€300M Investment into Waterford City

Harry Palmr

That bridge is definitely a fixed link!



https://www.facebook.com/johncumminswaterford/

Max Powers

Harry Palmr wrote: »

That bridge is definitely a fixed link!



https://www.facebook.com/johncumminswaterford/

I dunno harry, you 're right, that looks fixed definitely but i wouldn't put too much stock in those CG images or outline images.I think I heard some council person saying they want to keep river access for upstream, can't confirm where though, could be wrong.what they have consistently said is that they want new bridge pedestrian mainly with some form of public transport on it.

914

Max Powers wrote: »

I dunno harry, you 're right, that looks fixed definitely but i wouldn't put too much stock in those CG images or outline images.I think I heard some council person saying they want to keep river access for upstream, can't confirm where though, could be wrong.what they have consistently said is that they want new bridge pedestrian mainly with some form of public transport on it.

As max said I would not read to much into the imaging. Look at the Samuel Beckett bridge in Dublin, looking at that it would appear not to open but it does.

All you need is one part of it to turn/swizzle.

Johnboy1951

- The new Pedestrian Bridge will cross the River Suir at the Clock Tower, delivering people right into the new Retail Centre. This bridge will include transport that will link the North Quays with Barronstrand Street, Broad Street and the new Michael Street Shopping centre.

Maybe the Clock Tower will be moved after all.

Is Waterford to get its own version of 'Luas' across the new bridge?

Aquos76

The new Pedestrian bridge will 100% open, my understanding is it will operate similar to our existing bridge.

TheQuietFella

Aquos76 wrote: »

The new Pedestrian bridge will 100% open, my understanding is it will operate similar to our existing bridge.

Ye should toll that also!!

914

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Maybe the Clock Tower will be moved after all.

Is Waterford to get its own version of 'Luas' across the new bridge?

In all the plans the clock tower is remaining where it currently stands.

Dont think it will be a luas type project, electrical buses have previously been mentioned. I guess we'll have to wait and see the plans in october

mickmackmcgoo

Listening to local radio today John Hearne wasn't very confident of the structural funding for this being approved. Said the vibes from the politicians in Dublin were no chance which would fly in the face of the government's vision for expansion of the cities and population. Let's hope he is wrong

Aquos76

I dunno to be honest, the vibes coming from the likes of John Cummins and Paudie Coffey seem to be very positive indeed. The council seem to be going to an awful lot of work on this too and I couldn’t see them doing all this without having something concrete in place, pardon the pun.

mickmackmcgoo

Yeah I read the vibes are good from FG politicians and as the city manager said , this has to happen . It's too big of an investment and jobs etc to not go ahead but we all know how Irish politics work

Motivator

Aquos76 wrote: »

I dunno to be honest, the vibes coming from the likes of John Cummins and Paudie Coffey seem to be very positive indeed. The council seem to be going to an awful lot of work on this too and I couldn’t see them doing all this without having something concrete in place, pardon the pun.

Dear god, if you believe either of those two you need help.

Dunmoreroader

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dublin-must-not-suffer-as-a-result-of-regional-development-1.3235789

Just been reading the above piece of biased propaganda from DIT based town planner Dr Eoin O'Neill; "We need to avoid the emergence of a competition between Dublin and regional cities for infrastructural investment."

Ha ha Eoin that's because the previous lack of competition has resulted in the lop-sided Dublincentric land we live in where crumbs have been thrown at the likes of Waterford.(Sorry not thrown at, more scavenged.)
More of the same seems to be what this gentleman is lobbying for - presumably to keep all of his Dublin based clients fat and happy.
Methinks the North Quays dosh is far from being in the bag with chaps like this spinning in the Irish Times and whispering in Ministers ears.

Harry Palmr

Typical - Dublin good, not Dublin no good (for Dublin). The entire economy cannot be allowed to get sucked into one pocket of bad planned misery

Max Powers

That article is almost laughable in its bias, however there would be many (in Dublin) who think the same.

hardybuck

The way I read it, he suggested that the cities shouldn't be competing with each other for investment. While that will always be the case to a certain extent, as we're one of the most centralised administrations in Europe, there is merit in the argument.

For Ireland to function well we need our capital and our regions working well in tandem. Dublin produces roughly half of the nation's GDP, so you can see why many people there will be sceptical towards big projects targeted towards stimulating the region's when the capital badly needs infrastructure also to keep moving forward.

I wonder if the likes of the Council could ever go and seek funding from the likes of the European Investment Bank et Al if handouts aren't available?

Harry Palmr

**** 'em. €60 million would hardly build a relief road in Dublin, yet that money committed to the North Quays scheme could have a transforming effect here.

hardybuck

Harry Palmr wrote: »

**** 'em. €60 million would hardly build a relief road in Dublin, yet that money committed to the North Quays scheme could have a transforming effect here.

Hardly. €15.9m is going to be spent on building roads in Cherrywood that'll allow for 2,000 housing units to be built. €15.75m will go into a new bridge over the Dodder to allow for 3,000 units in the Docklands to be built. Those two projects are half of what you've mentioned but they'll supported the building of population centres bigger than Tramore.

fricatus

hardybuck wrote: »

Hardly. €15.9m is going to be spent on building roads in Cherrywood that'll allow for 2,000 housing units to be built. €15.75m will go into a new bridge over the Dodder to allow for 3,000 units in the Docklands to be built. Those two projects are half of what you've mentioned but they'll supported the building of population centres bigger than Tramore.

I think the whole point is that adding another Tramore-sized chunk of population to Dublin is not going to transform anything, just keep things going as before, and sure, there's plenty of accommodation needed in Dublin. €15 million or 60 million is hardly going to go unnoticed anywhere.

However the North Quays will have a transformative impact on Waterford, and an increase in population here the size of another Tramore just might bolster our arguments for all sorts of needed investment, like the cath lab, university, etc.

hardybuck

fricatus wrote: »

I think the whole point is that adding another Tramore-sized chunk of population to Dublin is not going to transform anything, just keep things going as before, and sure, there's plenty of accommodation needed in Dublin. €15 million or 60 million is hardly going to go unnoticed anywhere.

However the North Quays will have a transformative impact on Waterford, and an increase in population here the size of another Tramore just might bolster our arguments for all sorts of needed investment, like the cath lab, university, etc.

No I think the whole point is that all cities need infrastructure to keep them moving. Population growth will happen in each. Should all the cities have to compete for investment, or is there more they could be doing themselves?

Max Powers

hardybuck wrote: »

No I think the whole point is that all cities need infrastructure to keep them moving. Population growth will happen in each. Should all the cities have to compete for investment, or is there more they could be doing themselves?

Waterford have lined up about 300m of private investment and we need 60 for infrastructure to facilitate, that must be the greatest example of doing it for themselves this country has ever seen.
I don't buy the article at all, at its core is a fella saying, Dublin wants nearly all the funds, everyone else will have to get their investment elsewhere.it's laughable because of the amount of investment govt has and continues to pump into its chosen few areas.

Road-Hog

Max Powers wrote: »

Waterford have lined up about 300m of private investment and we need 60 for infrastructure to facilitate, that must be the greatest example of doing it for themselves this country has ever seen.
I don't buy the article at all, at its core is a fella saying, Dublin wants nearly all the funds, everyone else will have to get their investment elsewhere.it's laughable because of the amount of investment govt has and continues to pump into its chosen few areas.

In the end of the day the author (academic from UCD) of the article will have no infleuence on government policy/distribution of funding? It's a mere opinion piece by a Dublin based/biased lecturer written in 'Dublin paper'. As you say it's laughable really and contrary to what is needed i.e. as many alternative sustainable urban centers as possible to try and counter the relentless growth of the greater Dublin region.

Taxburden carrier

Going by yesterday’s Examiner article, (cannot link, maybe someone can) the council aren’t exactly covering themselves in glory with their use of resources.
63 vw vans bought at a cost of €1.5 million at the start of the year for no specific reason. Management told officials in may they were not needed and would be sent back within 3 weeks. Council chose to keep the vans , unused parked on authority premises. Last week they decided they would now use the vehicles from October.
This info came to light via a letter to the PAC.
Last month the council looked for a 10% increase in LPT citing a €700k shortfall in last years budget. They got a 2.5% increase.

With this level of accountability, what will these guys do with a huge increase in available funds?

Harry Palmr

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/waterford-council-bought-63-vans-for-no-reason-808109.html

Perfect example of it's kind.

Max Powers

Bad headline alright, today's Munster express mentions it to saying mistake by individual, now demoted as result,so the individual made a massive cock up but suffered as a result, bit unfair to make assumptions about all the council in general IMO in this case, ....people f-up sometimes,,I think this might be a case of realise someone made a mistake while recognising council ultimately responsible,, move on.


Good bit more in this week's papers on north quays.+ something intriguing from darren skelton in n&s

Taxburden carrier

Yeah....only €1,500,000.....no biggie....

Loads more where that came from.

hardybuck

Max Powers wrote: »

Bad headline alright, today's Munster express mentions it to saying mistake by individual, now demoted as result,so the individual made a massive cock up but suffered as a result, bit unfair to make assumptions about all the council in general IMO in this case, ....people f-up sometimes,,I think this might be a case of realise someone made a mistake while recognising council ultimately responsible,, move on.


Good bit more in this week's papers on north quays.+ something intriguing from darren skelton in n&s

One individual can't, or shouldn't, be able to make a mistake of this nature. Public governance procedures, if followed should have prevented all of that. Internal financial procedures should have kicked in also.

It's more likely to be a systems failure added to by individual error.

Max Powers

hardybuck wrote: »

One individual can't, or shouldn't, be able to make a mistake of this nature. Public governance procedures, if followed should have prevented all of that. Internal financial procedures should have kicked in also.

It's more likely to be a systems failure added to by individual error.

Yeah, fair enough, but just going on local paper article where it mentions an individual.agree with what you say about systems etc but I often hear of individual mistakes being made which cost the company e.g.someone opened a dodgy attachment, someone didn't check if invoice was genuine, someone forgot to, someone inputted wrong figure...it shouldn't happen but it does.

hardybuck

Max Powers wrote: »

Yeah, fair enough, but just going on local paper article where it mentions an individual.agree with what you say about systems etc but I often hear of individual mistakes being made which cost the company e.g.someone opened a dodgy attachment, someone didn't check if invoice was genuine, someone forgot to, someone inputted wrong figure...it shouldn't happen but it does.

If something over €50,000 for example, a public tender must be advertised as part of a formal tendering process. That'll give you an idea of the amount of procedure that needs to be followed when spending public money, and rightly so.

Someone very senior, most likely the Chief Executive, would need to sign off on payments of that size. It could have been broken up into smaller amounts, but you'd expect anyone in accounts to wonder what that was all about.

Johnboy1951

Harry Palmr wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/waterford-council-bought-63-vans-for-no-reason-808109.html

Perfect example of it's kind.

From that article

In a letter to the Public Accounts Committee , TDs were told that at the start of this year the council bought 63 Volkswagen vans for €1.5m. It said management told officials in May the vans were not needed and would be sent back within three weeks. However, the council chose to keep the vehicles, with the vans left unused on the authority’s premises.

I am not sure who or what part of the admin is 'management' in this case or who 'the council' refers to. Some decision at a full council meeting?

This is not just an individual making an error.

There very well might be something very wrong here.

Lets assume an error was made and those 63 vans should have been 6 vans.

When the error was discovered it should have been corrected.
It was not.

In May there was a clear statement the vans were not needed ...... still no action taken.

Depreciation alone must have cost a bundle, plus the cost of storage and maintenance and security.

From where were these 63 vans procured?

Squidvicious

Max Powers wrote: »

Waterford have lined up about 300m of private investment and we need 60 for infrastructure to facilitate, that must be the greatest example of doing it for themselves this country has ever seen.
I don't buy the article at all, at its core is a fella saying, Dublin wants nearly all the funds, everyone else will have to get their investment elsewhere.it's laughable because of the amount of investment govt has and continues to pump into its chosen few areas.

I have to say that I am a little sceptical about the project itself and as to whether it will be as transformative as people think. However, on the basic point about resources, I really can't see why Waterford isn't entitled to a share of investment. For example, Limerick has received significant government investment of late.
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/227095/simon-coveney-to-launch-limerick-regeneration-progress-report.html

Now, I'm not against Limerick receiving government investment, good luck to them. However, every part of the state is entitled to a share of investment. My only question is whether this is the best way to spend Waterford's "share". Personally, I'd prefer to see direct investment in UHW and WIT.