Western Rail Corridor

L1011

1: You can't have a congestion charge with a pre-existing public transport infrastructure
2: Taller buildings won't reverse pre-existing sprawl; nor will any of the damn things get built when we have this little money.

Cancelling a project which doesn't even meet basic cost/benefit analysis in the west frees up funding, simple as.

Gruffalo

Schuhart wrote: »

But its not about benefiting Dublin. Its about not wasting national resources.

Have you forgotten that you are the one who introduced Dublin as an issue a few posts ago?

Incidently, any chance at all of you clearly stating what you mean by “all the new services which have been added to the GDA over recent years”?

By new services, I mean the likes of DART (1984) Luas (2004) QBC's (no precise date), growth of commuter services from Kildare region, Northern line and Southern line. All introduced without proper thinking regarding integration and how they were going to get from point to point. Just dump in the city centre.

WRC is in line with the NSS, which is Government policy. It is not a waste of resources though it will be quite some time before there is a full recoup of investment.

Gruffalo

MYOB wrote: »

1: You can't have a congestion charge with a pre-existing public transport infrastructure
2: Taller buildings won't reverse pre-existing sprawl; nor will any of the damn things get built when we have this little money.

Cancelling a project which doesn't even meet basic cost/benefit analysis in the west frees up funding, simple as.

I said they were ideas, not gospel.

It will free up very little funding which might pay for part of another band aid solution to Dublin's problems. Remember the first phase money has effectively been spent now. I do not think they should push ahead with the remainder of the WRC just yet but I do not think the money saved will solve Dublins problems.

L1011

1984 is 'recent'?

Anyway, without the DART and QBCs, Dublin would have ground to an entire halt in the early 2000s; and with it the entire economy of the country. The lack of the later stages of the WRC would have no such impact.

I'm not against them being rebuilt; I'm very much against them being rebuilt NOW - wait till we have money again.

Schuhart

MYOB wrote: »

1984 is 'recent'?

I know, its painful to see a man drown so publically.

Gruffalo wrote: »

By new services, I mean the likes of DART (1984) Luas (2004) QBC's (no precise date), growth of commuter services from Kildare region, Northern line and Southern line.

OK, so we've finally got out of you that you are referring to rail services which (apart from Luas) run on lines laid before the foundation of the State. In other words, services that show the extent to which substantial investment in Dublin has been avoided.

We've also established (above, in my post that you refuse to read despite specifically requesting me to make it) that the per capita capital cost of the Luas is a fraction of Limerick Ennis. I've also briefly set out pointers that illustrate how the emphasis in Government policy since the founding of the State has mostly been to obstruct investment in Dublin.

So at this stage what, if any, claim are you making about Dublin receiving excessive investment?

Gruffalo wrote: »

WRC is in line with the NSS, which is Government policy. It is not a waste of resources though it will be quite some time before there is a full recoup of investment.

What is your basis for saying the investment will ultimately be recouped?

Gruffalo

Schuhart wrote: »

I don’t know how much detail you expect on this in a single post. But I’ll start by quoting Devalera, from a debate on unemployment in 1927, where he said (in reference to the Ardnacrusha scheme)So, as you can see, the initial outlook of Fianna Fail was most certainly opposed to investment in the cities.
.

No man drowning here. You use 1927 as a defence and then tell me that 1984 is not recent enough. That is as silly as your comparison between Dublin and Munich. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the education system in Dublin. Just to clarify for you DART began in 1984 but investment has been continuous since.


I have not claimed that investment was excessive in Dublin, merely that it was done in an ineffective manner resulting in wastage.

paulm17781

Gruffalo wrote: »

No man drowning here. You use 1927 as a defence and then tell me that 1984 is not recent enough. That is as silly as your comparison between Dublin and Munich. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the education system in Dublin. Just to clarify for you DART began in 1984 but investment has been continuous since.


I have not claimed that investment was excessive in Dublin, merely that it was done in an ineffective manner resulting in wastage.

Wastage?

Gruffalo

Schuhart wrote: »

What is your basis for saying the investment will ultimately be recouped?

Government policy, which despite your silly little attitude that you know better, is focused on creating more balance in the country by making regions such as the West sustainable. The West is expected to be the second biggest fastest growing region of Ireland over the coming years. If all the key stakeholders work together, there is no reason why the line can not be effective in the long run. Although as I have already said I think it should be done in stages and they should concentrate on getting the Galway and Limerick areas running properly first.

Btw, if you cut this project, what exactly do you envisage spending the money on? Remember a large chunk of the money has already been spent!

L1011

Gruffalo wrote: »

No man drowning here. You use 1927 as a defence and then tell me that 1984 is not recent enough. That is as silly as your comparison between Dublin and Munich. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the education system in Dublin. Just to clarify for you DART began in 1984 but investment has been continuous since.

Apples and oranges on the timeline there. Using a debate from 1927 to show that something has always been government policy is valid; claiming 1984 is recent is not.

Has DART investment been continous since? I could swear theres been none for the past 5 years; or the first 15...

Gruffalo

paulm17781 wrote: »

Wastage?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wastage

Gruffalo

MYOB wrote: »

Apples and oranges on the timeline there. Using a debate from 1927 to show that something has always been government policy is valid; claiming 1984 is recent is not.

Has DART investment been continous since? I could swear theres been none for the past 5 years; or the first 15...

Apples and oranges? Who has been down the markets? There has been plenty of investment in the DART over that time frame.

You are still trying to make my point out to be something it is not. I am not against investment in Dublin. But hey, you keep thinking that it is a big city like Munich if it makes you feel better. Why not compare it to New York while you are at it? Oh you can, It's also full of Irish.

Victor

Gruffalo wrote: »

To relate this back to the WRC, my point is, if the people of the GDA ensured that there own infrastructural projects were done in the most cost-effective manner it would save more money than the WRC costs. The WRC is just an easy target.

Gruffalo wrote: »

2. Allow for taller buildings in Dublin City Centre. Even 3 extra strories on each residential building would make a massive difference.

How about doing this in the west?

Gruffalo wrote: »

WRC is in line with the NSS, which is Government policy. It is not a waste of resources though it will be quite some time before there is a full recoup of investment.

The economics are so bad, that it will never make its money back. This is a purely political project.

Gruffalo wrote: »

I have not claimed that investment was excessive in Dublin, merely that it was done in an ineffective manner resulting in wastage.

Schuhart

Gruffalo wrote: »

No man drowning here. You use 1927 as a defence and then tell me that 1984 is not recent enough.

Erm, you understand that this was in response to your contention that investment in Dublin was always a priority for Governments. I was pointing out that the opposite is the case, so the reference to 1927 is clearly relevant in the context.

However, your taking 1984 to be 'recent' is a slightly different matter.

Gruffalo wrote: »

That is as silly as your comparison between Dublin and Munich.

They are broadly equivalent cities. You wouldn't compare Dublin to New York or London. Munich is probably about right, but I'm open to any other comparison.

Bottom line is your contention that two tram lines constitutes incredible investment is clearly hatstand.

Gruffalo wrote: »

Perhaps you should be more concerned about the education system in Dublin.

More evidence of the drowning man clutching for straws.

Gruffalo wrote: »

Just to clarify for you DART began in 1984 but investment has been continuous since.

What do you mean by continuous investment? Replacement of rolling stock? How is that impacted one way or the other by the Interconnector?

Gruffalo wrote: »

I have not claimed that investment was excessive in Dublin, merely that it was done in an ineffective manner resulting in wastage.

You haven't pointed to any wastage yet.

And how do you reconcile your statement that you are not saying investment was excessive, with your incorrect claim Dublin has always been a priority for Government, and that more investment is needed in the West?

I mean, you are making no sense whatsoever. You just seem to have started with a comfortable rant about Dublin people opposing the WRC and, when challenged, have nothing to put up.

jdivision

Gruffalo wrote: »

Government policy, which despite your silly little attitude that you know better, is focused on creating more balance in the country by making regions such as the West sustainable.

But it won't, the WRC is a farce of an idea that would need substantial annual government subsidies to run. The passenger projections are horrendous.

L1011

Gruffalo wrote: »

Apples and oranges? Who has been down the markets? There has been plenty of investment in the DART over that time frame.

If you've never heard the term "comparing apples and oranges", I'd be surprised.

There was no investement in the DART between its initiation and the eventual extension of the line and there has been none since 2004 when the last set of additional EMUs was bought - many of these were to replace fire damaged units anyway.

Gruffalo

Schuhart wrote: »

1.Munich is probably about right, but I'm open to any other comparison.
2.And how do you reconcile your statement that you are not saying investment was excessive, with your incorrect claim Dublin has always been a priority for Government, and that more investment is needed in the West?

3.I mean, you are making no sense whatsoever. You just seem to have started with a comfortable rant about Dublin people opposing the WRC and, when challenged, have nothing to put up.

1.Munich is not comparable with Dublin. You are clutching at straws.

2. How do you reconcile the fact that 1/3 of the population are dependent on working in Dublin with your incorrect claim that Dublin has not always been the priority. Because Dev said something in 1927?

3. If you could look past your anti-life outside Dublin attitude for a moment you would see that all I have said is that Dublin would save more money by running projects properly than it would by cutting the WRC. Remember the Ennis -Athenty section which is almost built was due to eat up a substantial amount of the budget. So there is very little left to save.

Gruffalo

MYOB wrote: »

If you've never heard the term "comparing apples and oranges", I'd be surprised.

There was no investement in the DART between its initiation and the eventual extension of the line and there has been none since 2004 when the last set of additional EMUs was bought - many of these were to replace fire damaged units anyway.

Not true, someone needs to look up the meaning of the word investment.

Thats besides the point, to return to my original point about Dublin, you will save more money by running projects effectively than by cutting the WRC.

Gruffalo

Victor wrote: »

How about doing this in the west?
The economics are so bad, that it will never make its money back. This is a purely political project.

1. We have already done the Mary O'Rourke thing, chief. I am not a FF'er, I am not from Longford-Westmeath, so another useless attempt to cause offence. I have not said that spent ineffectively by Dublin people, but rather in Dublin.

2. I agree that one off housing needs to be controlled in the West and larger concentrations of people need to be developed in the towns. Also in the midlands, where I am from.

3. You are talking about a piece of infrastructure in an area which is projected to be the second fastest growing in the country over the coming years. I do not predict that it will make a mint but it will deliver social and economic benefits above what it costs, if all the relevant stakeholders work together.

L1011

Gruffalo wrote: »

Not true, someone needs to look up the meaning of the word investment.

What magical different meaning of investement do you have, then?

Gruffalo

MYOB wrote: »

What magical different meaning of investement do you have, then?

I am busy so I will make this quick. One quick example is: Extending the service to new stops is investment. It does not happen free of charge. You seem to think the only thing that constitutes investment is building new track or buying new trains.

Btw I think the DART is great.

L1011

The only extensions to new stops happened during the time period I've cover.

I'll reiterate - there has been no investment in the DART for the past 5 years; nor was there for its first 15. Understand yet?

invincibleirish

Gruffalo wrote: »

3. You are talking about a piece of infrastructure in an area which is projected to be the second fastest growing in the country over the coming years. I do not predict that it will make a mint but it will deliver social and economic benefits above what it costs, if all the relevant stakeholders work together.

where are you getting these stats saying the West will be the second fastest growing area from? were they based n pop. prejections from the last 5 years?

What social and economic benefits will be reaped from the re-opening of the WRC?

Are you familiar with the term economies of scale?

Schuhart

Gruffalo wrote: »

1.Munich is not comparable with Dublin. You are clutching at straws.

You do understand that there’s more to this than trying to steal my lines. Although I’m delighted that my posts are having such an effect on you.

You’ll notice I’ve invited anyone to supply an alternative city for comparison. I notice you haven’t taken me up on the offer.

Gruffalo wrote: »

2. How do you reconcile the fact that 1/3 of the population are dependent on working in Dublin with your incorrect claim that Dublin has not always been the priority. Because Dev said something in 1927?

Glad to help. Unfortunately, I don’t expect you’ll be able to reciprocate by explaining how you reconcile your statements on the one hand claiming Dublin has always been the priority with your apparent suggestions that you are agreeing that Dublin has traditionally received too little investment (ie your apparent suggestion that the interconnector, or something like it, should have been built decades ago along with a comprehensive suburban rail network). That's if you can actually figure out what it is you're saying at this stage.

I already gave you the pointers in my earlier reply, but I'll spell it out for you with this quote from the speech by Noel Dempsey launching the National Spatial Strategy that I linked to that post.

The Buchanan Report was Ireland’s first attempt at spatial planning. Buchanan foretold how Ireland would develop in the decades ahead unless the future was carefully planned. He warned how Dublin would develop at the expense of the rest of the country. He offered an alternative blueprint to ensure balanced regional development. He advocated the establishment of some large centres throughout the country as a counterbalance to the tilt towards the capital city.

What happened? There was a groundswell against Buchanan’s proposals. Local interests were put first … by a range of people… politicians, the local media, the public … with disastrous consequences for the country as a whole and for the west and midlands in particular.

The report was “shelved” – because people were so parochial in their outlook that they couldn’t bear what they saw as neighbouring towns benefiting at the expense of their own localities. Buchanan was an opportunity wasted.

You’ll understand that its hard for me to overturn the lifetime of misinformation that you carry about in your head. But the quote I supplied above essentially answers your question, as the issue it raises is the one that recurred again and again right down to today.

What’s strange is that the attitudes of folk like yourself so clearly carry on that destructive tradition, present in DeValera’s speech in 1927, apparently oblivious to the fact that you are advocating views demonstrated to the wrong in every generation since the founding of the State.

How do these false attitudes persist? The constant harping on about Dublin. The expectation that some kind of infrastructure, be it rural electrification or regional airports or rail, will magically turn tiny towns into economic powerhouses. The way these nutty views survive is certainly a question for the anthropologists.

Gruffalo wrote: »

3. If you could look past your anti-life outside Dublin attitude for a moment you would see that all I have said is that Dublin would save more money by running projects properly than it would by cutting the WRC. Remember the Ennis -Athenty section which is almost built was due to eat up a substantial amount of the budget. So there is very little left to save.

If you could leave aside your anti-Dublin fetish for a moment (note how to smoothly turn someone’s words back on them – you don’t just blindly rob their phrase) you’d notice that I’ve already said this has nothing to do with raising funds for Dublin and everything to do with not wasting national resources.

Gruffalo

Schuhart wrote: »

You do understand that there’s more to this than trying to steal my lines. Although I’m delighted that my posts are having such an effect on you.

You’ll notice I’ve invited anyone to supply an alternative city for comparison. I notice you haven’t taken me up on the offer. Glad to help. Unfortunately, I don’t expect you’ll be able to reciprocate by explaining how you reconcile your statements on the one hand claiming Dublin has always been the priority with your apparent suggestions that you are agreeing that Dublin has traditionally received too little investment (ie your apparent suggestion that the interconnector, or something like it, should have been built decades ago along with a comprehensive suburban rail network). That's if you can actually figure out what it is you're saying at this stage.

I already gave you the pointers in my earlier reply, but I'll spell it out for you with this quote from the speech by Noel Dempsey launching the National Spatial Strategy that I linked to that post.You’ll understand that its hard for me to overturn the lifetime of misinformation that you carry about in your head. But the quote I supplied above essentially answers your question, as the issue it raises is the one that recurred again and again right down to today.

What’s strange is that the attitudes of folk like yourself so clearly carry on that destructive tradition, present in DeValera’s speech in 1927, apparently oblivious to the fact that you are advocating views demonstrated to the wrong in every generation since the founding of the State.

How do these false attitudes persist? The constant harping on about Dublin. The expectation that some kind of infrastructure, be it rural electrification or regional airports or rail, will magically turn tiny towns into economic powerhouses. The way these nutty views survive is certainly a question for the anthropologists.If you could leave aside your anti-Dublin fetish for a moment (note how to smoothly turn someone’s words back on them – you don’t just blindly rob their phrase) you’d notice that I’ve already said this has nothing to do with raising funds for Dublin and everything to do with not wasting national resources.

Gee, thanks for all that hot air.

Has more investment been spent in Dublin than in the rest of the country. Yes, therefore it is and has been the priority. Should it be the priority? Yes it is the economic heartland of our country.

Now, to what my point has consistently been. A large proportion of the WRC funding has been commited on the Ennis - Athenry line. If you were to cut the WRC what would you do with the remainder?

You assume that WRC will be a complete failure. The following list all support it and you in your assumed wisdom have not provided one shred of evidence to prove them wrong.

The WRC campaign is supported by over 100,000 citizens' signatures; 12 Western County and City Development Boards; all west coast local authorities; 3 regional authorities; The Council for the West; Shannon Development; the Western Development Commission; The Border Midlands and West Regional Assembly; National University of Ireland Galway, 3,377 Community and Voluntary organizations, members of the Community and Voluntary Forum along the West coast; all the Dáil represented political parties; all west coast Chambers of Commerce; ICTU in the West; IFA; IDA; Ireland West Tourism, Local Development Agencies.

L1011

10,000 citizens support Shelbourne F.C., does that mean we should give them tens of millions?

Is that not about two days working load on the Western Commuter line....

invincibleirish

Gruffalo wrote: »

You assume that WRC will be a complete failure. The following list all support it and you in your assumed wisdom have not provided one shred of evidence to prove them wrong.

The WRC campaign is supported by over 100,000 citizens' signatures; 12 Western County and City Development Boards; all west coast local authorities; 3 regional authorities; The Council for the West; Shannon Development; the Western Development Commission; The Border Midlands and West Regional Assembly; National University of Ireland Galway, 3,377 Community and Voluntary organizations, members of the Community and Voluntary Forum along the West coast; all the Dáil represented political parties; all west coast Chambers of Commerce; ICTU in the West; IFA; IDA; Ireland West Tourism, Local Development Agencies.

Oh well that settles it then:D

A list of useless quangos is all you can come up with?

Is it disrespectful to ask your age? you remind me of a young me with your know it all tone:).

Gruffalo

invincibleirish wrote: »

where are you getting these stats saying the West will be the second fastest growing area from? were they based n pop. prejections from the last 5 years?

What social and economic benefits will be reaped from the re-opening of the WRC?

Are you familiar with the term economies of scale?

"Add to this the CSO’s own population projections which indicate that the West will be the second fastest growing region increasing its population by 35% to 2021."

Taken from http://www.wdc.ie/documents/WesternRailCorridorPromotingRegionalBalance13thApri_000.pdf

But I am sure you think you know better.

The following people all support the WRC and believe it will be of benefit why do you think you know better?

The WRC campaign is supported by over 100,000 citizens' signatures; 12 Western County and City Development Boards; all west coast local authorities; 3 regional authorities; The Council for the West; Shannon Development; the Western Development Commission; The Border Midlands and West Regional Assembly; National University of Ireland Galway, 3,377 Community and Voluntary organizations, members of the Community and Voluntary Forum along the West coast; all the Dáil represented political parties; all west coast Chambers of Commerce; ICTU in the West; IFA; IDA; Ireland West Tourism, Local Development Agencies.

Gruffalo

MYOB wrote: »

10,000 citizens support Shelbourne F.C., does that mean we should give them tens of millions?

Is that not about two days working load on the Western Commuter line....

More nonsense, gee, thanks for that.

The following people who all support the WRC, and in the main are more qualified than you. Why do you think you know better?

The WRC campaign is supported by over 100,000 citizens' signatures; 12 Western County and City Development Boards; all west coast local authorities; 3 regional authorities; The Council for the West; Shannon Development; the Western Development Commission; The Border Midlands and West Regional Assembly; National University of Ireland Galway, 3,377 Community and Voluntary organizations, members of the Community and Voluntary Forum along the West coast; all the Dáil represented political parties; all west coast Chambers of Commerce; ICTU in the West; IFA; IDA; Ireland West Tourism, Local Development Agencies.

Gruffalo

invincibleirish wrote: »

Oh well that settles it then:D

A list of useless quangos is all you can come up with?

Is it disrespectful to ask your age? you remind me of a young me with your know it all tone:).

You dismiss everything without any evidence. You clearly have not lost your know it all tone. Why do you know better than these people.

L1011

Could you please stop posting the same information over and over again? Its the worst debating tactic known to man.

A 35% increase to a tiny base is a tiny total. The WRC does not make any economic sense now - not even Phase 1 - and even with a 35% growth will only be justifiable under grounds of regional investment. Are you utterly incapable of accepting this?