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

Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Options
1…152153155157158…196

Comments

  • Options
    #4622
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,764 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    "refinement" could only come from political interference. Even Metro North, which actually had some problems with ABP, was given a Railway Order for the bulk of it and a 'come back fix this bit' for the problematic section. No fixing was done of course.



  • Options
    #4623
    KrisW1001
    Registered Users Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Money, not planning, was the big problem with Metro North, in that we had no money to build it. Anyone who was an adult at the time knows this.

    When we had money again, things had changed, and that's why Metrolink isn't exactly the same as Metro North. This isn't unique to Metro: the M20/Cork-Dublin, canned at the save time, is also now proceeding again, but with a different design because intervening events had rendered the original plan obsolete.



  • Options
    #4624
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    SF could commence construction and play the “look how long FF and FG had to get Metro going and didn’t and now we have it started” card quite effectively.

    Of course, the chances of the next Government being a SF majority are quite slim so if there are other parties involved it may not even be a SF Minister.



  • Options
    #4625
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121598805#Comment_121598805

    Right. Well that's what cancelling it in 2008 facilitated...



  • Options
    #4626
    BlueSkyDreams
    Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121599779#Comment_121599779

    When we had no money.

    We do now.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4627
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121599779#Comment_121599779

    It wasn't cancelled in 2008. MN only got it's RO in 2011. The FG/Labour government at the time simply didn't proceed with it as there was no money to build it.



  • Options
    #4628
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,868 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121599384#Comment_121599384

    Your last sentence is the important one. I will be voting Green next time out mostly because of public transport in Dublin. Not only Metrolink but Dart Plus and BusConnects need the Greens in government.



  • Options
    #4629
    AngryLips
    Registered Users Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600350#Comment_121600350

    Play on words. It was cancelled



  • Options
    #4630
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600350#Comment_121600350

    Sorry wasn't sure if it was 2008 it was cancelled, but my point stands, do you think 2 or 3 billion would be noticed now on the national debt ? Instead we will have a 12 to 15 billion on it...

    I get politically it wasnt an easy sell. But thats what has the country is the way it is, politically easy option at every turn and wonder why the outcomes are ****...



  • Options
    #4631
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600713#Comment_121600713

    Of course we should have built it but thanks to the ass backward austerity policies implemented by the EU it simply was not an option.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4632
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600800#Comment_121600800

    Nah. I agree with you somewhat. But there is an obsession with welfare spend here and public service etc. Why waste a one off two and a half billion on a game changer for the city, when they can just not " waste " it... infrastructure should have been prioritised then, that's for sure...



  • Options
    #4633
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 14,190 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600506#Comment_121600506

    the problem is so many people out there blame the problems with public transport, lack of metro etc. on the greens and see plastic bollards as the only thing the greens have implemented. i suppose they wouldn't have voted green in the first place anyway.



  • Options
    #4634
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121600829#Comment_121600829

    First of all, it wasn’t 2 or 3 billion, it would have realistically easily topped 5 Billion.

    The social welfare budget ballooned at the time because we had 15% unemployment, the more people unemployed, the higher the social welfare budget as more people need unemployment payments and other assistance.

    It might be easy for you to say we are obsessed with social welfare, but if you were made unemployed during the recession for no fault of your own, struggling to get a new job because there were non and were struggling to put food on the table and keep paying your mortgage, I’d bet you would have a very different view of social welfare at the time.

    BTW public servants took significant pay cuts at the time too!

    Don't get me wrong, it pisses me off that Metro North wasn’t built, I wish the recession didn’t happen, so many lives were destroyed by it or if Metro North had started a few years earlier. But the recession happened and it was really bad. Please stop with this revisionist nonsense.



  • Options
    #4635
    Bsharp
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Bsharp


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121601329#Comment_121601329

    To be fair this sums up why capital investment spending during a downturn is a good idea.

    We could have spent a solid chunk of that welfare budget spend on building the Metro, giving the unemployed construction staff gainful employment, whilst getting taxes back in the process.

    From the Central Bank:

    "Almost one in every two workers who lost their jobs in Ireland in the five years from 2007 to 2012 had previously been employed in construction"



  • Options
    #4636
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,707 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121602395#Comment_121602395

    Realistically building the Metro would employ a very small percentage of those construction workers.

    It isn't like a plumber knows how to operate a TBM.

    But in the end, it really wasn't our choice, the decisions were being made outside Ireland.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of counter cyclical economic policy, which has the idea of investing in infrastructure during a recession and slowing down investment in boom times.

    But 2007 on was a different type of a recession, a once in a lifetime (hopefully) type of recession, where the country was this close from defaulting and going bankrupt. Think of close to the Great Depression, rather then a normal recession.

    Technically we are currently in a recession, but obviously the government finances are still strong, unemployment low, so no one is suggesting cancelling Metrolink.



  • Options
    #4637
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,764 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121602860#Comment_121602860

    Bored tunnelling, even with increase mechanisation, still employs huge amounts of semi-skilled labour. My uncle, with his Primary Cert and main work otherwise experience being a fisherman worked on Tube extensions, the Channel Tunnel and the DPT at various times until he felt he was too old.

    He never did immersed tube work (Jack Lynch, Limerick) as that is a vastly more complicated skillset!



  • Options
    #4638
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Where would we have found several billion euro to spend on it? Those dismissing it as "what difference a few more euro on the national debt?" just prove how little they understand the situation since nobody was willing to lend us even the bare minimum of money to keep the lights on, never mind fund construction projects. It's like saying more people would survived the famine if they'd just chosen to get by on less food.

    Where was the money going to come from? Public sector pay and pensions had already been slashed. All town councils were abolished and several city councils merged. Numerous army barracks were closed and sold. All social welfare was cut etc.

    In addition to the cuts, the government introduced USC (7% of all income over €16'000), and had reduced the tax cut off points from €37000 to €32800. DIRT went from 20% to 41%. PAYE Tax Credits went from a €3660 to €3300 ,the minimum wage was reduced etc. so most those who were lucky enough to still have a job would find not only their pay reduced but a much larger chunk of their pay was now going on taxes.

    There was precious little blood to be drawn from the stone, but some still reckon we could have found billions of euro down the back of the sofa to build Metro North?



  • Options
    #4639
    AdamD
    Registered Users Posts: 12,621 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    Current discourse seems to have entirely forgotten how dire our economic situation was 15 years ago



  • Options
    #4640
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    the cost would have been spread over years and a huge amount of the spend would have flowed back to government coffers. The spend on an annual basis, was negligible. Then what is the cost of congestion , pollution etc? i believe congestion currently is costing, E336 milliion a year to dublin, meant to quadruple by 2040...

    Dublin traffic congestion costs to increase four-fold to over €1.5bn by 2040 (breakingnews.ie)


    how dire? the country borrowed tens of billions . to keep the most relatively generous welfare state in the world going, what were welfare rates cut by 10 % total ? 50% would have been dramatic, outrageous sums were borrowed, to save any actual serious adjustments, and I include the PS in that...

    The entire tax system here is a sham, effectively no LPT, no water charges, lower earners a huge amount, pay as good as no income taxes. Earn 40k, i.e nothing and you lose 50% over that pittance. Its a bizarre and idiotic system...

    youre drinking too much of the RTE coolaid there lads... The only ones who would have taken a dramatic hit, are those who became unemployed and were previously on a far higher income than the level of the dole... of course if we had a proper system, an actual PAY REATED SOCIAL INSURANCE. we would have paid out far higher amount to newly unemployed for a period... like they do in some other countries...

    "nobody was willing to lend us money"... except they did...to cover their own asses mostly in fairness...



  • Options
    #4641
    Brightlights66
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Brightlights66


    It's very hard to believe that a better connection between the metro and the LUAS Red line could not be achieved.

    There have been comments above about stations like Chatelet Les Halles in Paris being much bigger, and of course they are.

    But that station has, as far as I know, 3 RER lines and 5 metro lines. Perhaps up to 12 platforms, and of necessity distributed over quite a wide area.

    Dublin's metro doesn't have such difficulty. It could be much closer to the existing Red LUAS, if the will was there.

    But they've been given a site, behind the Carlton Facade, to build without any disruption, enabling them to tell people that this 450m+ walk will be 'an easy' connection between the metro and the Red LUAS.

    An 'easy' interchange.

    It's nonsense.

    If that Carlton site hadn't been there, they would have had to find something else, like a station under the road in or around O'Connell Street, closer to the LUAS Red Line.

    The response, presumably, will be that the Carlton Site was there.

    But it's poor as a location for an interchange with the LUAS. It's a long way away. Something better must be achievable.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4642
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121604651#Comment_121604651

    All of this is irrelevant.

    It was simply not a decision our government at the time was able to make. The bailout came with strict conditions and we were not allowed spend it on infrastructure projects. This was a mistake, but it wasn't our mistake.



  • Options
    #4643
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,866 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121604721#Comment_121604721

    Can you point out where there is space to build a station box close to the Luas Red line? Without that, you are talking through your hole.



  • Options
    #4644
    Brightlights66
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Brightlights66


    O'Connell Street.

    A two-lane street, either side. There are now almost no cars, only buses.

    Close off one side for a year, or maybe two. (The Empire State Building was completed in a year and a half).

    There would certainly be some disruption.

    As it stands, the metro will have to build a big hole for the station box on O'Connell Street, far away from the Red Line, and this is being presented as an 'easy' interchange.

    In terms of manpower and materials, there should be no difference between the easy (Carlton) way and a station further up O'Connell Street. Perhaps less, even, because an underground station further up O'Connell Street would only have to support a road with buses, while a route via the Carlton site would have to support the proposed buildngs above that.

    The current plan is very poor.



  • Options
    #4645
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,866 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121605144#Comment_121605144

    When I accused you of talking through your hole, I did consider that I may be being a bit harsh on you. Now it is clear that I was being kind.



  • Options
    #4646
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,340 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    I don't think this government has signed off on any major transport infrastructure project at all.

    Nothing.



  • Options
    #4647
    Brightlights66
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Brightlights66


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121605164#Comment_121605164

    So, can I take it from that, that you think the metro/LUAS Red Line connection is an 'easy' one.

    I think it is frankly laughable, repeat laughable, to present it as such.

    But this is one area where Pete and me will have to differ.



  • Options
    #4648
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,343 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121605144#Comment_121605144

    You have clearly read nothing about why the current site was chosen, which is why people are accusing you of talking through your hole.

    The fact of the matter is that due to the curve between any site on O'Connell St and Tara St station, you can only have one interchange. Put a Metrolink Station close to Abbey St and the curvature rules out any station at Tara St. Put a Metrolink station at Tara St and the curvature rules out any station near Abbey St.

    It then comes down to what's more important from a project point of view, an interchange station at Tara St or an interchange station at Abbey St. They ran the numbers and it was pretty clear that Tara St was by far the better interchange station. All of these numbers, designs and analysis are in the Metrolink docs, which you have clearly not looked at.



  • Options
    #4649
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,305 ✭✭✭markpb



    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121605172#Comment_121605172

    I don't think they've covered themselves in glory but they're overseen a massive reduction in public transport fares, an enormous expansion of the rural/Local Link service, the introduction of a lot of the bus route re-organisation under Bus Connects, all of the Bus Connects infra projects are in AbP with one approved and presumably ready to go tender, the progression of the MetroLink project to AbP, some small progress on the Luas Finglas project, some work on the plan for improving Cork's suburban rail network and probably other things that I've forgotten. For me, the progress is painfully slow but part of that is because infra projects take a long time to get running and partly because they made a complete and utter balls of AbP and left it under-staffed for years which is causing a massive delay getting these (and other important housing projects) through.



  • Options
    #4650
    p_haugh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭p_haugh


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121605379#Comment_121605379

    Its up to two core bus corridors approved by ABP now (Liffey Valley & clongriffen)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4651
    JohnnyChimpo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭JohnnyChimpo


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121605357#Comment_121605357

    All of this, but also... it isn't going to be a "450m+" interchange to the Red Line, by my estimate looking at the Hammerson plans it's ~350m (mmmaybe 400m if you include vertical elevation on escalators, idk). It's also about 30m to the Green Line and even less to the most dense bus corridor in the city. This is a really perplexing issue to get a bee up your arse about.



Advertisement