The Pat Kenny Show

And this one time, at space camp...

I know she's just a teenager but his space-cadet is a right dose.

plodder

Tell me how wrote: »

I was going to respond with something about needing oversight, needing to highlight the anomalies which exist in our system

Waffle. Who is saying we don't need oversight, or have a need to "highlight anomalies .." etc?

and how for this to happen, we need people like Pat who don't allow some PR report to pull the wool over his eyes but you know what, I don't think you'd understand.

He's had a bee in his bonnet about the location in particular, because in his opinion it's the wrong place, but they didn't listen to him and it's clearly not the main issue with the overrun. But, I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that.

Barna77

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

And this one time, at space camp...

I know she's just a teenager but his space-cadet is a right dose.

She did sound a bit more grounded than the climate change protest teengers a few weeks ago.

kneemos

plodder wrote: »

I won't be listening to Pat this morning on the basis of his intro there on the breakfast show. He's just going to air his oft stated grievance that the children's hospital is in the wrong place, despite the PWC report not coming to that conclusion at all. He's also certain that a young lady who wants to go to Mars will in fact do that. Maybe, he'd like to accompany her.

The location should have been part of the PWC Report. It's obviously a major factor in the cost of the thing.

Another 450k for that report to tell us nothing by the way.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

.

Another 450k for that report to tell us nothing by the way.

450k?!

Half a million quid for a PR stunt that nobody really accepts as impartial? Honest to Jaysus, I may swing for the next person who tries to say that FG is a party of fiscal prudence. These lads are burning public money, it's infuriating.

plodder

kneemos wrote: »

The location should have been part of the PWC Report. It's obviously a major factor in the cost of the thing.

The budget was 575 million, and the cheapest tender came in 61 million above that, ie about 10% over the initial budget. That was based on the location at St. James and meant the contractor was prepared to build whatever they were asked to at St. James.

Explain to me then, how the location is obviously a major factor in the total cost (overrun) to 1.7 billion.

Tell me how

plodder wrote: »

The budget was 575 million, and the cheapest tender came in 61 million above that, ie about 10% over the initial budget. That was based on the location at St. James and meant the contractor was prepared to build whatever they were asked to at St. James.

Explain to me then, how the location is obviously a major factor in the total cost (overrun) to 1.7 billion.

Because they didn't actually cost for the project at the tender stage given the location.

This is the problem with public projects. Whatever figure is given, is initially to try to get a green light on the project and then to move through various phases of acceptance each time increasing the figure but not giving the true figure but only what it is thought will still ensure things progress.

That's why I had a problem with even the 1.7B figure because it was still acknowledged that various other requirements were not included.

I fully expect that by the hospital is delivered, it will have been at a minimum of 2.5B

serfboard

Tell me how wrote: »

This is the problem with public projects. Whatever figure is given, is initially to try to get a green light on the project and then to move through various phases of acceptance each time increasing the figure but not giving the true figure but only what it is thought will still ensure things progress.

While I 100% agree with you on this in relation to the children's hospital, i don't agree that this is the case with all public projects.

The roads programme is a good example of what I'm talking about. When we started the motorway building programme in the 1990s they did follow this trajectory. We then established the National Roads Authority and got to grips with how to manage a road-building programme. Now, for the most part, the price we're quoted is the price we pay.

Sadly, this lesson has not been learned in other parts of the public service.

The NRA evolved into the TII (Transport Infrastructure Ireland). As someone said on boards before, this should go up one more level to Infrastructure Ireland which would be in charge of all Infrastructural Development - roads, rail, water, broadband, and large public projects like hospitals.

However, in the case of the NCH, I'm not sure that even that would have stopped the escalating costs. There were too many vested interests involved - and each one was listened to far more than they should have, leading to constantly-changing decisions.

plodder

Tell me how wrote: »

Because they didn't actually cost for the project at the tender stage given the location.

What does the above even mean?

As I said the initial tender was based on the location. Read the report to see where the cost overruns occurred. The biggest was changes in the bill of quantities caused by unit rates, changes in quantities and inclusion of items not in the tender (ie design changes). None of that has anything to do with the location. The remaining areas of cost overrun, were things like design fees, medical equipment, regulatory changes, again nothing to do with the location.

This is the problem with public projects. Whatever figure is given, is initially to try to get a green light on the project and then to move through various phases of acceptance each time increasing the figure but not giving the true figure but only what it is thought will still ensure things progress.

That's why I had a problem with even the 1.7B figure because it was still acknowledged that various other requirements were not included.

I fully expect that by the hospital is delivered, it will have been at a minimum of 2.5B

Any of us can pluck a figure out of the air like that. If it turns out to be right, then we're the greatest construction expert on the internet. If we're wrong ... so what?, the internet moves on ...

plodder

plodder wrote: »

What does the above even mean?

As I said the initial tender was based on the location. Read the report to see where the cost overruns occurred. The biggest was changes in the bill of quantities caused by unit rates, changes in quantities and inclusion of items not in the tender (ie design changes). None of that has anything to do with the location. The remaining areas of cost overrun, were things like design fees, medical equipment, regulatory changes, again nothing to do with the location.

medical equipment ?

My understanding was that the figure under discussion only relates to the physical building. Costs like medical equipment and IT, etc, which will be very significant, are not included.

i71jskz5xu42pb

plodder wrote: »

As I said the initial tender was based on the location. Read the report to see where the cost overruns occurred.

This drives me nuts about PK. He's normally a solid journalist. He's firmly of this view that the hospital should not have been build in James. Fine, he's entitled to his opinion. But he's using this cost overrun debacle to rerun that whole debate despite the fact that nothing I've seen indicates the cost overruns were anything to do with the location. Really letting himself down in my view.

plodder

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

medical equipment ?

My understanding was that the figure under discussion only relates to the physical building. Costs like medical equipment and IT, etc, which will be very significant, are not included.

They are included in the 1.7 billion (eg 97 million for IT, 52 million for an electronic health records system).

kneemos

Mae Ashy Jet wrote: »

This drives me nuts about PK. He's normally a solid journalist. He's firmly of this view that the hospital should not have been build in James. Fine, he's entitled to his opinion. But he's using this cost overrun debacle to rerun that whole debate despite the fact that nothing I've seen indicates the cost overruns were anything to do with the location. Really letting himself down in my view.

Location has everything to do with the total cost. Underground parking,ease of construction and a less complex design on a green field site.

i71jskz5xu42pb

kneemos wrote: »

Location has everything to do with the total cost. Underground parking,ease of construction and a less complex design on a green field site.

Nowhere did I say location had nothing to do with the total cost not sure why you mention that?

I said

nothing I've seen indicates the cost overruns were anything to do with the location.

Sure it may have been cheaper to build on greenfield but car parks and physical building costs is not the only factor is deciding a location for a hospital. Sadly that's all people seem to focus on as it's all they vaguely understand.

meeeeh

plodder wrote: »

They are included in the 1.7 billion (eg 97 million for IT, 52 million for an electronic health records system).

How much is included for fitting the rooms, hospital equipment, office equipment...

Frankly to claim high cost not significantly affected by location is ridiculous.

kneemos

Mae Ashy Jet wrote: »

Nowhere did I say location had nothing to do with the total cost not sure why you mention that?

I said



Sure it may have been cheaper to build on greenfield but car parks and physical building costs is not the only factor is deciding a location for a hospital. Sadly that's all people seem to focus on as it's all they vaguely understand.

Total cost is why there's a furore over the thing.
If it had been on a Greenfield site the cost and any extras wouldn't have been such a scandal.

meeeeh

Mae Ashy Jet wrote: »

Sure it may have been cheaper to build on greenfield but car parks and physical building costs is not the only factor is deciding a location for a hospital. Sadly that's all people seem to focus on as it's all they vaguely understand.

Enlighten us then.

i71jskz5xu42pb

kneemos wrote: »

If it had been on a Greenfield site the cost and any extras wouldn't have been such a scandal.

The same clowns that made a mess of the James Street would have made a mess of any other site. The mistakes they made had nothing to do with the location - again I'm open to correction on that, nothing I've seen says the site was a factor in the overruns, just piss poor management.

meeeeh wrote: »

Enlighten us then.

You're unaware of the tri-location factor?
Been done to death on other discussions I'm sure.

meeeeh wrote: »

Frankly I think half of the mess is due to public sector entitlement and expectation that public should come to them instead of services moving to where it would be easier for patients.

Could be, but that assumes James is the most convenient site for them. I guess it depends on where they all live, not like Blanch is hard to get to.

meeeeh

Mae Ashy Jet wrote: »

You're unaware of the tri-location factor?
Been done to death on other discussions I'm sure.

I'm aware of trilocatoion and as far as I know there is limited (nonexistent) space for maternity services. Considering the price it would be interesting to see how much new trilocated hospital on a greenfield site would cost. (i'm sure there are arguments against it.)

plodder

kneemos wrote: »

Location has everything to do with the total cost. Underground parking,ease of construction and a less complex design on a green field site.

Yet as I explained twice already, the initial tender came in only 10% over budget taking all of the above into account.

MrMusician18

Mae Ashy Jet wrote: »

Nowhere did I say location had nothing to do with the total cost not sure why you mention that?

I said



Sure it may have been cheaper to build on greenfield but car parks and physical building costs is not the only factor is deciding a location for a hospital. Sadly that's all people seem to focus on as it's all they vaguely understand.

This is it exactly. The cost over runs essentially boil down to a rushed tendering process which comes from pressure to see boots on the ground.

It also meant they hadn't a full grasp of what they were specifying, so initial pricing was way off.

That said, money isn't being "wasted" it's more a case of accidentally ordering a rolls royce rather than the Volkswagen you thought you were getting

Tell me how

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This is it exactly. The cost over runs essentially boil down to a rushed tendering process which comes from pressure to see boots on the ground.

It also meant they hadn't a full grasp of what they were specifying, so initial pricing was way off.

That said, money isn't being "wasted" it's more a case of accidentally ordering a rolls royce rather than the Volkswagen you thought you were getting

I suspect that what we will get is a VW while paying for a Rolls Royce.

Irish Times article

Top 10 Most Expensive Hospitals
Albert B Chandler Hospital, Kentucky, US – €427m
Smilow Cancer Hospital, Connecticut, US – €444m
Benjamin Russell Hospital for Children, Alabama, US – €459m
Providence Regional Medical Centre, Everett, US – €475m
Prentice Women’s Hospital, Houston, US – €478m
Texas Children’s Pavilion for Women, Houston, US – €546m
Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, US – €575m
Rush Hospital East Tower, Chicago, US – €621m
New Children’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland – €1bn (yet to be completed)
Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia, – €2.2bn

The biggest ambulance-helicopters won't be even able land there for God's sake.

i71jskz5xu42pb

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm aware of trilocatoion and as far as I know there is limited (nonexistent) space for maternity services.

The Coombe (2km away) is planned to move to a site beside James as far as I'm aware.

We'll have building hospitals figured out at that stage I'm sure

kneemos

Mae Ashy Jet wrote: »

The Coombe (2km away) is planned to move to a site beside James as far as I'm aware.

We'll have building hospitals figured out at that stage I'm sure

If they get planning permission. It'll probably be obsolete by then anyway,and no room to expand.

plodder

Ivan Yates had a right old rant yesterday about the children's hospital. Where Pat's hobby horse is the location, for Ivan it seems to be that 5G wireless broadband is the future, and will mean we don't need big hospitals because surgeons will be operating remotely (from where? home?) He actually said this. 5G is a big topic on the broadband forum because it is being touted (like 4G and 3G were 10 and 20 years ago respectively) as the latest silver bullet to avoid investing in proper broadband. I enjoy his program, but it's more entertainment than informative.

Uncharted

Pats guest, (apologies iv forgotten his name )the retired doctor, regaling us with tales of his many travels,was utterly fascinating.

Ill certainly be buying his book.

Really enthralling and a great speaker.
Excellent radio.

serfboard

plodder wrote: »

surgeons will be operating remotely (from where? home?)

India.

Amirani

Uncharted wrote: »

Pats guest, (apologies iv forgotten his name )the retired doctor, regaling us with tales of his many travels,was utterly fascinating.

Ill certainly be buying his book.

Really enthralling and a great speaker.
Excellent radio.

Dom Colbert. Did sound very good alright.

Uncharted

Amirani wrote: »

Dom Colbert. Did sound very good alright.

Thank you. I was trying to get his name. I'm looking forward to his book.

BPKS

There was a discussion on cycling on the Pat Kenny show on Monday morning.

Green Party politician (Eamon Ryan??) and some journalist cyclist were the two contributors.

The piece started off outlining a call from some cycling body for increased enforcement of the laws by the Gardai after the death of a cyclist between Skibbereen and Leap in County Cork.

The whole conversation centred on Renalagh, The Quays, The Four Courts, breaking red lights and so on.

It seemed grossly inappropriate to have this conversation, which was prompted by the death of a cyclist in rural County Cork - and we dont know the circumstances of exactly what happened - just so Kenny could give out about red light breaking cyclists and the Green Party lad could give out about the lack of cycle lanes etc.

I thought Kenny was more professional than that.