Our East Link bridge - still gouging for charges

Ally Dick · 31-12-2015 07:14PM #1

No surprise here. They are not lifting the toll on the East Link even though the 30 years is up. I'm sure the city council will be using the money on their normal junkets

Harry Palmr · 31-12-2015 07:14PM

Duberlin forum please.............:rolleyes:

darkpagandeath · 31-12-2015 07:17PM

I bet it goes to IW...

Corpus Twisty · 31-12-2015 07:18PM

For whom the bell-ends Toll..

newacc2015 · 31-12-2015 07:18PM

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

faceman · 31-12-2015 07:19PM

It's a tax to prevent northsiders entering the southside. Unfortunately they forgot to toll the other bridges too.

suicide_circus · 31-12-2015 07:23PM

We need to be paying more taxes, not less.

Fox_In_Socks · 31-12-2015 07:26PM

Never been across it-is it worth the charge? What are the views like?

padd b1975 · 31-12-2015 07:27PM

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

My sentiments exactly.
There's only populist arguments for its abolition.

Suggestions for alternative methods of raising the 4 million it takes in most welcome.

31-12-2015 07:35PM

Moved from After Hours. Please read Dublin City charter before posting.

TallGlass · 31-12-2015 11:12PM

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

Sure we might aswell start charging just to enter certain area, hell with even shopping centers. The poor DCC with no money from Tax, LPT and anything else they can get there hands on.

Guy:Incognito · 31-12-2015 11:17PM

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

plus it then opens up the areas either side of the bridge to much higher traffic flow as people use the new "free" crossing.

newacc2015 · 01-01-2016 01:55AM

TallGlass wrote: »

Sure we might aswell start charging just to enter certain area, hell with even shopping centers. The poor DCC with no money from Tax, LPT and anything else they can get there hands on.

So you are saying you dont think DCC need any more revenue? You are satisfied that all the roads/footpaths in Dublin are in mint condition? That our parks/leisure centres could not possibly be any better? That we have plenty of social housing? IMO like 99.9% of Dubliners would agree any more funds to improve the city would be better.

BTW a large chunk of LPT goes to other CoCos and no of the reasons why the Dublin local authorities cut it in their budgets. This revenue stream from the tolls will entirely benefit Dubliners until LPT which benefits other councils. €4 million a year isnt a huge sum of money from the tolls. But it is worth almost 10% of the amount of LPT collected p.a. (estimated at €50.6 for 2016).

Tabnabs · 01-01-2016 11:55AM

It's operated in conjunction with Dublin Port, a private company owned entirely by the state, so don't heap too many social democractic values on it. Dublin Port is hugely profitable and arguably takes poor care of the bridge as recent malfunctions have shown.

Other countries take a more enlightened approach to these mattters. Even a socialist paradise like Norway charges for bridges and tunnels until they are repaid and then removes the barriers. It's a much easier sell if people can see what their fees are actually going on rather than another stealth tax. Imagine Irish bureaucrats and politicians taking that approach!

It was built for the people and has now bern paid for by the people who have benefited (and then some). Time to show some leadership and responsibility and open it up to free movement.

Tabnabs · 01-01-2016 11:59AM

Guy:Incognito wrote:

plus it then opens up the areas either side of the bridge to much higher traffic flow as people use the new "free" crossing.

Rediculous argument. Why not toll every bridge along the Liffey then, including the other opening or swing bridges?!

Larry the Logster · 01-01-2016 12:01PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I bet it goes to IW...

You mean Dennis O'Brian?

Larry the Logster · 01-01-2016 12:02PM

faceman wrote: »

It's a tax to prevent northsiders entering the southside. Unfortunately they forgot to toll the other bridges too.

Hadn't realised that there wasn't a toll for going the other direction. Nice one.

LollipopJimmy · 01-01-2016 12:13PM

Tabnabs wrote: »

Rediculous argument. Why not toll every bridge along the Liffey then, including the other opening or swing bridges?!

In fact I would see this as a positive, it would relieve the pressure on the other routes which are being used to avoid the toll

Guy:Incognito · 01-01-2016 04:15PM

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

In fact I would see this as a positive, it would relieve the pressure on the other routes which are being used to avoid the toll

Presumably if you live in the area you;ll still think it's a good idea?

LollipopJimmy · 01-01-2016 04:23PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Presumably if you live in the area you;ll still think it's a good idea?

What's that got to do with it? Keep charging a toll because traffic volumes might upset the locals? Sure then we should never build any roads

Guy:Incognito · 01-01-2016 07:34PM

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

What's that got to do with it? Keep charging a toll because traffic volumes might upset the locals? Sure then we should never build any roads

Roads are constantly altered to suit locals. Be it making them pay parking, restricting access, blocking off altogether etc,

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-01-2016 07:43PM

Larry the Logster wrote: »

Hadn't realised that there wasn't a toll for going the other direction. Nice one.

He was referring to the other bridges not the northbound lane on the east link.

power pants · 01-01-2016 08:22PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

We need to be paying more taxes, not less.

speak for yourself. We need more people having some self respect and getting a job than deciding being on the dole like their generations of family before them as a career

Terrontress · 01-01-2016 08:27PM

As a driver, it is such a normal bridge. While it may open to give boats access, that doesn't benefit the driver. In fact, the bridge opening can delay car journeys. It just seems like a very arbitrary piece of infrastructure to toll. At least the Port Tunnel appears to be an impressive feat of engineering.

Why toll the East Link and not any other city bridge?

TallGlass · 01-01-2016 10:37PM

newacc2015 wrote: »

So you are saying you dont think DCC need any more revenue? You are satisfied that all the roads/footpaths in Dublin are in mint condition? That our parks/leisure centres could not possibly be any better? That we have plenty of social housing? IMO like 99.9% of Dubliners would agree any more funds to improve the city would be better.

BTW a large chunk of LPT goes to other CoCos and no of the reasons why the Dublin local authorities cut it in their budgets. This revenue stream from the tolls will entirely benefit Dubliners until LPT which benefits other councils. €4 million a year isnt a huge sum of money from the tolls. But it is worth almost 10% of the amount of LPT collected p.a. (estimated at €50.6 for 2016).

Sure thing, let increase taxes and add a few more. Lets not try balance the funds a little better.

BTW its not my problem if DCC can't get there finances in order, this the exact reasons I pay tax, so they can hire someone that can show them how to balance there money.

Sorry, like many excuses I have heard over the years, this one is wearing thin, we only get 50 million but need 75 million so we give them 75 million and its still too short for them.

And for the record, I think the roads in DCC are in fairly good condition for most of them, lines kept painted, traffic lights are nearly all new they do a good job, resurfacing where needed, repairs etc.. Now FCC that's a different story, lights all old and shabby.

newacc2015 · 02-01-2016 02:46AM

TallGlass wrote: »

Sure thing, let increase taxes and add a few more. Lets not try balance the funds a little better.

BTW its not my problem if DCC can't get there finances in order, this the exact reasons I pay tax, so they can hire someone that can show them how to balance there money.

Sorry, like many excuses I have heard over the years, this one is wearing thin, we only get 50 million but need 75 million so we give them 75 million and its still too short for them.

And for the record, I think the roads in DCC are in fairly good condition for most of them, lines kept painted, traffic lights are nearly all new they do a good job, resurfacing where needed, repairs etc.. Now FCC that's a different story, lights all old and shabby.

Have you ever read DCC budget? In 2015 they had to spend millions on housing homeless in emergency accommodation alone. Do you think the more fiscally responsible thing to manage their budget is to a put a family of young children on the street? DCC have always been pretty good with their money. There was no really extravagant spending in the boom on their part. There is really nothing more they can do to balance their budget.

Can you suggest were to raise this potential loss of €4 million a year? That €4 million of the next 20 years could potentially provide funding for well over a hundred new family homes in DCC. But a free toll bridge must be more beneficial for you

Atlantic Dawn · 02-01-2016 02:52AM

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

The 22k cars a day that use it even if they were the max fuel efficient cars out there would contribute nearly €4 million a year in motor tax. Removing the toll would increase traffic and put cars outside the main areas of the city.

Victor · 02-01-2016 03:33AM

Ally Dick wrote: »

Our East Link bridge

It's not your bridge. It's the city council's bridge.

Would you say "That's out Guinness brewery, give us free Guinness!" and expect to be taken seriously?

Atlantic Dawn · 02-01-2016 03:42AM

Victor wrote: »

It's not your bridge. It's the city council's bridge.

Would you say "That's out Guinness brewery, give us free Guinness!" and expect to be taken seriously?

It was originally built by NTR.

Victor · 02-01-2016 03:53AM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It was originally built by NTR.

And?

newacc2015 · 02-01-2016 06:55PM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The 22k cars a day that use it even if they were the max fuel efficient cars out there would contribute nearly €4 million a year in motor tax. Removing the toll would increase traffic and put cars outside the main areas of the city.

Under that logic why do we have any tolls as all cars pay motor tax? Where does motor tax go to? The general taxation and to DCC indirectly. DCC will get this €4 million themselves and not have to share it other local authority.

Where will DCC get another €4 million easily?

Our East Link bridge - still gouging for charges

Welcome!

Comments

Welcome!