Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Our East Link bridge - still gouging for charges

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    LollipopJimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭LollipopJimmy


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    Under that logic why do we have any tolls as all cars pay motor tax? Where does motor tax go to? The general taxation and to DCC indirectly. DCC will get this €4 million themselves and not have to share it other local authority.

    Where will DCC get another €4 million easily?

    DCC haven't been getting the money from the tolls on the bridge though. It's only in DCC''s control since yesterday


  • Options
    #33
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,417 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    LollipopJimmy wrote: »
    DCC haven't been getting the money from the tolls on the bridge though. It's only in DCC''s control since yesterday
    They've been getting rates and a cut of the tolls.


  • Options
    #34
    garrettod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭garrettod


    Absolute rip off !


    Firstly, this article gives a brief summary of the previous split, from revenue earned by the Bridge each year:

    The income had been split between the City Council who got 17%, the Dublin Port Company (25%) and the Dutch operating company DIF (58%). Now the council gets 100%.


    Secondly, it's very clear that the greedy city councillors just couldn't resist the potential €4m revenue per year from the bridge - offering absolute nonsense excuses to help justify keeping the tolls in place, such as:

    - the demolition of the toll booth plaza which would cost €850,000
    - concerns from councillors about increased traffic levels in Sandymount and East Wall if there was no toll on the East Link

    The bridge cannot handle the current levels of traffic during peak hours, hence the regular traffic jams (particularly traveling South to North, Monday to Friday late afternoon), but there is absolutely no mention of introducing a larger bridge, more lanes, electronic tolling etc.

    Instead, the councillors in their wisdom are stating that they want to make improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians, despite the fact that (a) neither pay anything for use or upkeep of the bridge and (b) there is limited space on the bridge, so anything given for further use by cyclists or pedestrians, will be at the detriment of the motorists who are the ones being charged !

    It's no coincidence that the use of the Samuel Beckett Bridge is restricted, so as to prevent traffic coming from the northside via the port etc. using it (i.e. if you drive up the Quays, you cannot turn left onto the bridge, to go to the South of the city).


    I think decisions and votes taken by the councillors are a matter of public record, so it might prove interesting to try and get a copy of the vote to see how the councillors voted - not least, so the motorists will know who to vote for and who to vote against, come the next local elections.

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Options
    #35
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,417 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Oh, just a point, many of the bridges users don't live in the city, so they don't have a vote.

    This is the AA trying to say "won't someone think of the poor motorist", all the while taking hefty sums from many of those motorists.
    garrettod wrote: »
    The bridge cannot handle the current levels of traffic during peak hours, hence the regular traffic jams (particularly traveling South to North, Monday to Friday late afternoon), but there is absolutely no mention of introducing a larger bridge, more lanes, electronic tolling etc.
    Removing the toll means more cars. More cars, more congestion. So you want to add more cars?
    Instead, the councillors in their wisdom are stating that they want to make improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians, despite the fact that (a) neither pay anything for use or upkeep of the bridge and (b) there is limited space on the bridge, so anything given for further use by cyclists or pedestrians,
    Providing spaces for pedestrians and cyclists is reasonable (the current situation is exceptionally tight). Pedestrians and cyclists don't cause potholes or crack bridges.
    will be at the detriment of the motorists who are the ones being charged !
    More people on foot or cycling means fewer cars blocking your way.

    Fncking gobsh!te.


  • Options
    #36
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Mod

    Folks can we keep things civil please

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,417 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Me being uncivil isn't the only problem.


  • Options
    #38
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Victor wrote: »
    Me being uncivil isn't the only problem.

    Do you drive a car as a matter of interest ?


  • Options
    #39
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,417 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    TallGlass wrote: »
    Do you drive a car as a matter of interest ?
    Is it my uncivil tone that makes you think this?

    Mode of transport doesn't determine whether someone has a point or not. To think otherwise is rather bigoted.


  • Options
    #40
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,309 ✭✭✭markpb


    TallGlass wrote: »
    Do you drive a car as a matter of interest ?

    I do (a not so efficient 2l diesel for which I pay €800 a year in motor tax) and I agree 100% with Victors post. The post he replied to was filled with the usual woe-is-me rubbish that motorists in Ireland (and elsewhere) come out with constantly.

    It's a toll road, not an attack on your civil liberties. If you feel so strongly, run for election to the council, find another way to raise €4m or cut the same amount from the costs and then you can make the bridge free.

    On principle I think having the most outer route rolled a bit silly and probably does encourage motorists (myself included) to drive closer to the city centre that would otherwise be necessary. However, I don't cry into my cornflakes about it nor do I oppose any improvement to the pedestrian or cycling facilities. Most motorists in Dublin have no idea how poor those really are.


  • Options
    #41
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Victor wrote: »
    Is it my uncivil tone that makes you think this?

    Mode of transport doesn't determine whether someone has a point or not. To think otherwise is rather bigoted.

    What uncivil tone?

    Do you drive? I didn't ask about your point, I asked you a question. Which to me plays an important part, in seeing the points of others myself included, I have no problem, with tolls or taxes for that matter, I do however have a problem with this toll bridge, to me is it the most pointless toll I have ever come across, the bridge and road are in bad condition for something that is tolled and you can avoid the bridge if you go via town, which is sending traffic into town, at a time when I thought they want to remove traffic from town. Even if your not a motorist, I don't even think they have done anything for cyclists along the road.

    Again, I will point out I am not an accountant for DCC so I cannot tell them where to get 4 million, but going by that point if they are short, your telling me your suggestion is to hit motorists with tolls as DCC please, because they have a short fall and cannot house people


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,532 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Victor wrote: »
    Oh, just a point, many of the bridges users don't live in the city, so they don't have a vote.

    This is the AA trying to say "won't someone think of the poor motorist", all the while taking hefty sums from many of those motorists.

    Removing the toll means more cars. More cars, more congestion. So you want to add more cars?

    Providing spaces for pedestrians and cyclists is reasonable (the current situation is exceptionally tight). Pedestrians and cyclists don't cause potholes or crack bridges.

    More people on foot or cycling means fewer cars blocking your way.

    Fncking gobsh!te.
    I travel regularly from the south side to Dollymount and try to avoid using the bridge. It means added distance for me and I'm also adding to traffic in town.
    It's pure nonsense.


  • Options
    #43
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    markpb wrote: »
    I do (a not so efficient 2l diesel for which I pay €800 a year in motor tax) and I agree 100% with Victors post. The post he replied to was filled with the usual woe-is-me rubbish that motorists in Ireland (and elsewhere) come out with constantly.

    Good for you paying your car tax, I do too. I'm honestly happy for you if as a motorist in Ireland you think you are getting great value for money with all the taxes, tolls and levies we pay for the so called 'privilege' of owning a car.

    I drive a car, a motorcycle and am a cyclist. I keep away from public transport because its a shambles. Out of my three modes of transport, my car is the most reliable and I wouldn't stretch to call it a privilege. Now forgive me if I am talking 'rubbish' to you but I pay a lot and am perfectly entitled to call people out on the 'rubbish' they are talking and am fed up to death of people on here going on like motorists have endless pockets, we don't and it's not my problem if a council has not got 4 million, but hitting the easy target the motorist for when you need a bit of cash, would you ever **** off. Also FYI, I can't use public transport because Dublin Bus are not even capable of operating a 24hr system, but I suppose that's my fault also, because they haven't got enough cash either. I guess you and Victor suggest we have another toll for that also?


  • Options
    #44
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    TallGlass wrote: »
    Good for you paying your car tax, I do too. I'm honestly happy for you if as a motorist in Ireland you think you are getting great value for money with all the taxes, tolls and levies we pay for the so called 'privilege' of owning a car.

    I drive a car, a motorcycle and am a cyclist. I keep away from public transport because its a shambles. Out of my three modes of transport, my car is the most reliable and I wouldn't stretch to call it a privilege. Now forgive me if I am talking 'rubbish' to you but I pay a lot and am perfectly entitled to call people out on the 'rubbish' they are talking and am fed up to death of people on here going on like motorists have endless pockets, we don't and it's not my problem if a council has not got 4 million, but hitting the easy target the motorist for when you need a bit of cash, would you ever **** off. Also FYI, I can't use public transport because Dublin Bus are not even capable of operating a 24hr system, but I suppose that's my fault also, because they haven't got enough cash either. I guess you and Victor suggest we have another toll for that also?

    But they didn't hit an easy target, the charge was there last week and it will still be there next. Nothing has changed. If it bothers you, go the other route.


  • Options
    #45
    garrettod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭garrettod


    Victor wrote: »
    Oh, just a point, many of the bridges users don't live in the city, so they don't have a vote.

    What do you base this on ?
    Victor wrote: »
    This is the AA trying to say "won't someone think of the poor motorist", all the while taking hefty sums from many of those motorists.

    Fine, then think in terms of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".... at least the AA try to stand up for motorists which I appreciate for a start (and have no relationship with the AA btw).
    Victor wrote: »
    Removing the toll means more cars. More cars, more congestion. So you want to add more cars?

    Eh, it also means there is no taffic congestion at the toll barriers. Dare I suggest you have a look at the success on the M50, after they got rid of the toll bridges there (even if they did replace them with another form of toll).

    Removing the tolls would be one part of correcting what is wrong with the current arrangements, not the only change.
    Victor wrote: »
    Providing spaces for pedestrians and cyclists is reasonable (the current situation is exceptionally tight). Pedestrians and cyclists don't cause potholes or crack bridges.

    If they want to use the bridge to cross the Liffey, they should have to pay. The rate does not have to be the same, to reflect the point you make about their impact on the bridge, but they use the service so should have to pay.
    Victor wrote: »
    More people on foot or cycling means fewer cars blocking your way.

    Not if they are taking up more of the bridge, when there is limited space available in the first place it doesnt.
    Victor wrote: »
    Fncking gobsh!te.

    Nice. :rolleyes:

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Options
    #46
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,656 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    The toll should be removed simply because that was what the plan was when it was implemented 30 years ago. People accepted it because when it was paid for (which it has been multiple times over) we were led to believe it would be given back to the citizens. Now we have a 180 degree u turn and are expected to continue paying for something that is long since paid for.


  • Options
    #47
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,309 ✭✭✭markpb


    Muahahaha wrote:
    The toll should be removed simply because that was what the plan was when it was implemented 30 years ago. People accepted it because when it was paid for (which it has been multiple times over) we were led to believe it would be given back to the citizens.

    If Dublin Corporation at the time had simply built the bridge and tolled it, making no reference to the purpose of the toll or when it might end, would that have changed things then or now?

    People didn't "accept" the toll: they use the bridge because they can justify paying for it. There's no moral argument here, just people getting annoyed because a decision was changed 30 years later (hardly the only thing that changed in 30 years).


  • Options
    #48
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,417 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    The toll should be removed simply because that was what the plan was when it was implemented 30 years ago.
    I've not heard any of this, but are you saying we can't deal with the mistakes of the past?


  • Options
    #49
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Victor has been banned for one day.


  • Options
    #50
    garrettod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭garrettod


    January wrote: »
    Victor has been banned for one day.

    I'm surprised Boards have Victor as a moderator as I would not have thought Victor's actions reflect the image Boards wants to portray.

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Options
    #51
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    garrettod wrote: »
    I'm surprised Boards have Victor as a moderator as I would not have thought Victor's actions reflect the image Boards wants to portray.

    Victor is a moderator on other forums on boards, in this forum he is just a regular poster like yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    garrettod wrote: »
    I'm surprised Boards have Victor as a moderator as I would not have thought Victor's actions reflect the image Boards wants to portray.

    Because he disagrees with you?


  • Options
    #53
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Mod: Can we get back on topic please instead of talking about moderating matters which have been dealt with.


  • Options
    #54
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,656 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    markpb wrote: »
    If Dublin Corporation at the time had simply built the bridge and tolled it, making no reference to the purpose of the toll or when it might end, would that have changed things then or now?

    People didn't "accept" the toll: they use the bridge because they can justify paying for it. There's no moral argument here, just people getting annoyed because a decision was changed 30 years later (hardly the only thing that changed in 30 years).

    Back in 1984 councillors said that it would revert to being free when the period was up. We were clearly lied too, something that is all too common by politicians in this country.

    And not everyone can justify paying for it- when the Samual Beckett went up revenues on the East Link went down. So the toll is incentivising people into the city centre creating more traffic than necessary.


  • Options
    #55
    garrettod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭garrettod


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Back in 1984 councillors said that it would revert to being free when the period was up. We were clearly lied too, something that is all too common by politicians in this country.....

    A few people (older than myself) are of that view and very clear on it. I personally would have been too young to remember, although in theory, it does stack up. I wonder if there is any documentary evidence in support of the statements that it would become free for all to use after the PPP had ended ?

    Having said all that, the legislators can ultimately do what they want when in power I suppose.

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Options
    #56
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,309 ✭✭✭markpb


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Back in 1984 councillors said that it would revert to being free when the period was up. We were clearly lied too, something that is all too common by politicians in this country.

    I think your definition of lying is a little broad. Someone 30 years ago said something, a completly different set of councillors under different circumstances decided to act differently.

    All political statements are made based on the current circumstances, nothing more. If you believe they hold a deeper meaning and that they should be followed though regardless, you're very naive.

    Also, to repeat my earlier question: if they had just announced that it was to be tolled forever, what difference would that have made over the last 30 years?


  • Options
    #57
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    markpb wrote: »
    I think your definition of lying is a little broad. Someone 30 years ago said something, a completly different set of councillors under different circumstances decided to act differently.

    All political statements are made based on the current circumstances, nothing more. If you believe they hold a deeper meaning and that they should be followed though regardless, you're very naive.

    Also, to repeat my earlier question: if they had just announced that it was to be tolled forever, what difference would that have made over the last 30 years?

    A contract is not a "political statement", though. It wasn't a "political statement" that granted NTR 30 years of tolling rights.


  • Options
    #58
    cson
    Registered Users Posts: 14,465 ✭✭✭✭cson


    Haven't read through the thread yet but has anyone discussed the fact that the East Link is absolutely rammed as it is with the incumbent toll? Can only imagine what it'd be like untolled with the extra numbers.


  • Options
    #59
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,309 ✭✭✭markpb


    L1011 wrote: »
    A contract is not a "political statement", though. It wasn't a "political statement" that granted NTR 30 years of tolling rights.

    The two are totally and utterly unrelated. The end of NTRs contract to collect the toll does not mean the bridge becomes untolled. Things don't become free because the first company to operate the service lose their contract.


  • Options
    #60
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    kceire wrote: »
    But they didn't hit an easy target, the charge was there last week and it will still be there next. Nothing has changed. If it bothers you, go the other route.

    Typical Irish solution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    markpb wrote: »
    The two are totally and utterly unrelated. The end of NTRs contract to collect the toll does not mean the bridge becomes untolled. Things don't become free because the first company to operate the service lose their contract.

    There's a general expectation though, based on international examples, that when a tolling PPP expires that the toll ceases. That also isn't from "political statements".


Advertisement