the airport to see the worst case scenario. This provided higher figures than the DTO model. The position of the planning authority was that runway could have huge throughput, but the constraining impact was the terminal. Mr.OSullivan referred to a new link route, and explained that the figures had to be different. It was in the EIS. Mr. Kelly (transport consultant for Ryanair) referred back to DAA master plan accessibility study, S.4.4.6, with or without additional commercial development which gave a commitment that no more commercial development should take place, he questioned why there was no such conditions to that effect. Mr. McGrath (FCC) said one could not condition other developments in a decision on this application. The idea that no further commercial development should occur in the immediate vicinity of T2 could be considered. But each application had to be considered in its own merits, and commercial developments would have their own traffic impact assessment. In relation to parking Mr. Kelly asked how the planning authority could reconcile lack of long term parking with the capacity being provided, and whether there should not be proportional increase in long term parking. O’ Sullivan referred to LAP objective CP3 and that it would no pro-rata increase. Information in relation to car parking has been provided in response to request by the inspector. They considered there was large quantum of parking in the airport and environs. There was also a market for those who live outside the DAA lands to provide long term parking. They considered there was sufficient long term car parking provision for phase I. He referred to LAP policies of CP 9 and CP10. On going supply of public transport infrastructure and services, and subject to mmp. The planning authority had quite a good degree of control on long term car parking because a lot of the parking areas had temporary permissions and they could be discontinued if necessary. He (?) repeated whether there should be a condition for provision of extra capacity in the southern parallel road. Mr. McGrath referred to increase of population that would take place in the Baldoyle and south Fingal in general, and the result of the traffic impact assessment had indicated it was not necessary in the context of T2 alone. Mr. O’Leary (of Dublin Bus), was happy that as the time went on there would be improvement of public transport facilities leading to a more positive market share for public transport. He saw the figures provided as baseline and expected public transport would be in excess of 50% plus. There were some issues but they were satisfied that they could sort these out with the developers. Ms Lawton wanted to ask about the public safety zones, no figures were made available in relation to increased risk to those in traffic. She stated that the risk was not quantified in the EIS and the junctions should be improved to reduce risk. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the relevant authority in charge of public safety zones was aware of the proposed development. Mr. McGrath stated that queuing in traffic on roads in public safety zones would be taken into consideration in the design process. (example was Cherry hound to Malahide Road). Ms. O’Brien asked whether they were talking about the proposed public safety zones. Mr. O’Donnell confirmed, they were not yet adopted. There were questions regarding details of some of the junctions, including Collinstown Cross. In some cases the details were still being worked on. Signalised junctions were modelled. Following explanation by Mr. Lucas for ARUP, ms. O’Brien did not think it would address the problem. Mr. McGrath explained that the buses would be given priority which would free the junction. Mr. Harley wanted to concentrate on the employee impact on the traffic, and submitted that this was underestimated at least by a factor of three and possibly by a factor of six. Three scenarios were being presented, (runway, with or without terminal and do nothing). He referred to the work done by York Aviation 2003 for the runway and the identical numbers in the T2 EIS in relation to employee figures. He said it was impossible to have identical numbers. Mr.Coughlan responded that they had looked at the T2, and not to R2. Mr Harley stated that York Aviation had stated without a new runway capacity would be 28.4mppa by 2025. T1 limited to 3700 passengers per hour was identical to 28.4mppa. This meant at 5500 pph would equate to 50mppa. Mr. Harley was asking the basis for their assumptions. He repeated that the employee figures was predicted to be half of what it would be. Looking at table 6.10 he stated that traffic analysis the employee numbers became 1800 half of 3700. How had this happen? He asked for the traffic impact of the employees. He also asked about the impact of indirect employment. In his view when it came to traffic impact all the extra jobs had disappeared. In particular the impact of employees on the peak did not seem to be included. He maintained the lunch time peak would not happen the way it was presented. Mr. Coughlan responded that they took all of the additional jobs to be created in the airport, they lumped it into T2 and were being conservative. York aviation was not just looking at T2. Mr. Byrne agreed with Mr. Coughlan that the airport was not just a runway, it was also a terminal. With growth in car use, and population he asked why another airport was not provided in the GDA to resolve the traffic problem in the vicinity of the airport. He asked of they considered in terms of solving traffic problems. Mr. McGrath said this was considered during his time in the DTO and discussed regularly during the production of Platform For Change of which he was the project manager. There were all sorts of reasons against it. There were problems associated with duplication of resources for example extremely expensive Metro, duplication of resources in provision of surface access, duplication of resources in terms of provision of runways, loss of efficiency in terms of duplication of airports and problems associated with hub and connections, passengers coming from far away, but wishing to make connections to other European directions Mr. Sweetman said pre planning file was part of the EIA process. He insisted that these needed to be sent to the inspector. Mr. Flanagan said there were some documents in relation to the application. Rachel Kenny sated that they were available to the public. Mr. Sweetman asked in relation to condition no 7, and how they envisaged a planning process for that road. Mr. Flanagan stated that the planning authority was the road authority and the applicant would carry out the works on behalf of the planning authority. Mr. Sweetman asked were the roads referred to in the public notice. Mr. O’Donnell stated that they were included in the EIS. One could not anticipate the condition of a planning authority and include in the public notice. Mr. Flanagan stated that Mr. Cregihan’s evidence was very helpful as it stated the contract for the M50 had been signed and provided certainty about its deliverability, regarding Condition number 6 Mr. McGrath explained that at the time of the decision there was uncertainty regarding M50 upgrade. They would be content with a revised condition. Mr. Sweetman asked for the impact on the M50 one month before and one month after the opening of T2. Mr. McGrath said analysis was not done on a monthly basis but the model overcome that. Mr. O’Donnell had a suggestion for condition number 6. They still wanted the condition deleted, and maintained their position, and wanted assurance. Mr. Coughlan said delays in signing the contact would effect their program. Mr. Sweetman stated that there was no assessment of construction impacts. The real problem with the T2 was the construction traffic for the M50 and for T2. Mr. Coughlan referred to mitigation measures to stagger starting points etc. Mr. Sweetman insisted peak time had to be stipulated, and clarified. In response to the question by the inspector whether use of special contribution condition for condition number 7 (requiring road works) was considered, rather than asking the applicants to carry out the works, Mr. McGrath said they felt it was considered to be a better option in terms of practicalities. Sheila Morris (for St. Margaret’s) stated that the western access should not be included in this case. In response to questions by Mr.Barnes, whether phase I could operate without the requirement to upgrade M1 to the north of the roundabout, Mr. Coughlan responded that he was not sure it could be done. (It was not required for T2 on its own.) NRA was comfortable with it as a baseline assumption. Mr. O’Sullivan responded to the question in relation to reservation for a new access coming into the complex from Forest Little road. There was already an access, it was enhancement of the existing access. Yes, provision of an enhanced access was in the LAP. The major traffic generators in the area was not related to the proposed development. Yes, the reason for the western access was to provide access to the eastern campus from the west. In relation to an event or major accident in the M50, and whether the same consideration and conditions as the runway would apply, condition numbers 14 and 15 would be consistent with the runway application. In response to question by the inspector he agreed that prior to occupation of the development would be appropriate. In response to the question where the outer ring intersected with swords road, Rachel Kenny stated the outer ring was a separate road. Mr.O’Sullivan stated there were two sections concerning St. Margaret’s. Western access would only be considered if and when T3 is planned. There was a small section already constructed. It would be a continuation. In response to question regarding capacity, Mr Foley had prepared a one page summary of the NATS report prepared by experts in 2002, about ultimate capacity of the twin runway system. He stated the capacity of the parallel runway system would be between 74-87 peak hour movements, depending on the mode of operation. Translating these peak hour movements to passenger numbers depended on a number of factors, such as runway peak hour capacity, sustainable peak hourly capacity, air traffic control procedures, aircraft mix (small aircraft would deliver less passengers), and on whether the planes were full The ultimate potential of the parallel runway system would depend on many variables but their best estimate would suggest 350,000-400,000 movements which would translate to 45-50mppa. In response to question if a lower estimate is provided would there be a cut off point from the point of viability of the western campus, Mark Foley stated that one would need a reasonable head room. He repeated that the figure could be 50-55mppa depending on the variables. One needed to be very careful. In response to question regarding accessibility study (page 111) based on 40mppa capacity of Dublin Airport, Mr. O’Sullivan stated that they had looked various scenarios for the eastern campus doubling existing to 30-35mppa in the eastern campus. They replicated T3 to be a mirror image of the eastern campus. They had taken the worst case scenario. They were asked to look at least 40mppa. In response to question by Mr. Barnes drawing attention to a previous statement by Sean O' Faircheallaigh of 60mppa as possible ultimate capacity of the both runways, Mr Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that anything over 30mppa would involve excursion to the western side, it would also from transportation point of view allow getting access from the west into the campus, and allow people with land to have opportunity to develop that side. They would have gone for an approximately figure of 30mmpa to provide a balanced development, but in the light of the unprecedented growth experienced at the airport and having regard to the problems associated with providing new infrastructure at the western campus, in the immediate future they were faced with a problem an emergency situation in the eastern campus that’s why they were prepared to consider up to 35mppa. A figure of 45-50mppa would still make western campus viable. The figure of 40mppa given to the transport people came from the aviation consultant. There was reasonable certainty of going to that level. Afterwards it was not. Mr. Harley said CEO of DAA had given a capacity of 60mppa (on a radio show), another senior executive program manager had said 55mppa. Mr Foley stressed that increase in aircraft size could swing it by 10mppa. It was very important not to lock into numbers. Sean O' Faircheallaigh stated that the advice of their expert was the same. S. 49 Contribution condition: Neil Stein (BL) for RPA read from a written document. Referring to Metro North which the RPA was in the process of bringing about, he stated that it was a public infrastructure project within the meaning of s 49 (7) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The planning authority had published a draft supplementary development contribution scheme on Nov, 2006 in relation to Metro North. Reading from various sections of the Act, referring to a number of court decisions, and examining what would happen if a contribution was not required, he argued that as the proposed development was subject of an appeal there was no planning permission in existence for the proposed development as a result of the decision of the planning authority. The only permission would be that granted by the Board. He asked that the Board impose a contribution condition in accordance with the scheme. Mr. Flanagan agreed that the analysis was correct. Referring to Mc Kone case, he submitted that a decision confirmed the rights, not an application. Mr. O’Donnell stated that DAA did not have a difficulty with accepting a condition s.49, in principle but they would prefer a degree of flexibility to be confirmed on the planning authority regarding implementation of the scheme. They were aware that the application was predicated on the Metro. Mr. Harley stated that earlier it was stated that 20% of the passengers for metro would be for airport. He asked that the condition be designed to reflect this. In response to question by Jerry Barnes to clarify whether certain sections of a number of roads were included in development contribution schemes, the planning authority provided clarification. 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:
|