DART+ (DART Expansion)

L1011

Grandeeod wrote: »

Because Governments have introduced new barriers via private bus routes and a luas sell off.

The NTA will have full pricing control over contracted (not "private") bus routes and the RPA still own the Luas regardless of who has the contract to run it - it hasn't been sold. Rather like how the NTA will own the buses on the contracted routes.

TheBandicoot

Grandeeod wrote: »

Sorry CIE lads, but the deals done over the years are holding progress back. Here's a small example.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/irish-rail-worker-awarded-60000-following-withdrawal-of-voluntary-redundancy-offer-30066438.html

I fail to see what the problem there is tbh. Companies routinely sue/settle with each other for silly amounts of money for breach of contract. Is it somehow wrong when an individual does it?

Grandeeod

MYOB wrote: »

The NTA will have full pricing control over contracted (not "private") bus routes and the RPA still own the Luas regardless of who has the contract to run it - it hasn't been sold. Rather like how the NTA will own the buses on the contracted routes.

You have misunderstood me. When I referred to the luas "sell off", I was referring to the change in Government thinking as per the provision of public transport. Luas was provided by a new state agency who provided the infrastructure for a private operator to make money from.

Contracted bus routes/private bus routes. Essentially allowing non state backed operators to provide services.

I've no problem with this, but the point I'm making is that the Government are introducing these systems in a peacemeal fashion while failing to deal with the biggest operator of all. CIE.

Grandeeod

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I fail to see what the problem there is tbh. Companies routinely sue/settle with each other for silly amounts of money for breach of contract. Is it somehow wrong when an individual does it?

Breach of contract? What contract? He was offered "Voluntary Redundancy". It was withdrawn. Was voluntary redundancy part of his "contract" at any point? Binding? I'm still struggling to find out about this guys "contract". He was an employee. The voluntary redundancy was withdrawn when the company realised they didn't have enough money for it. He sued and got something, but not all of what he thought he was entitled too. Considering the voluntary redundancy package was offered to many, its obvious there may be more getting ready for a day in court.

There's nothing routine about this. It's more of the same self entitlement BS that has always emanated from the cash cow that is CIE over the last 60 years.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The NTA will have full pricing control over contracted (not "private") bus routes and the RPA still own the Luas regardless of who has the contract to run it - it hasn't been sold. Rather like how the NTA will own the buses on the contracted routes.

The NTA are now in charge of Luas and are only contracting work to the RPA.

TheBandicoot

Grandeeod wrote: »

He was offered "Voluntary Redundancy". It was withdrawn. Was voluntary redundancy part of his "contract" at any point? Binding?

Apparently, yes, since that is what the court decided. The company offered him a binding deal, then reneged on their end on it by withdrawing the offer. Perfectly entitled to dispute that. The contract refers to the terms of the binding offer of voluntary redundancy, not his employment contract per se. Again, I fail to see the issue.

Grandeeod wrote: »

There's nothing routine about this. It's more of the same self entitlement BS that has always emanated from the cash cow that is CIE over the last 60 years.

What is BS about getting as much money as possible for yourself? Isn't that the whole point of the world we live in, apparently? Should the employee just have rolled over and not pursued the 60k? That's a nice chunk of money, if he got legal advice and decided there was a very good chance of getting such a substantial amount, why the hell wouldn't he do it? Who wouldn't take money there for the taking? Again, I fail to see what is self entitled about it.

The company should have simply been more competent and not issued a binding deal of voluntary redundancy that they were unable to fulfill- they cocked up. An employee has no obligation to be nice to their employer and forgive them such a mistake, it is an unequal relationship and as a capitalist institution a company will always **** over its employees if it it 'needs' to do so. Thus the employee should be as cold and hard nosed with them as they would be with him.

The company has more resources than an individual employee has to get the appropriate legal and financial advice in place before making such a stupid mistake.

murphaph

That's the whole point he's making. CIE don't care about such costly mistakes as a private company would as the taxpayer is there to bail them out. Let's be honest...CIE has done nothing to advance public transport in Ireland.

KCAccidental

murphaph wrote: »

That's the whole point he's making. CIE don't care about such costly mistakes as a private company would as the taxpayer is there to bail them out. Let's be honest...CIE has done nothing to advance public transport in Ireland.

his point is the opposite. That public employees are feckless sponges out to get as much as they can because they have the temerity to work for a publicly funded company. Basically copying the daily mail mentality.

TheBandicoot

murphaph wrote: »

That's the whole point he's making. CIE don't care about such costly mistakes as a private company would as the taxpayer is there to bail them out.

That is conjecture. They made a mistake, or there was some sort of breakdown in the issuing of the voluntary redundancy(horrible term, a human being is never 'redundant', everyone has something to offer) offer.

You can argue that making that mistake is because of some kind of institutional problem of sloppiness and apathy, but realistically you cannot back that up with any evidence.

I also don't think the point he was making was about the attitude of CIE in the case. I think it is about what he perceives as the entitled attitude of the employee in pursuing the action- as KC says above. So we disagree there.

murphaph

If you can find examples of employees in private companies being offered redundancy and then having the offer reversed and them successfully suing their employer for 60 grand I'll accept that it's not just another case of CIE incompetence and carefree spending of taxpayers' money.

strassenwo!f

And what was this employee's role in the DART Underground project, as a depot manager in Portlaoise?

Banjoxed

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And what was this employee's role in the DART Underground project, as a depot manager in Portlaoise?

Why don't you ring and ask?

LXFlyer

I think he means what has that got to do with this thread!

Grandeeod

KCAccidental wrote: »

his point is the opposite. That public employees are feckless sponges out to get as much as they can because they have the temerity to work for a publicly funded company. Basically copying the daily mail mentality.

Wrong! That is your interpretation. All you see is a post having a pop at CIE workers, while the entire management of the organisation and its relationship with the Government is rotten to the core.

Grandeeod

TheBandicoot wrote: »

That is conjecture. They made a mistake, or there was some sort of breakdown in the issuing of the voluntary redundancy(horrible term, a human being is never 'redundant', everyone has something to offer) offer.

You can argue that making that mistake is because of some kind of institutional problem of sloppiness and apathy, but realistically you cannot back that up with any evidence.

I also don't think the point he was making was about the attitude of CIE in the case. I think it is about what he perceives as the entitled attitude of the employee in pursuing the action- as KC says above. So we disagree there.

You are wrong too and merely following the worn out CIE apologist agenda of accusing others of blaming the workers and the workers only. The entire entity that is CIE is toxic.

TheBandicoot

Grandeeod wrote: »

You are wrong too and merely following the worn out CIE apologist agenda of accusing others of blaming the workers and the workers only. The entire entity that is CIE is toxic.

And you are following the worn out CIE attacker agenda.. Anyway not replying, don't want to take the thread further off topic, apologies to mods.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

If you can find examples of employees in private companies being offered redundancy and then having the offer reversed and them successfully suing their employer for 60 grand I'll accept that it's not just another case of CIE incompetence and carefree spending of taxpayers' money.

That is a very restrictive definition.

For a start, most private companies won't even offer a generous redundancy package, it will be statutory only so the question won't arise.

You can't compare apples and oranges.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

most private companies won't even offer a generous redundancy package

You can't compare apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges indeed.

L1011

Godge wrote: »

That is a very restrictive definition.

For a start, most private companies won't even offer a generous redundancy package, it will be statutory only so the question won't arise.

You can't compare apples and oranges.

You've.never worked in a US tech firm downsizing then I take it? Or the many other sectors where voluntary payments are well above statutory.

Manufacturing, retail/leisure services and media would be statutory,.that's about it.

annfield1978

Etenders notice relaesed today regarding transport planning and economic services to update the business case for the DART interconnector

82695 - NW5239LG - Transport Planning /Economic consultant.
Publication date: 19-03-2014
Response deadline: 03-04-2014 12:00 Irish time
Procedure: Negotiated Procedure (NON OJEU)
Description: The DART Expansion programme comprises several major railway enhancement projects, the most notable of which is the DART Underground (7.6 Km electrified railway tunnel which will run through the heart of Dublin City Centre with 5 underground and 1 surface station and connects the Northern and Kildare rail lines).In 2009, Iarnród Éireann procured the DART Expansion Business Case as part of the process of seeking a Railway Order. The business case was based on the then project appraisal guidelines, economic growth projections and version of the NTA model. Iarnród Éireann, having secured the Railway Order, now wishes to procure the services of a suitably experienced transport planning / economic consultant to update this business case to reflect the current project approval guidelines, growth projections and forecasted transportation network.
Buyer: Iarnrod Eireann-Irish Rail

cgcsb

annfield1978 wrote: »

Etenders notice relaesed today regarding transport planning and economic services to update the business case for the DART interconnector

82695 - NW5239LG - Transport Planning /Economic consultant.
Publication date: 19-03-2014
Response deadline: 03-04-2014 12:00 Irish time
Procedure: Negotiated Procedure (NON OJEU)
Description: The DART Expansion programme comprises several major railway enhancement projects, the most notable of which is the DART Underground (7.6 Km electrified railway tunnel which will run through the heart of Dublin City Centre with 5 underground and 1 surface station and connects the Northern and Kildare rail lines).In 2009, Iarnród Éireann procured the DART Expansion Business Case as part of the process of seeking a Railway Order. The business case was based on the then project appraisal guidelines, economic growth projections and version of the NTA model. Iarnród Éireann, having secured the Railway Order, now wishes to procure the services of a suitably experienced transport planning / economic consultant to update this business case to reflect the current project approval guidelines, growth projections and forecasted transportation network.
Buyer: Iarnrod Eireann-Irish Rail

a fairly strong indication that the govt intends to press ahead with the project in 2015, why else bother updating the business case.

ClovenHoof

Looks like it is game on so.

cgcsb

if it gets the go ahead for 2015 capital investment, what kind of timescale are we looking at for permission, tendering and construction? Will I be DARTing it to Stephen's Green before 2020??

1huge1

Well the original time-scale would of had construction starting in 2012 with it becoming operational in 2018.

If it were to be in the 2015 capital investment programme, you can assume construction wont start that year, perhaps 2017/18, so then you're talking about 2024 by the original time-scale.

This is all SPECULATIVE of course.

Grandeeod

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Looks like it is game on so.

It's a game alright.:rolleyes:

annfield1978

Why would they have to update the business case, is it anything to do with the railway order issued in 2011 and period in which they have to acquire lands, or construct?

Jack Noble

annfield1978 wrote: »

Why would they have to update the business case, is it anything to do with the railway order issued in 2011 and period in which they have to acquire lands, or construct?

A lot has changed since 2009/10 when previous BC was done for IE.

Makes sense to do a new case based on all the current relevant material and circumstances.

If govt is going to proceed with a circa €4billion project, then it needs to be based on the most up to date figures - not a five-year-old document drawn up in a different time under different circumstances.

cgcsb

A new business case would be prudent considering the vastly different economic conditions, different population predictions and a revised timescale

strassenwo!f

Jack Noble wrote: »

A lot has changed since 2009/10 when previous BC was done for IE.

Makes sense to do a new case based on all the current relevant material and circumstances.

If govt is going to proceed with a circa €4billion project, then it needs to be based on the most up to date figures - not a five-year-old document drawn up in a different time under different circumstances.

This would be good. Previously we've seen with this project an initial plan from the (now defunct) Dublin Transportation Office in 2000 becoming a major part of Martin Cullen's (now abandoned) Transport21 thing in 2005, and subsequently becoming a "National Transport Policy requirement" courtesy of An Bord Pleanala in 2011, without any apparent analysis of currently relevant material.

murphaph

Meh. Other cities have long term development plans for major infrastructure and don't feel the need to reappraise things all the time.