Cork developments

Captainsatnav

opus wrote: »

New exhibition hall planned for the Cork Showgrounds in Curraheen

Interesting.

Put the house on that seeing the light of day

opus

As someone who runs along there a fair bit, this is great news.

Plans unveiled for the major upgrade of the Blackrock and Mahon greenway

snotboogie

opus wrote: »

As someone who runs along there a fair bit, this is great news.

Plans unveiled for the major upgrade of the Blackrock and Mahon greenway

Bad news for the potential Luas though. Looks like there is no provisions for any tram here. Luas looks like its decades off

opus

opus wrote: »

As someone who runs along there a fair bit, this is great news.

Plans unveiled for the major upgrade of the Blackrock and Mahon greenway

So LUAS cancelled, except in the possible far future

Captainsatnav

Deleted User wrote: »

So LUAS cancelled, except in the possible far future

Ah no -will be up and running exactly as per CMATS timetable. Under budget too.

cgcsb

putting in tram tracks there after a walking/cycling route is installed won't pass planning due to the loss of public amenity. Cork's Luas is probably the shortest lived proposed public scheme ever announced. Apr-Jun 2019.

TheChizler

Proposals for major work in 12+ years shouldn't stop relatively minor work from happening now.

Shedite27

cgcsb wrote: »

putting in tram tracks there after a walking/cycling route is installed won't pass planning due to the loss of public amenity. Cork's Luas is probably the shortest lived proposed public scheme ever announced. Apr-Jun 2019.

6 weeks before an election to 4 weeks after one :rolleyes:

cgcsb

TheChizler wrote: »

Proposals for major work in 12+ years shouldn't stop relatively minor work from happening now.

The greenway = cancellation of luas.

Captainsatnav

This is such a waste of time, effort and money. What really is the point of all these half @ssed studies, reports and Sunday Business Post 'Special Supplements' that go nowhere.
Denmark - similar population to Ireland. It's second city, Aarhus, feasibility studies for light rail began Dec 2010. By Dec 2017 it had 2 lines fully operational interchanging with mainline rail throughout. But because, you know, this being Ireland - add on whatever excuse you're having yourself.

whisky_galore

Captainsatnav wrote: »

This is such a waste of time, effort and money. What really is the point of all these half @ssed studies, reports and Sunday Business Post 'Special Supplements' that go nowhere.
Denmark - similar population to Ireland. It's second city, Aarhus, feasibility studies for light rail began Dec 2010. By Dec 2017 it had 2 lines fully operational interchanging with mainline rail throughout. But because, you know, this being Ireland - add on whatever excuse you're having yourself.

Political kite flying, keeps these feasibility study people in jobs, colouring-in jobs for the boys and girls with their artists impressions and snazzy 3d renders, fills up empty newspaper space.

If it did ever get off the ground, guaranteed there would be objections from the very same people who are stuck in traffic getting to and from work due to loss or partial loss of ONE dog walking or cycling route.

TheChizler

cgcsb wrote: »

The greenway = cancellation of luas.

And why do you say that? They're basically resurfacing, making it more accessable, and adding lights, stuff which is currently overdue. Why continue to put it off when there isn't a chance of seeing a Luas in the next 10 years?

TheChizler

Notice gone up.

snotboogie

TheChizler wrote: »

And why do you say that? They're basically resurfacing, making it more accessable, and adding lights, stuff which is currently overdue. Why continue to put it off when there isn't a chance of seeing a Luas in the next 10 years?

Zero provisions for future light rail in the proposal, absolutely zero. It’s either a total failure of joined up thinking or a clear acknowledgment that the Luas will never happen.

TheChizler

snotboogie wrote: »

Zero provisions for future light rail in the proposal, absolutely zero. It’s either a total failure of joined up thinking or a clear acknowledgment that the Luas will never happen.

Why would they? Any prospect of light rail is so far away that what they do now will be old and need redoing by then anyway. Would you rather they didn't do anything to it between now and a hard plan that may never materialise?

snotboogie

TheChizler wrote: »

Why would they? Any prospect of light rail is so far away that what they do now will be old and need redoing by then anyway. Would you rather they didn't do anything to it between now and a hard plan that may never materialise?

Simple things, they are widening the path but not enough to accommodate light rail. If CMATS was an actual plan you would widen the path enough to accommodate the Luas, instead they will need to go back in 10 (haha) years and redo the widening. That’s simple joined up thinking that would save time effort and money and not something that would need redoing wether it’s in 10 years or 100 years

cgcsb

TheChizler wrote: »

And why do you say that? They're basically resurfacing, making it more accessable, and adding lights, stuff which is currently overdue. Why continue to put it off when there isn't a chance of seeing a Luas in the next 10 years?

Let's imagine as planned? Planning starts for the luas line in 10 years. The route will destroy the amenity of the Greenway and will thus not go ahead

j8wk2feszrnpao

Captainsatnav wrote: »

Denmark - similar population to IrelandIt's second city, Aarhus, feasibility studies for light rail began Dec 2010. By Dec 2017 it had 2 lines fully operational interchanging with mainline rail throughout. But because, you know, this being Ireland - add on whatever excuse you're having yourself.

But not the same income tax level.
If you want to go ahead and create a party that’ll propose a 55% income tax, go ahead.
You’d get my vote, because I don’t believe public services can realistically improve to Scandinavian levels without it.
If anything is becoming typically “Irish”, it’s wishful public spending without a plan to actually make it happen.

TheChizler

cgcsb wrote: »

Let's imagine as planned? Planning starts for the luas line in 10 years. The route will destroy the amenity of the Greenway and will thus not go ahead

Why would it destroy a revamped greenway but not the current one?

IMHO it would be financially irresponsible to now make specific expensive preparations for a project that is little more defined than "a Luas for Cork that will probably use the old railway line". What specifications or drawings would they follow? There's no guarantee that they wouldn't guess wrong and have to redo it then anyway, if it ever goes ahead.

I'm in favour of the Luas, but making guesses and spending money based on a prediction of what another group might do in the future is the opposite of joined up thinking.

Shedite27

munstermagic11 wrote: »

But not the same income tax level.
If you want to go ahead and create a party that’ll propose a 55% income tax, go ahead.
You’d get my vote, because I don’t believe public services can realistically improve to Scandinavian levels without it.
If anything is becoming typically “Irish”, it’s wishful public spending without a plan to actually make it happen.

Totally agree. One of my pet peeves when someone talks about Scandanavia as the nirvana of living. Lets compare ourselves to England, France, Holland, Portugal for once and see how we fare.

namloc1980

cgcsb wrote: »

putting in tram tracks there after a walking/cycling route is installed won't pass planning due to the loss of public amenity. Cork's Luas is probably the shortest lived proposed public scheme ever announced. Apr-Jun 2019.

It's already a cycling/walking route. This isn't some brand new greenway out of nowhere. Don't see how this impacts on a future Luas because that's at least 20 years away going by the CMATS report.

questionmark?

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Captainsatnav wrote: »

Denmark - similar population to IrelandIt's second city, Aarhus, feasibility studies for light rail began Dec 2010. By Dec 2017 it had 2 lines fully operational interchanging with mainline rail throughout. But because, you know, this being Ireland - add on whatever excuse you're having yourself.

But not the same income tax level.
If you want to go ahead and create a party that’ll propose a 55% income tax, go ahead.
You’d get my vote, because I don’t believe public services can realistically improve to Scandinavian levels without it.
If anything is becoming typically “Irish”, it’s wishful public spending without a plan to actually make it happen.

When you go over the higher rate band our rate is not that far behind when you include Income Tax, USC (aka tax) and PRSI (aka tax). Anyway the biggest issue IMHO is the Irish ability to get horrendous value for money on public projects and the extreme slowness to make changes as well as the embarrassing nimby/parish pump politics that goes on.

questionmark?

questionmark? wrote: »

When you go over the higher rate band our rate is not that far behind when you include Income Tax, USC (aka tax) and PRSI (aka tax). Anyway the biggest issue IMHO is the Irish ability to get horrendous value for money on public projects and the extreme slowness to make changes as well as the embarrassing nimby/parish pump politics that goes on.

The Irish can get value for money, the private sector proves that and all the Irish working on major jobs in the middle east, America, Australia etc., the skills are there, it's the civil service and all the red tape that's the problem

Where I work, we go + - 30% and then get to + - 10%, normally comes in on budget and if it doesn't we have to seriously justify why the budget got blown

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The Irish can get value for money, the private sector proves that and all the Irish working on major jobs in the middle east, America, Australia etc., the skills are there, it's the civil service and all the red tape that's the problem

Where I work, we go + - 30% and then get to + - 10%, normally comes in on budget and if it doesn't we have to seriously justify why the budget got blown

Constraining the public sector to procurement which only takes quoted figure into account (and not allowed to question that figure) allows certain companies with loud sounding names to potentially totally under bid Vs real costs.


There is also no punishment mechanism for companies to then keep coming back to the well, during the build. Where are the KPIs in the SLA? What are the penalties?


Also why can companies not be disqualified from tendering for other projects based on past performance?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

There is also no punishment mechanism for companies to then keep coming back to the well, during the build. Where are the KPIs in the SLA? What are the penalties?


Also why can companies not be disqualified from tendering for other projects based on past performance?

Once the scope and terms of the contract is set- then assuming that there are no additional requirements and that there are no new employer interferences which had not been explained in advance, then there is no scope for changes to the contract. If there are such things, then they can only be recovered insofar as they are proved to result in additional cost.
Why should a construction company be punished for that?

fash

fash wrote: »

Once the scope and terms of the contract is set- then assuming that there are no additional requirements and that there are no new employer interferences which had not been explained in advance, then there is no scope for changes to the contract. If there are such things, then they can only be recovered insofar as they are proved to result in additional cost.
Why should a construction company be punished for that?

Why should a company be punished for under quoting a tender then repeatedly going over that projection, way above understandable contingency? Seriously?

We have repeated live examples of certain companies doing exactly this and nothing done to them.

Dermo123

An unintended development may have to take place in North Main Street...... again. Well they will probably just knock the top 2 floors and leave it at that. Apparently owned by NAMA.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should a company be punished for under quoting a tender then repeatedly going over that projection, way above understandable contingency? Seriously?

We have repeated live examples of certain companies doing exactly this and nothing done to them.

I give you a price to build a three storey building. As I start, you change any want a 5 storey building. You also tell me that (unlike the promises you made prior to signing the contract) that I am only allowed to work at night between the hours of 1am and 5am and I am not allowed to use any power tools.
Why am I not allowed to charge you the provable (and literally no further) extra costs associated with that? Why must I be punished for your alteration of the terms of the agreement?

fash

fash wrote: »

I give you a price to build a three storey building. As I start, you change any want a 5 storey building. You also tell me that (unlike the promises you made prior to signing the contract) that I am only allowed to work at night between the hours of 1am and 5am and I am not allowed to use any power tools.
Why am I not allowed to charge you the provable (and literally no further) extra costs associated with that? Why must I be punished for your alteration of the terms of the agreement?

Why are you throwing in changes?
Did I mention changes? Did someone else?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you throwing in changes?
Did I mention changes? Did someone else?

Because once there is a contract in place, it is only either changes or interferences which allow additional money to be paid.
Why are you talking about anything else? Do you understand what a construction contract is?