What is the status of Metro North?

VanBosch

Does any one know if the RPA provided the requested infor by 1st October?

dereko1969

Yes see here

On 1st October 2009, RPA submitted further information in relation to the Railway Order application which had been requested by An Bord Pleanála.

From here

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/metro_airport_swords/build_and_operation_permission/Pages/MetroNorthRailwayOrderOralHearingEvidence.aspx

dereko1969

Metrobest wrote: »

Ireland's has said a resounding yes to Europe. Now it's time for Ireland to say NO to An Board Pleaneala's interference in the national strategic infrastructure process.

Will you please stop making a show of yourself with your lack of knowledge? ABP have been tasked by the legislature to specifically examine strategic infrastructure!

Victor

Metrobest wrote: »

If you've noted it, would you please name the city where one state agency planning a strategic infrastructure metro project was delayed for months on end by another state agency, when ultimately the decision rested with a third state agency (the planning ministry).

I don't recollect the project but it could have been the Nottingham tram extension. Persumably NET applied for permission, an inquiry is held and eventually a recommendation is made to the minister by the inspector.

Here, the RPA applied for permission, an inquiry is held and eventually a recommendation is made to the board of ABP by the inspector. That the inspector works for ABP and is familiar with ABP procedures and has gone through similar things with them before is probably better than setting up ad-hoc inquiries.

Metrobest

dereko1969 wrote: »

Will you please stop making a show of yourself with your lack of knowledge? ABP have been tasked by the legislature to specifically examine strategic infrastructure!

Get this between your ears. ABP is holding an inqury into metro north at its disrection. There is nothing in the legislation that states this hearing is neccessary. The legislature enacted a strategic infrastructure bill to speed up critical infrastructure bills through the planning process.

Thanks to ABP, metro north is now delayed by at least one year.

This is not normal practice in planning of metro projects. Nobody has been able to come up with a convincing example similar to this

Why am I "making a show of myself" by pointing out this fact?

You have that typical Irish attitude. First you ridicule anyone who disagrees with your world view. The you stick your head in the sand when the facts point otherwise.

Victor

Metrobest wrote: »

ABP is holding an inqury into metro north at its disrection.

Indeed, I understand the holding of any oral hearing is at the discretion of ABP - whether its house extension or the biggest project in the country. That doesn't mean thigns aren't going on in the background.

Do you think it would be democratic to not let the residents have their voices heard? Not everyone can hire a fancy engineer and a barrister to do formal reports to present their case.

spacetweek

Glad to hear the info was submitted to ABP.

Realistically, when can we expect a decision now?

As for a start date, I realise that we're going to have to wait for the December budget before we know for certain whether MN is ruled in or out.

paulm17781

Victor wrote: »

Do you think it would be democratic to not let the residents have their voices heard?

Do you think it democratic that a group of local NIMBYs can hold up a major infrastructure project?

There was public consultations already held time and time again. Why there has to be a "democratic process" at this point is just making things take longer - this is true of every major Irish infrastructure project.

Victor

paulm17781 wrote: »

There was public consultations already held time and time again.

Which, I humbly submit, only presented a tiny amount of information. In August 2008 there were perhaps 20-30 drawings. In September 2008 there were 300 drawings and 3,000 A4 pages.

paulm17781

Victor wrote: »

Which, I humbly submit, only presented a tiny amount of information. In August 2008 there were perhaps 20-30 drawings. In September 2008 there were 300 drawings and 3,000 A4 pages.

How much of the detail will matter to the NIMBYs?

Metrobest

Victor wrote: »

Do you think it would be democratic to not let the residents have their voices heard? Not everyone can hire a fancy engineer and a barrister to do formal reports to present their case.

Democracy ultimately means a course of action in the interest of the greater good, after taking into account all points of view. Local residents' voices were heard at public consultations which were widely publicized. In Ballymun local grassroots groups succeeded in having the line put underground.

Quite why ABP took it upon itself to hold this totally unneccesary hearing is something the board should explain to the public. Speaking of which, the unelected yet extremely powerful board is hardly a shining example of democracy, is it?

Victor

Metrobest, what is the huff about? Its almost sulk like.

paulm17781 wrote: »

How much of the detail will matter to the NIMBYs?

The residents of Swords weren't told whether MN was going to be at ground level or elevated until the application, despite the RPA having a vertical alignment designed at least 18 months beforehand.

Lets look at the Interconnector - how much of the vertical alignment is in the publin domain at this stage? A short section at Inchicore, nothing about the city centre or East Wall yet.

dereko1969

Metrobest, while you may persist with your 'discretionary' oral hearing into Metro North line, try and think of it logically, if you were the inspector involved or the Board of ABP would you decide to have the largest ever infrastructure project in the history of the State decided upon without an oral hearing? would that not lead to endless judicial reviews/injunctions etc from all those that would be likely to want to make submissions to the oral hearing? i just can't see how this discretionary power is actually discretionary in a case like this.

Metrobest

dereko1969 wrote: »

i just can't see how this discretionary power is actually discretionary in a case like this.

Eh, because it´s disretionary? You need to consult a dictionary, dude.

Metrobest

Victor wrote: »

Lets look at the Interconnector - .

That project hasn´t a snowball´s chance in hell of being built before 2020 especially when we factor in the inevitable ABP delays that will occur.

Victor

Metrobest wrote: »

Eh, because it´s disretionary? You need to consult a dictionary, dude.

Perhaps you should look at when discretionary powers are used. They tend to be used when the authority with the discretionary powers feels that using the discretionary powers would be useful and not when such use would be detrimental. ABP has the discretion and they have availed of teh oppurtunity to have an oral hearing. You, Metrobest, do not have that discretion.

You bemoan ABP as undemocratic. Did you prefer the time before ABP when ministers used to decide on planning appeals? With the suggestion that brown envelopes were passed around liberally.

Metrobest

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps you should look at when discretionary powers are used. They tend to be used when the authority with the discretionary powers feels that using the discretionary powers would be useful and not when such use would be detrimental. ABP has the discretion and they have availed of teh oppurtunity to have an oral hearing. You, Metrobest, do not have that discretion.

You bemoan ABP as undemocratic. Did you prefer the time before ABP when ministers used to decide on planning appeals? With the suggestion that brown envelopes were passed around liberally.

Do you work for ABP or something? you are being very defensive of their ´democractic rights´.

ABP is not a democractic body. It´s a quango. I prefer to risk a brown envelope going to a minister who is directly accountable to the public than to the board of a quango, which isn´t.

One of Ireland´s biggest problems is that too much power is in the hands of quangos and vested interests.

Metro North´s decision will ultimately have to be made by the planning ministry which makes ABP´s hearing all the more pointless.

Ultimately everybody want a government that takes firm action and is not afraid to make decisions. Whatever about brown envelopes, people don´t want a government that farms out decision making to unelected quangos.

Victor

Metrobest wrote: »

Do you work for ABP or something?

No.

ABP is not a democractic body. It´s a quango. I prefer to risk a brown envelope going to a minister who is directly accountable to the public than to the board of a quango, which isn´t.

ABP have a consistant approach. Ministers are likely to base decisions on whims. Has there been any accusations of ABP taking bribes?

One of Ireland´s biggest problems is that too much power is in the hands of quangos and vested interests.

Like the RPA?

Metro North´s decision will ultimately have to be made by the planning ministry which makes ABP´s hearing all the more pointless.

Who are these people the "planning ministry"? While the RPA, Department of Transport and government will make the ultimate decision to proceed, it is ABP that will give them the right to proceed.

Whatever about brown envelopes, people don´t want a government that farms out decision making to unelected quangos.

You mean like the judiciary?

Zebra3

Metrobest wrote: »

I prefer to risk a brown envelope going to a minister who is directly accountable to the public than to the board of a quango, which isn´t.

Yes because Ireland's record of the people voting out crooked ministers is top notch.....

dereko1969

Metrobest wrote: »

Metro North´s decision will ultimately have to be made by the planning ministry which makes ABP´s hearing all the more pointless.

Planning Ministry? Now you're just showing your complete ignorance.

crocro

A recent issue of business and finance magazine which you can see here:
http://www.businessandfinancearchive.com/digital-archive/24_09_09/index.htm
estimates that MN will be open in 2018 at the very earliest.

Other dates mentioned in the article (based on unnamed sources) include preferred bidder chosen: march 2011, contract signed jan-feb 2012. Construction period approx 5.5 years

So no serious money required for more than two years and perhaps the world's banks will have recovered at that stage and be ready to finance PPP again or else the NTMA may pay for it. Perhaps the Chinese would build it for us on tick.

It is frustrating to have to wait so long from conception to start of construction but metrobest would need to do a better comparison with other countries if he wants to prove the point that we are worse than others.

It is standard in all developed countries to have one part of government delay other parts. Supreme court rejects high court rulings. Auditors block projects with value for money reports. EIS studies are used worldwide and may lead to cancellation or delay of projects.

Metrobest

crocro wrote: »

A recent issue of business and finance magazine which you can see here:
http://www.businessandfinancearchive.com/digital-archive/24_09_09/index.htm
estimates that MN will be open in 2018 at the very earliest.

Other dates mentioned in the article (based on unnamed sources) include preferred bidder chosen: march 2011, contract signed jan-feb 2012. Construction period approx 5.5 years

So no serious money required for more than two years and perhaps the world's banks will have recovered at that stage and be ready to finance PPP again or else the NTMA may pay for it. Perhaps the Chinese would build it for us on tick.

It is frustrating to have to wait so long from conception to start of construction but metrobest would need to do a better comparison with other countries if he wants to prove the point that we are worse than others.

It is standard in all developed countries to have one part of government delay other parts. Supreme court rejects high court rulings. Auditors block projects with value for money reports. EIS studies are used worldwide and may lead to cancellation or delay of projects.

That article is quite informative. Note in the "international bidders for metro north unimpressed" section that the bidders are bitter about the amount of costly detail required to satisfy ABP, which international experts have pointed out is "far in excess" of what is standard at this stage of a metro project, further evidence that ABP´s involvement in this project is pervasive.

The international investment community has been shaken by the recent economic crises however it seems that the global economy is on the upturn and projects like metro north represent good value in a volatile environment as there is a proven demand (luas) for high frequency, high density transport in Dublin, especially considering that this particular line services an international airport, CBD, universities, etc

The likes of Australia´s Macquarie bank are big players in these kind of projects and will be eager to see the project proceed, having already spent millions on their bids which have now been delayed by ABP. It sends the worst kind of message about Ireland to the international finance community that our inefficient government is hamstrung by one of its own quangos in greenlighting this vital project.

Other developed counties like France may function with a heavily statist structure but Ireland has not had the benefits of decades of sustained wealth and must regain competiveness through its dyamic and business-friendly economy. Efficient decision-making is crucial. That´s why middle men like ABP, which have no useful function in the decision making process, need to be cut out.

godtabh

Metrobest wrote: »

That´s why middle men like ABP, which have no useful function in the decision making process, need to be cut out.

What a joke.

How would you do it? It appears you are an expert on the operations of these "quangos".

Lets here a few ideas from you but I guarantee you'll be laughed out of here

dereko1969

The bitter bidders were those that lost out, not surprising they're going to be upset. Whether they'll be so upset that they won't bid for the Dart Underground will tell the tale, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came back in for that.

Metrobest

kearnsr wrote: »

Lets here a few ideas from you but I guarantee you'll be laughed out of here

I think you've already herd my ideas. The simple answer to quangos is to eliminate them. Ireland has far too many http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article616806.ece

Metrobest

dereko1969 wrote: »

The bitter bidders were those that lost out, not surprising they're going to be upset. Whether they'll be so upset that they won't bid for the Dart Underground will tell the tale, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came back in for that.

Wouldn't you be upset if you lost 5 million euros?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thats the legacy of ABP's involvement in the planning of metro north.

strassenwolf

Metrobest wrote: »

Wouldn't you be upset if you lost 5 million euros?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thats the legacy of ABP's involvement in the planning of metro north.

But I don't think An Bord Pleanala were involved in the process of whittling down the number of bidders?

As far as I was aware, that was done by the RPA. They selected the original four, then it was eventually reduced to two.

Where do ABP come into this element of the whole process?

Metrobest

strassenwolf wrote: »

But I don't think An Bord Pleanala were involved in the process of whittling down the number of bidders?

As far as I was aware, that was done by the RPA. They selected the original four, then it was eventually reduced to two.

Where do ABP come into this element of the whole process?

Did you read the article?

strassenwolf

Metrobest wrote: »

Did you read the article?

Yes, I did.

It has been known for some considerable time that these strategic infrastructure projects - because of what is commonly known as The Strategic Infrastructure Act - would be analysed by ABP.

Under the previous arrangement, it would only have been scrutinised by some barrister who knew next to nothing about transport,

The current system is though, I agree, far from ideal. But ABP are not to blame for the choice of tenderers.

The RPA invited tenderers. They selected four. They then selected two preferred tenderers from this number. Where do ABP impinge on this angle of the whole process?

Metrobest

strassenwolf wrote: »

Yes, I did.

It has been known for some considerable time that these strategic infrastructure projects - because of what is commonly known as The Strategic Infrastructure Act - would be analysed by ABP.

Under the previous arrangement, it would only have been scrutinised by some barrister who knew next to nothing about transport,

The current system is though, I agree, far from ideal. But ABP are not to blame for the choice of tenderers.

The RPA invited tenderers. They selected four. They then selected two preferred tenderers from this number. Where do ABP impinge on this angle of the whole process?

Two ways.

First, because of the onerous planning requirements (railway order), bidders had to spend 10-15 million euro instead of the usual 5. The ones that lost out now feel sore that they had to spend so much money on a bid. They feel that Irish planning requirements for metro projects are excessively bureaucratic. Would you disagree?

Now, because a quango has decided hold a costly hearing into the project, a decision taken without explanation to the public or to the PPP community, the final two bidders face a delay of one year.

Never did the phrase 'time is money' have more resonance. Now is the time for the RPA to lock in savings in a deflationary environment. But because of the black box that is An Board Pleneala, nobody has the foggiest idea of when or how a decision will be made on this complex project.