Massive infrastructure deficit, solutions

Consonata

Not sure if this was ever discussed here, but I always liked the system in London, where you have to pay a toll to drive in the city centre. Those funds could be ringfenced to be used for public transport, and make clearing Dublin alot easier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

It would also help reduce CO2 emissions as I'd imagine a lot more people would be using bus services/park and ride.

LeinsterDub

Consonata wrote: »

Not sure if this was ever discussed here, but I always liked the system in London, where you have to pay a toll to drive in the city centre. Those funds could be ringfenced to be used for public transport, and make clearing Dublin alot easier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

It would also help reduce CO2 emissions as I'd imagine a lot more people would be using bus services/park and ride.

London has world class Network , we've 2 (disconnected) Luas lines , a DART , some suburban trains and a bus network inspired by William Martin Murphy's 80 year defunct tram network.

In London you choose to drive in Dublin you have to drive.

Consonata

LeinsterDub wrote: »

London has world class Network , we've 2 (disconnected) Luas lines , a DART , some suburban trains and a bus network inspired by William Martin Murphy's 80 year defunct tram network.

In London you choose to drive in Dublin you have to drive.

Those Luas lines will be connected a year from now. The Dart is ok but could be better, but the Bus network as it stands is pretty good, and with less traffic on the road, buses would be able to move more quickly, and more passengers= lower fares. With a congestion charge we could stop the banks of the liffey from being a car park, aswell as the nightmare that is college green.

Plus, if DCC were sensible, they could ringfence the money raised per day for public transport.

LeinsterDub

Consonata wrote: »

the Bus network as it stands is pretty good, and with less traffic on the road, buses would be able to move more quickly, and more passengers= lower fares..

Try getting from Glasnevin, Finglas or Ballymun to East Point on our "pretty good" network and that is just one of hundreds of examples. The bus network is a shambles with far too many buses still running to the pillar, numerous stops less than 200 meters apart, massive dwell times and a refusal to do simple things like actually use the middle doors.

Consonata

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Try getting from Glasnevin, Finglas or Ballymun to East Point on our "pretty good" network and that is just one of hundreds of examples. The bus network is a shambles with far too many buses still running to the pillar, numerous stops less than 200 meters apart, massive dwell times and a refusal to do simple things like actually use the middle doors.

Combinations of the Bus + Dart would do, albeit admittedly not very efficiently. But I am not saying this is a fix all solution, merely one of the ways to get more revenue so we can improve our public transport. I'm not suggesting putting every single car user into public transport overnight, just that the people who do use it would have to pay a fare, similar to if you were paying a toll.

Sam Russell

Consonata wrote: »

Those Luas lines will be connected a year from now.

They will not be connected - they will merely cross each other. There is no stop common to both.

There will be no Luas going from one line to the other such as Sandyford to Heuston or Tallaght to Parnell Sq.

LeinsterDub

Consonata wrote: »

Combinations of the Bus + Dart would do, albeit admittedly not very efficiently. But I am not saying this is a fix all solution, merely one of the ways to get more revenue so we can improve our public transport. I'm not suggesting putting every single car user into public transport overnight, just that the people who do use it would have to pay a fare, similar to if you were paying a toll.

Much like the M50 currently all you would be doing is punishing those with no other option. People would still have to drive it would just cost more.

Consonata

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Much like the M50 currently all you would be doing is punishing those with no other option. People would still have to drive it would just cost more.

Again, this won't fix all our problems. But it gives us a sizable amount of cash flow per day to get our public transport up to scratch and reducing congestion. With this money, we could open up more bus routes, open up park+rides so people could come in and out to work, plus put some funding into longer term goals like MN and DU.

LeinsterDub

Consonata wrote: »

Again, this won't fix all our problems. But it gives us a sizable amount of cash flow per day to get our public transport up to scratch and reducing congestion. With this money, we could open up more bus routes, open up park+rides so people could come in and out to work, plus put some funding into longer term goals like MN and DU.

If we are talking about taxing Dubliners, then I'd rather the directly elected mayor with control of a Dublin budget approach.

Consonata

Sam Russell wrote: »

They will not be connected - they will merely cross each other. There is no stop common to both.

There will be no Luas going from one line to the other such as Sandyford to Heuston or Tallaght to Parnell Sq.

You can change very easily at Abbey Street. You could probably run from Marlborough/GPO to Abbey street before the Luas is even finished unloading. Much better than the way it was before.

Consonata

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If we are talking about taxing Dubliners, then I'd rather the directly elected mayor with control of a Dublin budget approach.

That would come also. This money would be ring-fenced for public transport specifically for Dublin.

LeinsterDub

Consonata wrote: »

That would come also. This money would be ring-fenced for public transport specifically for Dublin.

Ring fenced like the national pension reserve fund was?

CatInABox

Ring fencing in Ireland has never worked before, and it won't work in the future. The only thing that will make a difference to infrastructure investment in Ireland, and indeed, all government spending, is a massive sea change in the thinking of the voters and the politicians.

Right now, we have unions baying for blood, hoping to wring more cash out of a government purse that hasn't even recovered from the worst recession in decades, and politicians are falling over themselves to placate them. The short-termism of that thinking is utterly galling to me, but for a majority of voters, it just doesn't seem like a major issue.

In truth, at the start of the last government, FG had an opportunity to sweepingly change Irish society and they totally blew it. Don't get me wrong, I think that they did well enough, but it was based upon getting things back to the way that they were, rather than recognising that "the way things were" was, in part, a cause of the crisis in the first place.

I believe that there will be another recession in the next 5 years. I would hope that any government in power at that time would take the opportunity to be brave and bold in their thinking and policies. That, in my opinion, is the only way that government spending will change.

BonnieSituation

I like the idea of "running for my Luas" to make a connection. It's up there with some lad on here who thought a 20min walk to a bus stop to connect to some stop on the green line counted as a transport connection.

Give over man.

---

Even a simple thing like Network Direct which was money saving in scope was still considered too out of left field to be fully revolutionary. Remember those protests in Dún Laoghaire because DB wanted to take the 46a out of the Farm to save the guts of 10-20min on the city bound journey.

I have too long and too good a memory to have any hope.

Gimme Dart Underground and the electrification from Drog to Sallins and Maynooth to Bray (and maybe double-tracking to Mullingar) and then we'll talk congestion charges. Moronic.

There's plenty of funding available for whatever we want.. remember those lovely negative interest rates?

_Brian

Heard the td talking about the M20 process being restarted.

He said first thing was that the geology and archeological studies would need to be done again. I mean, these things have hardly changed since being done in ~2007 ??

BonnieSituation

_Brian wrote: »

Heard the td talking about the M20 process being restarted.

He said first thing was that the geology and archeological studies would need to be done again. I mean, these things have hardly changed since being done in ~2007 ??

Ha ha ha brilliant.

Ireland, you're gas.

Sam Russell

Consonata wrote: »

You can change very easily at Abbey Street. You could probably run from Marlborough/GPO to Abbey street before the Luas is even finished unloading. Much better than the way it was before.

Are you for real?

It is not a connection if I have to change stops. At the moment, Dart (Connolly) requires a walk to Bus Arras to catch the Point trams. Is that a connection? Now you are suggesting a sprint from GPO to Abbey.

Why could they not have put a proper connection in to allow routes to go from one line to the other?

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why could they not have put a proper connection in to allow routes to go from one line to the other?

No need for routes going from one line to the other all that would do is degrade the service for the vast majority in favour of a small minority. The stops are beside each other they maybe seperate stops but having the same name or even being in the same building isn't the be all and end all. Some transfers on the tube are extremely long.

lawred2

Campaign for autonomous local government

Take the power away from the parish pump gobshoites in the Dail.

Sam Russell

lawred2 wrote: »

Campaign for autonomous local government

Take the power away from the parish pump gobshoites in the Dail.

..... and give it to the gob****es in the County Councils - that is where the parish pumps are - and the strokes.

I don't think so.

Consonata

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are you for real?

It is not a connection if I have to change stops. At the moment, Dart (Connolly) requires a walk to Bus Arras to catch the Point trams. Is that a connection? Now you are suggesting a sprint from GPO to Abbey.

Why could they not have put a proper connection in to allow routes to go from one line to the other?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I like the idea of "running for my Luas" to make a connection. It's up there with some lad on here who thought a 20min walk to a bus stop to connect to some stop on the green line counted as a transport connection.

Give over man.

---

You think a literal 3 minute walk is too much.
Then you have never tried changing lines in London or Paris. It would be 2/3 minutes minimum, not including the time waiting around for the Train. Are you all so spoilt that you demand the changeover should have the same stop name on the map?

Gimme Dart Underground and the electrification from Drog to Sallins and Maynooth to Bray (and maybe double-tracking to Mullingar) and then we'll talk congestion charges. Moronic.

And we pay for them how? You think this money is just going to appear. Or we should just borrow at all. At least congestion charges actually brings in money to actually pay for this, along with reducing congestion in the city, and making it easier to cycle around.

lawred2

Sam Russell wrote: »

..... and give it to the gob****es in the County Councils - that is where the parish pumps are - and the strokes.

I don't think so.

yeah - that's not what I meant by autonomous local government. Try looking beyond the length of your nose.

BonnieSituation

Consonata wrote: »

You think a literal 3 minute walk is too much.
Then you have never tried changing lines in London or Paris. It would be 2/3 minutes minimum, not including the time waiting around for the Train. Are you all so spoilt that you demand the changeover should have the same stop name on the map?

I do indeed. When in reality it probably will take more than 3 minutes, involves traversing the S-bound lane of O'Connell St and the and the current eastbound lane of Abbey St. Not to mention avoiding traffic and pedestrians and that whole lark. It's not an exchange. Get over it.

The real question is why the Luas needed to go down O'Connell St at all and why Marlborough wasn't used in totality. Imagine the exchange between Abbey St and Eden Quay. That would warm your cockles I bet.

And we pay for them how? You think this money is just going to appear. Or we should just borrow at all. At least congestion charges actually brings in money to actually pay for this, along with reducing congestion in the city, and making it easier to cycle around.

How do you think big ticket items get paid for the world over?

Capital borrowing and capital investment programmes. Private investment is a requisite for this and we seem to not really get that in this country. Does anyone know how the GNR and GSR got built. Ever hear of the "Railway Boom" in Britain?

To pay for things as vitally important as infrastructure there is no problem borrowing. There ends up being a valuable asset and usually a massive return on the investment in various ways.

Borrowing as we do for day-today expenses at present is the insanity.

If we implemented the charge you seek do we have to wait for the fund to build up to use it?

Or do we borrow against the potential value of the fund. In essence shifting the collateral from the infrastructure to a cash security. Which would likely drive up the cost of said borrowing (Mortgage v Personal Loan).

Idbatterim

Why wasn't the Luas routed down Marlborough street instead?

Consonata

Idbatterim wrote: »

Why wasn't the Luas routed down Marlborough street instead?

Probably not enough space for dual track.

Consonata

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How do you think big ticket items get paid for the world over?

Capital borriwing and capital investment programmes. Provate investment is a requisite for this and we seem to not really get that in this country. Does anyone know how the GNR and GSR got built. Ever hear of the "Railway Boom" in Britain?

To pay for things as vitally important as infrastructure there is no problem borrowing. There ends up being a valuable asset and usually a massive return on the investment in various ways.

Borrowing as we do for day-today expenses at present is the insanity.

If we implemented the charge you seek do we have to wait for the fund to build up to use it?

Or do we borrow against the potential value of the fund. In essence shifting the collateral from the infrastructure to a cash security. Which would likely drive up the cost of said borrowing (Mortgage v Personal Loan).

So we borrow borrow borrow, with no long term plan on how we're going to recooperate that money? Sounds awfully like pre-2007. Your only solution to the public transport problems is borrow more, with nothing to help us pay it off speedily.

Dardania

Consonata wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

How do you think big ticket items get paid for the world over?

Capital borriwing and capital investment programmes. Provate investment is a requisite for this and we seem to not really get that in this country. Does anyone know how the GNR and GSR got built. Ever hear of the "Railway Boom" in Britain?

To pay for things as vitally important as infrastructure there is no problem borrowing. There ends up being a valuable asset and usually a massive return on the investment in various ways.

Borrowing as we do for day-today expenses at present is the insanity.

If we implemented the charge you seek do we have to wait for the fund to build up to use it?

Or do we borrow against the potential value of the fund. In essence shifting the collateral from the infrastructure to a cash security. Which would likely drive up the cost of said borrowing (Mortgage v Personal Loan).

So we borrow borrow borrow, with no long term plan on how we're going to recooperate that money? Sounds awfully like pre-2007. Your only solution to the public transport problems is borrow more, with nothing to help us pay it off speedily.

LPT and ticket revenue

BonnieSituation

Consonata wrote: »

So we borrow borrow borrow, with no long term plan on how we're going to recooperate that money? Sounds awfully like pre-2007. Your only solution to the public transport problems is borrow more, with nothing to help us pay it off speedily.

Do you know how society works?

The money wasted by a lack of a coherent network in Dublin as it stands is multiples of what DU or any other of the possible infrastructure improvements would save us overall for the outlay.

Think of all the money we waste on people being late and in traffic. Crashing cos they are tired. Polluting needlessly in their cars. Stressing themselves because of long commutes. Increasing healthcare costs as a whole. Putting further strain on the finances of the State. These sick and dead people can't work so we have a shortfall in tax revenues made worse by them taking social welfare or being dead. Meanwhile our schools aren't funded because less people can work. The centre of town's die because people's extra income is spent on commuting and creches and not on local entertainment and local shops. Etc etc etc. Not to mention the (soon-to-be-) collapsing housing market that we are faced with.

Imagine if rents weren't so high? Solution? Make more places attractive to live. These are all very basic socio-economic concepts that actually work in other countries.

World Class Public Transport is the silver bullet for a myriad of problems among others. You clearly haven't a notion of what you are on about if you think a congestion charge is the solution and borrowing for capital infrastructure projects is the problem.

Sam Russell

Dardania wrote: »

LPT and ticket revenue

It was how we paid for the PPP motorways and bridges/tunnels. Some have been so needed that they have to be paid back by central government (M3, Limerick Tunnel, Waterford bypass). If DU and MN were built using PPP they would make big returns for the investors. The problem with that approach, is the private side takes the profits, the public side takes the risk.

Dardania

Sam Russell wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

LPT and ticket revenue

It was how we paid for the PPP motorways and bridges/tunnels. Some have been so needed that they have to be paid back by central government (M3, Limerick Tunnel, Waterford bypass). If DU and MN were built using PPP they would make big returns for the investors. The problem with that approach, is the private side takes the profits, the public side takes the risk.

The local authorities could consider a different funding scheme. Whereby they own the enterprise building the infrastructure, and take the loan. The future LPT stream would be the security.

Similar to this arrangement: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/helsinki-westmetro-project-receives-eib-funding.html