Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Uriel.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Odd that risk doesn't seem to affect road building.

I'm not sure on how road capital expenditure compares with 5, 10 years ago etc. FG got heavily criticised about its the messaging around the last election "keep the recovery going" with the ire particularly strong in rural Ireland and non-Dublin. Roads and broadband amongst other things are aimed at this constituency

LeinsterDub

Uriel. wrote: »

I'm not sure on how road capital expenditure compares with 5, 10 years ago etc. FG got heavily criticised about its the messaging around the last election "keep the recovery going" with the ire particularly strong in rural Ireland and non-Dublin. Roads and broadband amongst other things are aimed at this constituency

3/4 of a billion committed to new roads in the last month. 1 million eCars is apparently our climate change strategy. Roads are still being used to buy votes as you suggested

cgcsb

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The European investment bank are literally begging us to borrow. Which is not to mention the actual billions being spend on roads and road conditions every year

Governments like roads though they can be built quick and they can be spread across constituencies and get lots of votes for relatively cheap. A FG govt won't want any more debts were already up to our hoop in loans.

cgcsb

LeinsterDub wrote: »

3/4 of a billion committed to new roads in the last month. 1 million eCars is apparently our climate change strategy. Roads are still being used to buy votes as you suggested

Goes to show how hopeless our transport strategies are. Cmats and the Dublin transport plans aim to maintain or even increase car usage, with the emphasis being on more electric cars. This ignores the fact that an electric car is a one tonne box full of precious metals that is used to move a single person around in an extremely energy inefficient manner and then remain stationary for 23hours a day.

Pete_Cavan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

3/4 of a billion committed to new roads in the last month. 1 million eCars is apparently our climate change strategy. Roads are still being used to buy votes as you suggested

This is the same nonsense that the Greens are constantly engaging in, applying a particular logic to a situationwhere it is not applicable at all. Look at where those new roads are located. It's not like they are roads which are going to pile more commuters onto Dublin's already gridlockeed roads instead of providing a public transport alternative. Any public transport is those areas will be road based and the existing roads are totally substandard, the new roads are justified. It is also irrelevant to Metrolink.

Wasn't there recently warnings given to keeping this thread about Metrolink and not dragging every other bit of government spending into it?

LeinsterDub

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This is the same nonsense that the Greens are constantly engaging in, applying a particular logic to a situationwhere it is not applicable at all. Look at where those new roads are located. It's not like they are roads which are going to pile more commuters onto Dublin's already gridlockeed roads instead of providing a public transport alternative. Any public transport is those areas will be road based and the existing roads are totally substandard, the new roads are justified. It is also irrelevant to Metrolink.

Wasn't there recently warnings given to keeping this thread about Metrolink and not dragging every other bit of government spending into it?

It's not irrelevant as we don't have a magic money tree.

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's not irrelevant as we don't have a magic money tree.

Well, there is a magic money tree, if the Gov wanted to shake it.

1. There are billions of Euro on deposit from Irish residents with the Irish banks earning than 0.01% interest, subject to 33% deposit interest tax. Now what would it take for that to be put to some use?

2. The European Development Bank have huge funds available for projects like Metrolink at very low interest.

3. The Gov could issue an investment bond (State Guaranteed) to fund the Mertolink with suitable tax advantages. (Perhaps add a share of the fare box).

4. Use the CAB money, instead of feeding it directly into general tax. (Of course there is not that much in that, but I would love to see the odd carriage with a plaque saying 'Funded by Crime')

All of these could fund the Metrolink, either partly, individually or collectively..

marno21

^^

Or put unexpected corporation tax windfalls into an infrastructure fund, instead of their current use of being used for unsustainable HSE cost overruns.

Lord Glentoran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's not irrelevant as we don't have a magic money tree.

We have as far as roads are concerned.

cson

Some thoughts;

We need to create incentives that reduce single occupancy cars from the M50, and high congestion roads in general. An easy start would be having specific car pooling lanes on the M50. Variable tolling is the next step after that.

Before that happens though, you need a credible public transport alternative, which is where Metrolink et al come in.

The biggest issue is housing density though; so long as we continue to build outwards rather than upwards the car will remain king.

salmocab

cson wrote: »

Some thoughts;

We need to create incentives that reduce single occupancy cars from the M50, and high congestion roads in general. An easy start would be having specific car pooling lanes on the M50. Variable tolling is the next step after that.

Before that happens though, you need a credible public transport alternative, which is where Metrolink et al come in.

The biggest issue is housing density though; so long as we continue to build outwards rather than upwards the car will remain king.

Variable tolls drives people off the m50 onto rat running estates. We need to be careful of unintended consequences.

Pete_Cavan

salmocab wrote: »

Variable tolls drives people off the m50 onto rat running estates. We need to be careful of unintended consequences.

Rat running generally isn't an option unless going a junction or two and even then it usually isn't through estates. We should be discouraging short journeys on the M50 of a junction or two anyway.

salmocab

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Rat running generally isn't an option unless going a junction or two and even then it usually isn't through estates. We should be discouraging short journeys on the M50 of a junction or two anyway.

We should but unless there are alternatives it will push cars onto other already jammed local roads. Knocklyon to tallaght or ballymount would be prime for jamming up other already busy roads. Until we get PT sorted the m50 is going to stay as it is.

Pete_Cavan

salmocab wrote: »

We should but unless there are alternatives it will push cars onto other already jammed local roads. Knocklyon to tallaght or ballymount would be prime for jamming up other already busy roads. Until we get PT sorted the m50 is going to stay as it is.

I don't see that as a reason for not introducing more toll points. Most will continue to use the M50 and pay a very small amount per journey, the fact they use it now shows they prefer it to the alternative and if any additional cars choose the alternative route, it becomes less attractive not more. Keep the additional toll money to fund infrastructure improvements for public transport alternatives.

cgcsb

Well at the minute there is no public transport alternative so it's premature to use punishing tolls.

Lord Glentoran

cgcsb wrote: »

Well at the minute there is no public transport alternative so it's premature to use punishing tolls.

I recall a conversation in the early nineties with someone who lived off Leeson Street and drove to work in Christchurch. “Well”, she said, “It’s all very well for London to have a proposed congestion charge, it can’t happen here until public transport is improved”

So, nearly thirty years later, if not now, when?

Charge drivers and be damned.

Use the money to fund improvements such as Metro, more Luas lines, and the long fingered M3 Parkway to Navan line.

Simple. Enough messing about.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

^^

Or put unexpected corporation tax windfalls into an infrastructure fund, instead of their current use of being used for unsustainable HSE cost overruns.

Actually, I could never understand why the 'Apple €13 billion' was not turned into a Gov Bond carrying no or low interest, repayable on the final decision, and used for infrastructure, and in particular, Metrolink. Currently, huge professional fees were paid out to set up an escrow account and the fund is now subject to negative interest charges.

We could build three Metrolink lines with that money.

cgcsb

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I recall a conversation in the early nineties with someone who lived off Leeson Street and drove to work in Christchurch. “Well”, she said, “It’s all very well for London to have a proposed congestion charge, it can’t happen here until public transport is improved”

So, nearly thirty years later, if not now, when?

Charge drivers and be damned.

Use the money to fund improvements such as Metro, more Luas lines, and the long fingered M3 Parkway to Navan line.

Simple. Enough messing about.

A bit of a clumsy comparison. The person you mentioned would walk it faster than driving and cycle it more than 3 times quicker.

A person living in Tallaght and working in Blanch cannot walk or cycle and there's not much of a bus sevice.

By the way that person who drives to Christchurch from lesson st needs a slap

magicbastarder

you'd probably also find that anyone living inside the congestion zone would be given a waiver for the congestion charge anyway. so reduced traffic might make them *more* likely to drive.

ncounties

magicbastarder wrote: »

you'd probably also find that anyone living inside the congestion zone would be given a waiver for the congestion charge anyway. so reduced traffic might make them *more* likely to drive.

This is a maybe, this is not based in fact or what has been seen in other countries operating congestion charging, and this isn't a thread about congestion charging.

cgcsb

magicbastarder wrote: »

you'd probably also find that anyone living inside the congestion zone would be given a waiver for the congestion charge anyway. so reduced traffic might make them *more* likely to drive.

Car ownership within the canals is pretty low.

Marcusm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually, I could never understand why the 'Apple €13 billion' was not turned into a Gov Bond carrying no or low interest, repayable on the final decision, and used for infrastructure, and in particular, Metrolink. Currently, huge professional fees were paid out to set up an escrow account and the fund is now subject to negative interest charges.

We could build three Metrolink lines with that money.

Because Apple’s treasurer is not moronic enough to take that much uncovered currency risk on € and credit risk on Ireland on an uncertain time horizon.

CatInABox

Checked the Gadra website there, they're still as hilarious as ever. Seems the NTA are getting tired of their **** too, judging by some of the responses to questions put to them.

Query 7: It would appear that NTA have not afforded all residents equal opportunity to participate in this process to date and could NTA explain the reason for this.
Response 7: This allegation is simply incorrect.

Hilariously, Gadra want the entire project put back into public consultation over the intervention shaft at Albert College Park, as if people in Swords would give two ****s about a shaft there.

Anyway, the one bit of interesting news is that the next consultation will start on the 24th January, and will run for four weeks. My guess is that if Gadra weren't incessantly banging the drum over this shaft, then there'd be no need for another consultation. The NTA are just going the extra mile to make sure that every aspect of this has been consulted on.

magicbastarder

i get letters about that too, i will be able to see one of the stations from my bedroom window. the local resident's association has been involved in consultation, and would claim to represent the neighbourhood, but i know many people would have a JFDI attitude to it but don't want to clash with the neighbours on the association.

AlmightyCushion

CatInABox wrote: »

Checked the Gadra website there, they're still as hilarious as ever. Seems the NTA are getting tired of their **** too, judging by some of the responses to questions put to them.



Hilariously, Gadra want the entire project put back into public consultation over the intervention shaft at Albert College Park, as if people in Swords would give two ****s about a shaft there.

Anyway, the one bit of interesting news is that the next consultation will start on the 24th January, and will run for four weeks. My guess is that if Gadra weren't incessantly banging the drum over this shaft, then there'd be no need for another consultation. The NTA are just going the extra mile to make sure that every aspect of this has been consulted on.

I assume Gadra meant that the NTA should be going around and knocking on everyone's door who is in the areas where this line will go through which is just a load of nonsense.

We shouldn't be entertaining this crap at all. If someone has some proper, reasonably well, though out feedback, let's hear them out and respond to their feedback. Otherwise, they should be told to feck off, in a polite manner of course.

They want the whole consultation reopened for a shaft? Feck off.

magicbastarder

my understanding is that the RA where i am want the whole station planned for the church on ballymun road, moved south to the park. so it would be hard for them to make a fuss about the shaft.

AlmightyCushion

magicbastarder wrote: »

my understanding is that the RA where i am want the whole station planned for the church on ballymun road, moved south to the park. so it would be hard for them to make a fuss about the shaft.

GADRA even asked in the consultation about having a station there instead of a shaft.

CatInABox

magicbastarder wrote: »

my understanding is that the RA where i am want the whole station planned for the church on ballymun road, moved south to the park. so it would be hard for them to make a fuss about the shaft.

Then they'd need a shaft between Ballymun Station and there, plus having the station in the park would move it away from Glasnevin Ave/Collins Ave, which is a major orbital road under BusConnects.

MJohnston

Another thread ruined...another thread unfollowed.

marno21

MOD:

Can we keep to Metrolink here please.

I would welcome a thread on general infrastructure spending if someone would like to create one