The Pat Kenny Show

Technocentral

Just tuned in now has Pat mentioned it?

I love visiting the major city markets in European cities like Budapest, Madrid & Barcelona. Would love to see the Iceagh Markets developed like this.

Technocentral

If Pat thinks equality between men and women has been achieved hes dreaming!!

Tell me how

Technocentral wrote: »

If Pat thinks equality between men and women has been achieved hes dreaming!!

In what way do you think it hasn't? What do you think needs to happen in order for it do so?

Tell me how

Pat was excellent on the Friday forum just now in challenging the logic directly on the decision to proceed with the NCH at James.

Kate O'Connell tried to browbeat him somewhat but he challenged her fairly and logically.

Uncharted

Tell me how wrote: »

Pat was excellent on the Friday forum just now in challenging the logic directly on the decision to proceed with the NCH at James.

Kate O'Connell tried to browbeat him somewhat but he challenged her fairly and logically.

Agreed. Pat certainly had the upper hand. He's at his best in situations like today. The best political interviewer on the Irish airwaves by a country mile.

MrMusician18

Tell me how wrote: »

Pat was excellent on the Friday forum just now in challenging the logic directly on the decision to proceed with the NCH at James.

Kate O'Connell tried to browbeat him somewhat but he challenged her fairly and logically.

Is he still flogging that dead horse?

No matter where the hospital was built, it would have come in way over budget when it was priced from a half complete tender.

Roger_007

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is he still flogging that dead horse?

No matter where the hospital was built, it would have come in way over budget when it was priced from a half complete tender.

Obviously Pat has a thing about the location of the hospital, but I think he has a point. One of the most alarming aspects of the project, (apart from the spiralling cost), is that the hospital will be built ON TOP of a car park. Pat thinks this is madness and I tend to agree with him. If anything happens in that car park like a vehicle going on fire, how would you evacuate a hospital full of sick children. It's not like a hotel where everyone can walk out.

Youdunnit

A few questions spring to mind in relation to the car park?

Sprinklers included in the design?

Distance between parked cars-are we using the same standard as UK?

Any potential for spread through external cladding?

FB response Time - how is this with the location?

Tell me how

Youdunnit wrote: »

A few questions spring to mind in relation to the car park?

Sprinklers included in the design?

Distance between parked cars-are we using the same standard as UK?

Any potential for spread through external cladding?

FB response Time - how is this with the location?

The reality is that even with sprinklers, distance between cars and so on that it is likely that in the event of fire, an evacuation would be triggered purely as a precaution.

MrMusician18

Roger_007 wrote: »

Obviously Pat has a thing about the location of the hospital, but I think he has a point. One of the most alarming aspects of the project, (apart from the spiralling cost), is that the hospital will be built ON TOP of a car park. Pat thinks this is madness and I tend to agree with him. If anything happens in that car park like a vehicle going on fire, how would you evacuate a hospital full of sick children. It's not like a hotel where everyone can walk out.

I don't see multi storeys spontaneously bursting into flames generally.

There is as much likelihood of a fire happening on a multi storey car park below a hospital as there is in the wards in the lower floors of a multistorey hospital. There's a carpark beneath James at the moment too, shouldn't he be calling for that to be closed? Is he calling for all hospitals to be single storey? Isn't the idea he's pumping a multistorey?

Or is it that he is just looking to try to whip up some anger using a point that might seem reasonable to the ordinary Joe soap, but is completely spurious on examination?

Youdunnit

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't see multi storeys spontaneously bursting into flames generally.

There is as much likelihood of a fire happening on a multi storey car park below a hospital as there is in the wards in the lower floors of a multistorey hospital. There's a carpark beneath James at the moment too, shouldn't he be calling for that to be closed? Is he calling for all hospitals to be single storey? Isn't the idea he's pumping a multistorey?

Or is it that he is just looking to try to whip up some anger using a point that might seem reasonable to the ordinary Joe soap, but is completely spurious on examination?

Car park fires are rare but they post a much greater risk when they happen

Cars are way more hazardous now than they were in terms of fire spread and fumes

It appears that all areas of the building are covered by sprinklers thanks to DFB.

The hospital board appealed this to ABP

Roger_007

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't see multi storeys spontaneously bursting into flames generally.

There is as much likelihood of a fire happening on a multi storey car park below a hospital as there is in in the lower floors of a multistorey hospital. There's a carpark beneath James at the moment too, shouldn't be be calling for that to be closed? Is he calling for all hospitals to be single storey? Isn't the idea he's pumping a multistorey?

Or is it that he is just looking to try and get and whip up some anger using a point that might seem reasonable to the ordinary Joe soap, but is completely spurious on examination.

I think that as the number of battery-powered cars increases, there is a greater likelihood of cars going on fire because they all use lithium-ion batteries which have been known to spontaneously combust. There have been car park fires in the past and its much more serious if it happens in the confined space of an underground car park. It only has to happen once for it to be a disaster. Why take the risk?

Youdunnit

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that as the number of battery-powered cars increases, there is a greater likelihood of cars going on fire because they all use lithium-ion batteries which have been known to spontaneously combust. There have been car park fires in the past and its much more serious if it happens in the confined space of an underground car park. It only has to happen once for it to be a disaster. Why take the risk?

It's also the materials used in the manufacture of the car

Youdunnit

Tell me how wrote: »

The reality is that even with sprinklers, distance between cars and so on that it is likely that in the event of fire, an evacuation would be triggered purely as a precaution.

I'm not so sure

With the sprinkler system in all areas of the hospital they may use a multi-stage alarm system where the fire has to spread beyond 1 detection point before an evacuation is triggered

Mass evacuation for every alarm event would be unlikely

MrMusician18

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that as the number of battery-powered cars increases, there is a greater likelihood of cars going on fire because they all use lithium-ion batteries which have been known to spontaneously combust. There have been car park fires in the past and its much more serious if it happens in the confined space of an underground car park. It only has to happen once for it to be a disaster. Why take the risk?

We already take this risk, yet no one is asking for James hospital carpark to be closed

It's a totally spurious argument

hotmail.com

Why did the car park have to be so ridiculously big anyway? Staff and users/visitors shouldn't drive to hospitals. Only in an emergency should a car be used.

If this was the culture and mentality of people, we wouldn't need such a large and expensive car park.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why did the car park have to be so ridiculously big anyway? Staff and users/visitors shouldn't drive to hospitals. Only in an emergency should a car be used.

If this was the culture and mentality of people, we wouldn't need such a large and expensive car park.

Because a lot of medics work long and unpredictable hours, and Dublin's public transport system is hopelessly inefficient, unless you happen to live (in this case), along a Luas líne?

That's not even to mention the fact - once again - that immuno-compromised children should never be put onto a Luas or a bus, they're simply too ill, and too vulnerable to infection. Medical professionals have been pointing this out ad nauseum and, with no disrespect to you, it's alarming that some people still haven't grasped this basic practical reality.

Uncharted

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why did the car park have to be so ridiculously big anyway? Staff and users/visitors shouldn't drive to hospitals. Only in an emergency should a car be used.

If this was the culture and mentality of people, we wouldn't need such a large and expensive car park.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and I will presume you have never visited an Irish hospital.

hotmail.com

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Because a lot of medics work long and unpredictable hours, and Dublin's public transport system is hopelessly inefficient, unless you happen to live (in this case), along a Luas líne?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

That's not even to mention the fact - once again - that immuno-compromised children should never be put onto a Luas or a bus, they're simply too ill, and too vulnerable to infection. Medical professionals have been pointing this out ad nauseum and, with no disrespect to you, it's alarming that some people still haven't grasped this basic practical reality.

These are instances where of course a car should be used.

I'm not disputing that.

But I suspect many people using their car to go to a hospital, that includes staff and users/visitors, don't need to.

They are just too lazy to get a bus and a Luas, or two buses etc.

mzungu

It's going to be some dose getting to the hospital for those that need to travel there and thats not including the traffic.

Pat is right to sound off about it, the whole project seemed half thought out from the beginning.

MrMusician18

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Because a lot of medics work long and unpredictable hours, and Dublin's public transport system is hopelessly inefficient, unless you happen to live (in this case), along a Luas líne?

That's not even to mention the fact - once again - that immuno-compromised children should never be put onto a Luas or a bus, they're simply too ill, and too vulnerable to infection. Medical professionals have been pointing this out ad nauseum and, with no disrespect to you, it's alarming that some people still haven't grasped this basic practical reality.

It's funny that Great Ormonde St Children's hospital has great outcomes for children and it doesn't have a car park. The hospital even recommends patients take public transportation, even the filthy Tube.

Maybe it's you that needs to listen to experts?

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's funny that Great Ormonde St Children's hospital has great outcomes for children and it doesn't have a car park. The hospital even recommends patients take public transportation, even the filthy Tube.

Maybe it's you that needs to listen to experts?

Great Ormond Street opened its doors in the 1850s. Patients accessing the hospital usually have to do so by black cabs.

I'd rather we didn't base our national children's hospital on a Victorian model, where we make it needlessly expensive and cumbersome for children to access.

Not that that's even the main problem here.

I do listen to experts. Like Pat Kenny and most people who are mystified by the St James's site, I've no skin in this game either. It is objectively a ridiculous site for such a small city as ours.

hotmail.com

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Great Ormond Street opened its doors in the 1850s. Patients accessing the hospital usually have to do so by black cabs.

I'd rather we didn't base our national children's hospital on a Victorian model, where we make it needlessly expensive and cumbersome for children to access.

James' is more accessible to staff and users than out in Blanch. This is one of the main reasons they located it in James. So it is not cumbersome to access.

Most trips to hospitals are not emergencies and when they are, the person is often transported by ambulance.

For all other trips, staff, regular check ups, visiting relatives, etc.. public transport should be used so as not to congest the hospital.

James' allows for that to happen as it's easily accessible by tram and buses. Along the Heuston line etc.

People are already realising this and are starting to leave the car at home. It's better for everyone.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

James' is more accessible to staff and users than out in Blanch. This is one of the main reasons they located it in James. So it is not cumbersome to access.

Most trips to hospitals are not emergencies and when they are, the person is often transported by ambulance.

For all other trips, staff, regular check ups, visiting relatives, etc.. public transport should be used so as not to congest the hospital.

James' allows for that to happen as it's easily accessible by tram and buses. Along the Heuston line etc.

People are already realising this and are starting to leave the car at home. It's better for everyone.

I'd just refer you back to Professor Chris FitzPatrick, who was on the PK Show a few weeks ago, and was adamant that whilst no site is perfect, the Saint James's site is simply too problematic.

The only thing the Saint James's site has going for it, as far as I can see, is its proximity to city centre and the fact that it's on a Luas line. Prof FitzPatrick was clear that this hospital is intended to treat the sickest children in the country, who have absolutely no need for use for the Luas, and neither do they need to be close to the city centre.

In fact, since so many of these children will be living with terminal illness, and life-threatening illness, one would think a greener campus with outdoor facilities (Connolly Hospital already has a lake, a playground etc) would be far more useful than being close to the commercial centre of the capital.

These are all side-issues to some extent. The main point will always be questions of tri-location and ease of access for parents of sick children who are visiting the hospital.

Connolly is not a perfect choice, but it offers the most realistic opportunity for tri-location, and access/ car-parking will simply not be an issue.

St James's could still be used as a satellite centre for the National Children's Hospital, especially for children who in recovery/ being monitored; and only need to visit on an outpatient basis. St James's seems to be the perfect site for that kind of facility, but not for treating the long-term, sickest, - possibly dying - children and their families.

hotmail.com

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

These are all side-issues to some extent. The main point will always be questions of tri-location and ease of access for parents of sick children who are visiting the hospital.

I'm not an expert on the other stuff there, but again, James' is better placed for access for parents of sick children. It's just a fundamental point that you seem to be blind to.

They can use public transport to get to the hospital, thereby not worrying about car parking charges, congestion etc.

And as far as I know, there's going to be a garden space for sick children at James'.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not an expert on the other stuff there, but again, James' is better placed for access for parents of sick children. It's just a fundamental point that you seem to be blind to.

They can use public transport to get to the hospital, thereby not worrying about car parking charges, congestion etc.

And as far as I know, there's going to be a garden space for sick children at James'.

Yeah, a roof garden!

"Come, little Timmy, lets go up to the roof and watch the Guinness fumes over a large industrial complex; and look at that traffic congestion! That Carbon Monoxide will do you the world of good"

I'd go with the lake and the park myself, but hey-ho.

As I said, Connolly isn't perfect, and indeed, it doesn't have a Luas. But lets not pretend its difficult to reach. It's just off the M50, and is well-served by public transport *for those who are well enough* to use that form of transport.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not an expert on the other stuff there, but again, James' is better placed for access for parents of sick children. It's just a fundamental point that you seem to be blind to.

They can use public transport to get to the hospital, thereby not worrying about car parking charges, congestion etc.

And as far as I know, there's going to be a garden space for sick children at James'.

Dr Fin Breathnach disagrees with you.

Appalling access
As regards access, the photograph below says it all. Access, at rush hour in particular, will be an absolute nightmare with 10,000 arrivals and departures every single day on top of the already crowded streets.

Other issues with selection of James site outlined in the link include the following.

Pollution at the site
Material contravention of the Dublin City Council Development Plan
Helicopter restrictions
Parking limitations
Site limitations and added costs
Maternity collocation
Demolish and rebuild St James’s
More site constraints
Site too small for future expansion
More site constraints
Even more site constraints
And yet more site constraints
Far too expensive at St James’s

hotmail.com

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

As I said, Connolly isn't perfect, and indeed, it doesn't have a Luas. But lets not pretend its difficult to reach. It's just off the M50, and is well-served by public transport *for those who are well enough* to use that form of transport.

I just disagree with this entirely.

Blanch is not served well by public transport and the M50 is getting worse and worse. But we have to agree to disagree.

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote:

disagrees with you.

The author of that just sees transport in terms of the car.

People can avoid all the congestion and avoid adding to it, by using public transport. A clear option for James'.