New Plans for Childrens Hospital on Coombe site

FreudianSlippers

bk wrote: »

It is certainly better then Newlands X, but it isn't as accessible as the Mater via public transport for people living in Dublin. It would involve one change for many onto the Luas from O'Connell St. However I readily admit that isn't such a big deal.

However what about co-location with an adults hospital. And does the government actually own that land?

Actually I'm not sure what land you are talking about, can't find it on google maps?

The only plot I can think of is next to the MoMA on the N4

antoinolachtnai

There are two sites, beside RHK and another by Steevens Hospital beside St Patrick's. Both sites have frontage to the N4. The site is all state/HSE owned. The more easterly site in particular is across the road from St James's Hospital, the busiest adult hospital in the country.

FreudianSlippers

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are two sites, beside RHK and another by Steevens Hospital beside St Patrick's. Both sites have frontage to the N4. The site is all state/HSE owned. The more easterly site in particular is across the road from St James's Hospital, the busiest adult hospital in the country.

Perhaps I'm being daft, but could you provide a map link? I don't see any sites across the road from James's or beside St Patrick's.

monument

Wild Bill wrote: »

As most of your other stuff in your post is mere tedious repetition of already repudiated points I'll not bother with them.

Tedious? Like why you can't put everything else aside and deal with co- or tri-location -- which is the most important issue.

Wild Bill wrote: »

Claims about "agendas" and "Southside" are mere blather.

The old Phoenix Park racecourse (Northside, look it up on Google maps :rolleyes:) would be a much more accessible site than the Mater; it has rail connection and is accessible to the M50.
(And the N4 location has the added bonus from your perspective that folk coming from the Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo and South Dublin would have to pay the M50 toll)

But you're supporting that site, you're supporting another, one at Newlands Cross. Wildcard locations are pure blather! Or is this game, everything but the Mater?

grumpymunster wrote: »

So it is fairly obvious then that cost will not be addressed because it does not fit in with Dublin City centre is also the centre of the Universe argument.

Ok, if you truly want to talk about cost:

What cost do we put on the loss or harm to children or babies because of no co- or tri-location on a greenfield site?

Wild Bill wrote: »

It's parochial gibberish to regard a site 200m south of the Liffey as an issue because it's "southside". That sort of irrationality leads to the confused mish-mash of internally contradictory mush that passes for "debate" by some Mater advocates.

The diffrence between the Matter and a site at Heuston is one is a bit better for those north or south of the Westlink.

Wild Bill wrote: »

Claims about "agendas" and "Southside" are mere blather.

The old Phoenix Park racecourse (Northside, look it up on Google maps :rolleyes:) would be a much more accessible site than the Mater; it has rail connection and is accessible to the M50.
(And the N4 location has the added bonus from your perspective that folk coming from the Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo and South Dublin would have to pay the M50 toll)

But you're not supporting that site, you're supporting another, one at Newlands Cross. Wildcard locations are what are pure blather!

grumpymunster wrote: »

So it is fairly obvious then that cost will not be addressed because it does not fit in with Dublin City centre is also the centre of the Universe argument.

Ok, if you truly want to talk about cost:

What cost do we put on the loss or harm to children or babies because of no co- or tri-location on a greenfield site?

Wild Bill wrote: »

It's parochial gibberish to regard a site 200m south of the Liffey as an issue because it's "southside". That sort of irrationality leads to the confused mish-mash of internally contradictory mush that passes for "debate" by some Mater advocates.

For those driving, diffrence between the Matter and at Heuston is clear: The Mater site is better for everybody north of the Westlink, while the Heuston site is better for everybody south of the Westlink.

There's very little difference overall between the two on access. It just shows access by car to the Mater site is really a hyped up non-issue.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

From the outer parts of Dublin, it is pretty tough to access by public transport, certainly involving a change.

The Mater site? It's one of the prime areas in the city which has the most direct connections.

• The 46a serves Dun Laoghaire, nearly all of the N11, and most of the NCR
• The 120 serves Ashtown and Cabra
• The 41s serve Swords, Rolestown, etc, the airport, Santry
• The 38s serve Damastown and north of the N3 in D15
• The 40s serve Finglas, Ballyfermot, Liffey Valley Shopping Centre, everywhere in-between, the odd ones also serve Toberburr and Tyrrelstown
• The 11 serves from Wadelai to Sandyford Industrial Estate
• The 222 serves Ashington, the Navan Road and to Drimnagh

The Maynooth line directly serves Maynooth, Leixip, Clonsilla‎, Blanch, Carpenerstown, Castleknock, and Ashtown. With just one covered rail connection you also have: Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush, Lusk, Donabate‎, Malahide, Portmarnock, Howth, the North Fringe, Kilbarrack,
Raheny, Blackrock, Dalkey, Killiney, Shankill, Bray, Greystones, and places closer to the city like Fairview, Killester and Sandymount etc.

If BXD goes ahead it will directly serve the green line and the red line with one very frequent connection: The list of places is getting very long here... I'm guessing you get the point?

And that's all without the coach services -- public and private.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is not going to be a lot of parking. The reality is that it is not currently a great area for walking around with children.

The Rotunda, the current Mater and Temple Street all manage fine parking wise.

I walk around the area with my 11 month old all the time, and you often see children in the area.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I have been robbed twice on visits to the mater for my own part. That has never happened to me on any other hospital campus.

That's very unfortunate, that it happened twice to you, but not at all a good way to set policy.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

South of Heuston station is a very big site with very good public transport access from both the city and suburbs, and from the rest of the country via the N4 which it has frontage to.

Agreed. But the difference access wise -- for both public transport and by car -- between the Mater and around Heuston is marginal at best.

antoinolachtnai

Here are some maps showing the locations south of Heuston.

I would disagree that the difference in access is marginal. From Sligo, Galway, Cork, Wexford, or the western suburbs, the access is considerably easier. Access is also easier from the south of Dublin.

And there is plenty of space for parking.

lucernarian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This proves to me that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Have you ever been to Parnell Square? I'm there every day and many many nights. It's mainly people waiting for the bus or late at night the odd Roma or homeless person. Your confidence is misplaced.

I think that's a very unjustified view. I also regularly walk along Parnell Square and Parnell St. and while I only have my own experience and that of people I know to offer, the streets off Parnell St including the square have by far the most amounts of crime and violence that I have seen or heard about. It's also the only place I've seen plainclothes and uniformed gardai enter a pub with their handguns drawn. Or seen a pool of blood being cleaned up on another occasion. Not to mention the muggings and an attack that has happened to friends on O'Connell St and Parnell St. Or a guy using an IV syringe in a phone booth on Dorset st last year. (And my experiences of crime in the rest of the city wouldn't be as dramatic) I'm not saying that my experience is proof per se, but it's unreasonable to shoot down someone else's point by offering your own pleasant experiences. After living in Dublin for several years, I should be at least able to offer an opinion on the subject and not have it come under fire for being anything but that.

Wild Bill

I thought this was a new thread - seems to be the same one myself and monument have been sparring on! :rolleyes:

Let me say my initial reaction is that this seems an even worse option than the Mater from an accessibility/height restriction/crank obstructionist/daft preservationists viewpoint - but I'll need a map to check the exact location.

I'll get back to you with my verdict.

Sponge Bob

Seemingly NAMA cjust ame up with a list of 11 separate sites in Dublin including a 11 acre site on the SQR near James' and a 7-8 acre site in Elm Park near Vincents as well as misc.fields out near Tallaght/M50/Newlands Cross.

The further outside the canal the better, in my opinion.

antoinolachtnai

Just because NAMA has these sites on a list does not mean NAMA owns them. NAMA has a charge over these properties in many cases and in all cases the State would have to pay full commercial value to secure ownership.

Cionád

I'll just budge in here for a couple of observations as a former resident of Drumcondra.

Firstly, I don't think crime is really an issue. The walking route to the train is certainly safe, as is the route to the bus stops.

However, the traffic in the area is amongst the worst in the city, and I would not consider the area anywhere near as car-accessible than an M50 location, apart from those in the north, north-east of the city. The estimations shown by google are overly ambitious, a considerable upgrade and dueling of the old N1 qould be badly needed to address the problem. Parallel roads like Gracepark Rd is also wedged at peak times. Match days can be just as bad.

I wouldn't object to Mater going ahead, but only if road improvements are made a priority. Ideally, an M50-ish location would be best IMO, as long as it retains it's size.

markpb

Cionád wrote: »

Ideally, an M50-ish location would be best IMO, as long as it retains it's size.

Ideal for who? What about the thousands of staff who will work there - will be ideal for them if they all have to drive? What about people living in Dublin and will be forced to drive because public transport provision is much worse than a city centre location? Will it be ideal for the surrounding rounds (including the M50) when traffic levels increase substantially because everyone has to drive to the hospital?

Finally, will it be ideal if it's built away from every other hospital even though one of the primary objectives was co-location.

lucernarian

It's worth considering that public transport may be more easily provided from scratch in a more greenfield site towards the M50 than it would be to alleviate parking and traffic congestion (which affects bus users and ambulances to some degree too) in a location so close to the city centre. The lack of any suitable co-location facilities near the M50 is a more important consideration for me. I would have hoped that Adelaide & Meath could have met those ideals but it seems the site doesn't really allow for such a large development. Something near St. James or the Coombe may tick more of these boxes.

monument

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Here are some maps showing the locations south of Heuston.

I'm not dismissing the fact there is room on those sites but with the Royal Hospital Kilmainham grounds -- you might as well suggest to build on the Phoenix Park while you're at it.

How much of the other site directly south of Heuston is usable? For example, it's unlikely you could count the front lawn of Dr Steeven's Hospital open for development, and what's the larger building between the lawn and HSQ? But there's still a large area in the centre of the site which could be developed / redeveloped.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I would disagree that the difference in access is marginal. From Sligo, Galway, Cork, Wexford, or the western suburbs, the access is considerably easier. Access is also easier from the south of Dublin.

My point is that the difference to access overall between near Heuston and at the Mater would be marginal.

Both nationwide and in Co Dublin, the Mater site would be easier for those approaching from the north and the Heustion site would be easier for those approaching from the south. The difference is marginal because you're putting one or the other at a marginal disadvantage (time wise or toll wise or both).

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

And there is plenty of space for parking.

Like the Mater it would be built below or above ground.

Wild Bill

I estimate that of the 4.8 million people in the state, if traveling by car or bus, about 800,000 would come from north of the M50 toll.

Four million would come come from South of the toll.

So monument, on grounds of not discriminating against Northsiders, wants it North of the toll. :cool:

monument

Wild Bill wrote: »

I estimate that of the 4.8 million people in the state, if traveling by car or bus, about 800,000 would come from north of the M50 toll.

Four million would come come from South of the toll.

Please do tell how you came to those estimates. :rolleyes:

And it's not just about the toll but marginal differences in travel times overall.

grumpymunster

monument wrote: »

Ok, if you truly want to talk about cost:

What cost do we put on the loss or harm to children or babies because of no co- or tri-location on a greenfield site?




Ok, if you truly want to talk about cost:

What cost do we put on the loss or harm to children or babies because of no co- or tri-location on a greenfield site?

This is worse than Rev Lovejoys wife encouraging people to please think of the children. A pointless response to a contrived problem.

Tallaght has space, Tallaght has an existing hospital, Tallaght has good access, Tallaght is estimated at half the price for the same size hospital. Not just a little less more than €340M less.

Now you think the city centre is best, as I have said before best is the enemy of good here. Tallaght is at least a good option, perhaps an excellent option maybe not (according to you) the best option but under current fiscal probloms maybe an affordable option.

Now another question that has not been answered. If a state of the art hospital were to be opened in 2 to 3 years would this not be of great benefit to all?

If that is what we can afford at the moment why should we not run with it.

So again what part of "the country is skint we cannot afford a city centre project" do you not understand?

monument

grumpymunster wrote: »

This is worse than Rev Lovejoys wife encouraging people to please think of the children. A pointless response to a contrived problem.

Tallaght has space, Tallaght has an existing hospital, Tallaght has good access, Tallaght is estimated at half the price for the same size hospital. Not just a little less more than €340M less.

Now you think the city centre is best, as I have said before best is the enemy of good here. Tallaght is at least a good option, perhaps an excellent option maybe not (according to you) the best option but under current fiscal probloms maybe an affordable option.

Now another question that has not been answered. If a state of the art hospital were to be opened in 2 to 3 years would this not be of great benefit to all?

If that is what we can afford at the moment why should we not run with it.

So again what part of "the country is skint we cannot afford a city centre project" do you not understand?

Are you a politician? Because that is a classic case of not answering the question asked! The question was again: What cost do we put on the loss or harm to children or babies because of no co- or tri-location on a greenfield site? Can you actually answer that question or not?

And how dare I think of children and babies when the subject matter is a children's hospital. :rolleyes:

This has already been debated -- there is no space around Tallaght hospital, and a greenfield site will not meet co- or tri- location needs.

grumpymunster

monument wrote: »

Are you a politician? Because that is a classic case of not answering the question asked! The question was again: What cost do we put on the loss or harm to children or babies because of no co- or tri-location on a greenfield site? Can you actually answer that question or not?

And how dare I think of children and babies when the subject matter is a children's hospital. :rolleyes:

This has already been debated -- there is no space around Tallaght hospital, and a greenfield site will not meet co- or tri- location needs.

I did answer the question you seem to have ignored the point though which seems par for the course, no surprise there if it does not fit your argument it does not exist.

I think you should look in the mirror with regard to the politician comment, puts me in mind of a politican kissing babies on the hustings. Lets not worry about the real world accuse people of being anti babies / children because they think differently to me. Please show me at any point where I suggested that this hospital should not be built, if you cannot please refrain from insinuating that I am not in favour of such a facility.


It seems to me that for some nothing matters so long as we build a hospital at a price we cant afford in a location which is not suitable because a few ill informed people wish to shout loudy that this is where it should be. I look forward to the day, which should be soon, when the government makes a decision in the interests of all of the people of the State and announces it will not be a city centre hospital.

Now how do you suggest we pay for it, off the soap box real economics where is the €680M coming from?

markpb

grumpymunster wrote: »

I did answer the question you seem to have ignored the point though

He might not have phrased it very politely but maybe he's right, perhaps Tallaght does not have the space required?

grumpymunster

markpb wrote: »

He might not have phrased it very politely but maybe he's right, perhaps Tallaght does not have the space required?

Possibly Markpb much earlier in the thread I did mention I dont live (dont even live in Leinster) there but pass by from time to time on business, in the immeadiate surroundings it looks to my eye there is sufficient space in and around the hospital.

But it is to be a national hospital so a reasonable debate including cost must be had, and I dont see that at the moment.

monument

The question was not about what site you want or which is best for access, it's not even about how much it would cost. The question was: What cost do we put on the loss or harm to children or babies because of no co- or tri-location on a greenfield site?

Yes, it's a nasty question. But it's a needed nasty question, because -- even if they have the best intentions in the world -- people ignoring the issue of co- or tri-location has nasty results.

grumpymunster

Ok then why does the new childrens hospital alliance Ireland state that the importance of adult hopspital adjacency has been grossly exaggerated. They also state that a submission by Minister Harney to the Senead on 17th November 2010 was peppered with multiple inaccuracies. She referred to 24 of 25 hospitals researched were colocated with adult hospital's. Am no wrong or so it seems.

We do not live in Utopia we live in Ireland now you can assume we all want the best for the children. Now off the soap box how do we pay for it (talk about ignoring a question).

dowlingm

Folks - I'd love to know what proportion of the attendees at the NCH will be emergency admissions as opposed to scheduled admissions or transfers from other hospitals post stabilisation. There seems to be an assumption in posts above that every admission is an emergency one, in which case we will need an NCH on every street corner.

If it was possible to build a more capable locations with less money in a particular site, perhaps the issue of emergency travel times would be solvable by for instance a better helicopter air ambulance service.

monument

grumpymunster wrote: »

Ok then why does the new childrens hospital alliance Ireland state that the importance of adult hopspital adjacency has been grossly exaggerated. They also state that a submission by Minister Harney to the Senead on 17th November 2010 was peppered with multiple inaccuracies. She referred to 24 of 25 hospitals researched were colocated with adult hospital's. Am no wrong or so it seems.

You'll have to ask the new childrens hospital alliance what they state and why they state it.

grumpymunster wrote: »

We do not live in Utopia we live in Ireland now you can assume we all want the best for the children.

It's for 100 years or more and it's not being Utopian.

grumpymunster wrote: »

Now off the soap box how do we pay for it (talk about ignoring a question).

Since you've stepped off for a min, I might as well get on....

Yes, there is a shortfall, but isn't that's fairly normal for these types of projects before they even get planning? Has any other site got 100% funding right now?

L1011

grumpymunster wrote: »

Ok then why does the new childrens hospital alliance Ireland state that the importance of adult hopspital adjacency has been grossly exaggerated

Because they are an organisation that exists solely to oppose the Mater site, and hence will talk down anything they possibly can.

markpb

MYOB wrote: »

Because they are an organisation that exists solely to oppose the Mater site, and hence will talk down anything they possibly can.

Indeed, from the very top of the About Us page on their own site:

New Children’s Hospital Alliance Goal: As a nation, to provide the highest quality of care for our children as measured by patient outcome and patient experience. The New Children’s Hospital Alliance does not believe it will be possible to achieve and maintain such standards in the tertiary level care of our children by building the proposed National Paediatric Hospital at the Mater site in the centre of Dublin.

We are campaigning to have this decision reversed.

Innocent bystanders they are not

antoinolachtnai

monument wrote: »

I'm not dismissing the fact there is room on those sites but with the Royal Hospital Kilmainham grounds -- you might as well suggest to build on the Phoenix Park while you're at it.

Well, you would have to do it sensitively to make the best of the site, but it's not a park. It's part of a medical complex and that land was always intended as a medical complex.

How much of the other site directly south of Heuston is usable? For example, it's unlikely you could count the front lawn of Dr Steeven's Hospital open for development, and what's the larger building between the lawn and HSQ? But there's still a large area in the centre of the site which could be developed / redeveloped.

The general area already has high buildings and is zoned for more.

There is plenty space on that site. There is going to be some demolition involved. The illustration in the attachment gives an idea of how it might fit in.

The buildings on St John's Road/Military Road are none-too-exciting.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=steeven's+hospital,+dublin&hl=en&ll=53.345411,-6.296243&spn=0.000943,0.002739&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=15.320488,44.868164&hq=steeven's+hospital,&hnear=Dublin,+County+Dublin,+Ireland&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.345411,-6.296243&panoid=Vr62j47PQPX2MIfX49JHqA&cbp=12,84.1,,0,-2.73

My point is that the difference to access overall between near Heuston and at the Mater would be marginal.

Both nationwide and in Co Dublin, the Mater site would be easier for those approaching from the north and the Heustion site would be easier for those approaching from the south. The difference is marginal because you're putting one or the other at a marginal disadvantage (time wise or toll wise or both).

There is a lot more population approaching from the south than from the North. For the N1 and N2, the Mater has the advantage, but from the N3 and all other roads south of it, Heuston seems more accessible. The train links also give some advantage.

grumpymunster

MYOB wrote: »

Because they are an organisation that exists solely to oppose the Mater site, and hence will talk down anything they possibly can.

Does that mean they are wrong? Or are they experienced professionals with concerns?

grumpymunster

monument wrote: »

You'll have to ask the new childrens hospital alliance what they state and why they state it.




It's for 100 years or more and it's not being Utopian.




Since you've stepped off for a min, I might as well get on....

Yes, there is a shortfall, but isn't that's fairly normal for these types of projects before they even get planning? Has any other site got 100% funding right now?

Dont have to ask them what they state it is clear on their web site, also why.

100 years is a sound bite, FF were famous for them and in all fairness FG & Labour are catching up very quickly. 100 years ago Tallaght was but a village south of Dublin now it is fully integrated into the city and then some. Who knows in 100 years Dublin may stretch as far as Naas it is quite likely under this senario a (current) city centre hospital would be a) too small b) most certainly in the wrong location. Lets plan for 20 or 30 years initially the benefit is most cetainly still there, this project does not need such jibberish to justify it.

Apparently there is some €300M ring fenced for this project, now do I believe that hmmmm where is that very very large pinch of salt. And a shortfall is a very discreet way of terming it when you could nearly get two hospitals for the price of 1 on the Mater site.This is the reality of the situation as I see it at least regarding funding.

The thing is it is of no real concern to me where this hospital is located but I want to see a proper debate regarding the issue. I do not believe that this ever happened under the FF/PD/Green governments.

The Minister of State has appointed a chairperson with links to the Mater why? Would it not be possible to get a truely independent chairperson? The hospital will be built somewhere in Dublin there must be many professionals out there with no links to Dublin hospitals. The Minister has also said he believes it important that there should be co-location or tri-location and that experts agree on this. That may or may not be the case but it is influencing the terms of reference before the review even starts. When I conduct reviews my group starts with a blank sheet of paper and then fills it in. We dont have half the sheet filled in already, that is not a review in any sense of the word.

It should also be short, the construction needs to start soon. What we dont need is another quango making decisions like the Judean Peoples Front (or is it the Peoples Front of Judea?).

L1011

grumpymunster wrote: »

Does that mean they are wrong? Or are they experienced professionals with concerns?

In this case, it means they're trying to talk down a very important reason that goes against their aims.

Co-location is too important to NOT be in the terms of reference for any review.