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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

New Children's Hospital at Mater site

2456

Comments

  • #52
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    ...
    Simply untrue. The traffic in that area generally keeps moving and there are several option to get there


    Even currently it all depends where your coming from and with MN it will be massively improved

    Must have imagined the 40 mins it took me to move a mile to reach Dorset st the other evening. Had to abandon the car, and walk to the appointment. Afterwards it took another 30 mins just to get to Glasnevin. That area is almost every traffic report.

    Usually people can't choose the time and direction they come from. Kids not being very organised when they get sick or hurt.
    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    By that logic the best way to stop spreading infections would be to have no hospitals at all .

    The Mater had one of the worst records for MRSA. It also came 31 out of 47 in cleanliness survey, while temple street came 7th. In a MRSA survey Mater came 42 out of 47. Thats pretty much my experience of the place. So excuse me if I'm not in a rush to share that expertise.

    So they'll have a car park. Eye waveringly expensive compared to something outside of town, no doubt too. Great.


  • #53
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    So they'll have a car park. Eye waveringly expensive compared to something outside of town, no doubt too. Great.

    Free for long term patients I do believe and unlike a green field site there will also be several other options be it on street free, on street paid, or multi-storey. In fact with the competition in the area the car park should be reasonable unlike something outside of town where they can charge what they like as they people have no options .


  • #54
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Then in the real world...

    http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/aug/09/dublin-hospitals-criticised-for-exorbitant-parking/


  • #55
    ForiegnNational
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭ForiegnNational


    monument wrote: »
    going by the last Census figures, Co Dublin has around 28% of the population and the Greater Dublin Area has 39.2%.

    So basically your saying that as circa 30% of people live there, you need to put the new NATIONAL hospital in a site that has no green space, no parking, no family accommodation, is not geographically central to the country, etc, but it's fine as it is in Bertie's constituency, and we all know he will make as fantastic a President as he did a Taoiseach?

    Oh, did you also forget that it provides acute services to Northern Ireland, which has a population of 1,759,000, so actually, given Greater Dublin is 1,661,185 people, from a total of (1,759,000 + 4,470,700), or 27%? So in fact less than 1 in 3...

    I agree however that any site does need public transport links for staff and the 20% of visitors who travel by it. But why MUST it be convenient only to Dubliners?

    Just like the motorways, must all paths always lead to Rome Dublin?


  • #56
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    BostonB wrote: »
    Then in the real world...

    http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2009/aug/09/dublin-hospitals-criticised-for-exorbitant-parking/
    Thus back to my main point . At the mater site you'll have lots more parking options than a green field site in the middle of no where


  • #57
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The car park will be expensive to build because the land is so expensive. Once built there'll be no room to expand it, if its not big enough. It will be expensive to park in, to keep commuters out, and competition has no difference to this anywhere else. People have to drive into or across the city center to get to it.

    None of those problems exist on a greenfield site. Considering the countries broke and the HSE is a money pit. There is no good reason to choose the most expensive expensive, and least popular location. The only people who are for this location are the HSE and politicans. The medical experts don't want it, the patients don't want it, and the public don't want to pay for it.

    Its interesting that as part of the funding they reckon they'll get €90m from car parking. anyone want to take bets the cost will rise, as will the take needed from the car parking.


  • #58
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    BostonB wrote: »
    The car park will be expensive to build because the land is so expensive. Once built there'll be no room to expand it, if its not big enough.

    Actually, the site at the Mater was donated to the state so it is free, regardless of what is paid for a greenfield site it will be the more expensive option.
    BostonB wrote: »
    It will be expensive to park in, to keep commuters out, and competition has no difference to this anywhere else. People have to drive into or across the city center to get to it.

    Parking will be free for long term patients, this has already been covered. A ticket validation system would keep commuters out.
    BostonB wrote: »
    None of those problems exist on a greenfield site.

    Plenty of other problems do exist with a greenfield site (not co-located with another hospital, contributing to the urban sprawl that is holding back the city, lack of public transport, extra costs associated with buying the site.
    BostonB wrote: »
    Considering the countries broke and the HSE is a money pit. There is no good reason to choose the most expensive expensive, and least popular location.

    I would like to see the detailed costings you have that shows the Mater site to be the most expensive location.
    BostonB wrote: »
    Its interesting that as part of the funding they reckon they'll get €90m from car parking. anyone want to take bets the cost will rise, as will the take needed from the car parking.

    Im sure income from car parking would be part of the funding model for the hospital where ever it is located.

    Like I said in the second post on this thread, the last paragraph of the article in the OP says it all; there is no perfect location, there are pros and cons associated with all possible locations, however, the Mater site is the only one with a chance of progressing. If we have to start again and go through site selection, purchasing, planning permission and construction then the hospital will not be built this decade. Just build it on the site we have, giving sick children the facilities they need and in the process saving money compared to the cost of operating three childrens hospitals.

    And the final paragraph of the article makes another good point; if this project is stopped, the HSE will be blaimed for the poor facilities for sick children, not the people who are trying to prevent them from providing good facilities. Once again we will be our own worst enemy but will find someone else to blaim.


  • #59
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Actually, the site at the Mater was donated to the state so it is free, regardless of what is paid for a greenfield site it will be the more expensive option.

    The site is worth 95m approx. That would be better sold off and spent on the mater than giving it away. But of course, by giving it away they attract more funding to themselves, if they tie up with a NCH. Not that they could sell it now, or that its worth that money anymore. Building a multistory has to be more expensive than a big flat car park. Theres hardly any building in the later. Considering the country is broke, why spend more money when you don't have to. And can't afford to.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Parking will be free for long term patients, this has already been covered. A ticket validation system would keep commuters out.

    It might be free for long term patients but I'm sure the bulk of people using the hospital will not be long term.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Plenty of other problems do exist with a greenfield site (not co-located with another hospital, contributing to the urban sprawl that is holding back the city, lack of public transport, extra costs associated with buying the site.

    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I would like to see the detailed costings you have that shows the Mater site to be the most expensive location. ....Actually, the site at the Mater was donated to the state so it is free, regardless of what is paid for a greenfield site it will be the more expensive option.

    The site is worth 95m approx. That would be better sold off and spent on the mater than giving it away. But of course, by giving it away they attract more funding to themselves, if they tie up with a NCH. Not that they could sell it now, or that its worth that money anymore. Building a multistory has to be more expensive than a big flat car park. Theres hardly any building in the later. Considering the country is broke, why spend more money when you don't have to. Look at the design of hospital, its screams expense. Its all curved. You couldn't design it more expensive to build.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Parking will be free for long term patients, this has already been covered. A ticket validation system would keep commuters out.

    It might be free for long term patients but I'm sure the bulk of people using the hospital will not be long term, and they will pay, because where else will the income from the car park come from? Tourists?
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Plenty of other problems do exist with a greenfield site (not co-located with another hospital, contributing to the urban sprawl that is holding back the city, lack of public transport, extra costs associated with buying the site.

    85% of people will be in car. Yet the priority is public transport? Better again public transport that doesn't exist yet. The logic of collocation is that you have the back up of other specialists. Problem with that is that not all specialists are in the Mater. So it doesn't even achieve that. Better still it plans to squeeze existing services in other hospital into a site much smaller than they currently have, and claims to have plenty of expansion potential. A gallon into a pint pot would be easier.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Im sure income from car parking would be part of the funding model for the hospital where ever it is located.

    Indeed, but it will be more expensive in a city location.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Like I said in the second post on this thread, the last paragraph of the article in the OP says it all; there is no perfect location, there are pros and cons associated with all possible locations, however, the Mater site is the only one with a chance of progressing. If we have to start again and go through site selection, purchasing, planning permission and construction then the hospital will not be built this decade. Just build it on the site we have, giving sick children the facilities they need and in the process saving money compared to the cost of operating three childrens hospitals.

    And the final paragraph of the article makes another good point; if this project is stopped, the HSE will be blaimed for the poor facilities for sick children, not the people who are trying to prevent them from providing good facilities. Once again we will be our own worst enemy but will find someone else to blaim.

    So lets trust the govt and HSE to deliver value for money and good service and save money. Well thats worked will so far hasn't it.

    The process that decided this was flawed beyond belief. But if we question it, we're at fault for the project failing.


  • #60
    dRNk SAnTA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 777 ✭✭✭dRNk SAnTA


    Honestly! Giving out that the Mater lacks enough near-by hotels and 24 hour food options?

    So where is the m50 green-field site that has more of these than Dublin city centre?

    The hospital has to have top quality public transport links, not everybody has a car!

    All that matters is quality of care for the children, all these other issues are so ridiculously minor in comparison. It would be nice if the quality healthcare was debated as much as car parking spaces!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Actually, the site at the Mater was donated to the state so it is free, regardless of what is paid for a greenfield site it will be the more expensive option.
    That's bollocks. Construction costs+economic cost of disruption to the surrounding area is the main cost in any proposed site. Do you have detailed costings that show building on (any) greenfield site is going to cost more? If you wanted to go that route, Crumlin have had a plan to build the new NCH on their site for years, which would surely cost even less than the Mater.


    Parking will be free for long term patients, this has already been covered. A ticket validation system would keep commuters out.
    Majority of patients aren't long term, I know that from working in a Childrens Hospital for 4 years.


    Plenty of other problems do exist with a greenfield site (not co-located with another hospital, contributing to the urban sprawl that is holding back the city, lack of public transport, extra costs associated with buying the site.
    Why did you parrot the whole co-location thing again? International and Irish experts have already come out in droves to say co-location with an adult hospital will offer no real tangible benefit. Plenty of potential greenfield sites also offer the same(or better!) public transport than Mater, without having to wait for the white elephant that is Metro North.
    And you're forgetting that
    a)CoCo already have land in Tallaght that costs nothing
    b)Connolly has large grounds that don't need to be purchased.

    So basically your whole argument is unfounded rubbish? Yes.


    I would like to see the detailed costings you have that shows the Mater site to be the most expensive location.
    Have you actually looked at the architectural plans? The sheer amount of work in shoehorning a hospital on to a site that small and tying it in with a current hospital is mad. And building a giant underground car park - again, huge costs.
    I can't imagine how any other plausible option could possibly be expensive, I really can't.




    Like I said in the second post on this thread, the last paragraph of the article in the OP says it all; there is no perfect location, there are pros and cons associated with all possible locations, however, the Mater site is the only one with a chance of progressing. If we have to start again and go through site selection, purchasing, planning permission and construction then the hospital will not be built this decade. Just build it on the site we have, giving sick children the facilities they need and in the process saving money compared to the cost of operating three childrens hospitals.
    It isn't going to be giving the sick children the facilities they need. There's a very good chance they'll be giving them even less, without the possibility of ever, EVER expanding.
    What has history taught us with Dublin Hospitals? They always need room to expand.
    And the final paragraph of the article makes another good point; if this project is stopped, the HSE will be blaimed for the poor facilities for sick children, not the people who are trying to prevent them from providing good facilities. Once again we will be our own worst enemy but will find someone else to blaim.
    When I have children in 10 or 20 years, they'll be paying for this absolutely retarded choice we're making now based on vested interests. I don't care if we have to wait 4 extra years, children(and parents) will be paying for the Mater mistake for generations if it goes ahead.

    And the HSE should be blamed, there's plenty of evidence that they fudged reports, cherry picked quotes and statistics to make the Mater the 'best' choice while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
    It is their fault that people are starting to realise that the Mater isn't the answer to the NCH, and it's their fault if it gets cancelled because they made the wrong decisions and choices.


  • #62
    eminoz
    Registered Users Posts: 34 ✭eminoz


    So much Tragedy to bear at lunchtime – am nodding in agreement but admit I don't know enough about the politics and administration.

    Am back on favouriite bugbear - traffic, previous post #35. I wasn’t going to comment on subsequent arguments. It’s just too easy to lift a sentence out and fire off a quick criticism. Parsing and analysing is fine when there are rules or a rationale , but it’s somewhat ironic when not thought through.

    [At risk – ok, hands up - of being longwinded, isn’t this supposed to be a debate on the location? An identification and examination of the pros and cons ? I highlighted just one aspect: traffic. There are other pros and cons, but this is a con. After all, if you know the problems like the back of your hand, but the powers seemingly don’t or have dismissed them, isn’t it important to identify them, to alert others? No point in complaining after. At least it means, if proceeding with this, having eyes wide open.
    So, when someone says “X is bad/ because”, what’s the point of any of us appearing to shout down the argument? (Those quotes are useful, but does their widespread use increase the likelihood of angry response?)( Or is that the point?! ]

    Getting back to Traffic...
    I’m assuming that not all viewers here are familiar with the Mater site environs on a daily/hourly basis. For those who have managed to get to the Mater easily: good for you, count yourselves lucky. Your experience is valid if atypical. For those who know the area, my apologies: this’ll be like sucking eggs. I was just explaining for those who might not know Dublin city to drive in (and that includes many Dubliners). After all (and more apologies for reiterating this, but it keeps getting lost) this is to be a National hospital. Not a hospital just for Dubliners and certainly not a hospital for the convenience of neighbouring residents, however great that would be.

    I do understand the advantages for local people and not just in ease of access to the hospital: this will be a great project - it’ll give the local economy a much needed boost. There will be a response to any new business opportunities; services and facilities for families using the hospital will improve; rental properties will be in more demand by staff; as a medical project, it’ll be enhanced by the concentration of consultants in Eccles St, and so on.

    So, if we can’t be totally impartial, we should at least give other viewpoints more thought.
    I tend to agree with those who say that the powers haven’t given enough weight to the needs of the children and their parents, especially in terms of access: to the hospital in the first place and then to open green areas to both pass time and help recovery. It takes more than interesting architecture.
    There are a few older points that I did not respond to yet (and no "quotes" from me, so).

    Distances: Forget distances. Really. Please? You can of course look at maps and get precise distances but maps still can’t show traffic volumes – hence the real journey time. (Go on, tell me there’s an app now?)

    Emergencies:With children, especially babies, every incident is An Emergency – it has to be. I can’t see any general dispensation for all worried parents to use bus lanes. Those arriving just for routine appointments will get held up in the now even heavier traffic too, and worry about missing their slot.
    Ambulances do get through, but only with great difficulty and thanks to great drivers. They have to play chicken with oncoming traffic, though, as traffic heading in the Mater direction is not going anywhere fast. There are hold-ups and there will be even more now. I’m just going to ask again, has anyone asked emergency services for a view? (does anyone here know a driver/can we get their view here – just want more information.)

    Bus lanesOf course bus lanes are there for emergency vehicles but there aren't (m)any continuous bus lanes in the vicinity and there just isn’t room on most of these streets for improvements. (Narrow – designed for pony-and-traps) ( - oh and some trams, in case anyone else quibbles). (Right, let’s just get angry about those who decided to get rid of trams.)
    There are well-known bottlenecks – the closest being Berkeleyl Road/Eccles St; Phibsborough crossroads; and the NCR/Dorset street junction. The Council could realign the last one (and why doesn’t it, to help buses turn the corner) but the rest? You would have to demolish large chunks of this part of the city – it can’t and won’t be done. Work around it? why would you start from here, a very congested part of the city?

    Y'know, I’d be happy with their going ahead - I’ve easy access but that’s not the point of this, is it?


  • #63
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    This hospital is being built for the long term? Right?

    Well, we're looking at higher and higher oil prices. What happens when there's another oil shock? Never going to happen? What did we say that about recently? If the hospital is being built for the long term you have to look further than the next few years.

    On traffic: None in Tallaght? Will then not get worse at any point in the next 50 years? How long will it take the M50 to get back up to having traffic jams on it?... there are ones already because the local road can't take volumes off it.

    And -- not to be smart -- but given that we're being told that most will be using motorways there's bus lanes nearly the whole way from the Matter to the M1. Is there than kind of reserve spaces in other places?

    Also in the mid to long term...
    ForiegnNational wrote: »
    So basically your saying that as circa 30% of people live there, ................

    No, I'm saying circa 30% of the population lives in Dublin, around 40% live in the Greater Dublin Area, the wider Dublin area has been the only region to gain percentage growth up to 2006 and it is viewed to continue to grow faster than any other area. Even around the Greater Dublin Area -- most of the growth is planned in and around the city.

    So, the argument is that a huge percentage of people live in Dublin and that is due to continue to grow. Dublin is where the bulk of the population is and where the most transport routes link to.

    ForiegnNational wrote: »
    But why MUST it be convenient only to Dubliners?

    3km from the Port Tunnel and 4km from the M1 over ground. And the main national railway stations and the largest national bus station is closer to that site than any other suggested.


  • #64
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The bulk of the Dublin population is not in the city center. It can be quicker to head 20 miles out of town than 2 miles into town. I could drive to Navan as quick as get to the Mater. What ever expansion there is out of town, theres far less in the city center, and its more expensive.

    The bus lanes and railway links are no use to 85% of people using the hospital. That M1 route is often bad. It nearly backed up the tunnel the other week, they were talking about closing the tunnel it was that bad. When its clear its great but its not clear a lot.


  • #65
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    The bulk of the Dublin population is not in the city center. It can be quicker to head 20 miles out of town than 2 miles into town. I could drive to Navan as quick as get to the Mater. What ever expansion there is out of town, theres far less in the city center, and its more expensive.

    ...That M1 route is often bad. It nearly backed up the tunnel the other week, they were talking about closing the tunnel it was that bad. When its clear its great but its not clear a lot.

    There's more of a bulk in the city / within the M50 than there is anywhere else. And the Navan / Mater distance sounds over exaggerated, but it depends on where you live I guess.

    Bus lanes were mentioned because of emergences. The M1 can be bad because of the populations living out that way -- you can't win on both having in accessible to populations and having no traffic. The M1 is also being upgraded at the moment -- which is causing extra traffic congestion and which will lead to improvements once finished.

    And as has been said, if you build around the M50 you have to cater for far and expect, far higher percentages of staff driving -- that does not just mean providing far more parking, but also asking can local roads take that extra traffic. And what else may be built to increase that traffic?

    BostonB wrote: »
    ...to 85% of people using the hospital.

    As I've asked before: Did than survey include those who arrived by taxi in that percentage? And is it 80% or 85%?

    More to the point, what are the other details of this survey? (ie Who did it? When was it done? How many people were surveyed? Where were they from?)


  • #66
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    That makes no sense.

    You say, traffic is bad because of the population out of the city center, but at the same time you're arguing thats not where the population is.

    Whatever the problems of building extra roads and infrastructure out of the city center. Doing it in the city center on a site the fraction of the size is ultimately restricted, because its in the city center. Thus because its high rise, and city center everything will be more expensive and complicated. Thats just logic.

    The big issue here is not taxi's.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    BostonB wrote: »
    The bulk of the Dublin population is not in the city center. It can be quicker to head 20 miles out of town than 2 miles into town. I could drive to Navan as quick as get to the Mater. What ever expansion there is out of town, theres far less in the city center, and its more expensive.
    Really to Navan quicker than the M50 to the Mater you must live in Meath so


  • #68
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    That makes no sense.

    You say, traffic is bad because of the population out of the city center, but at the same time you're arguing thats not where the population is.

    No, I never said there was no population outside the city, I said there's more of a bulk in the city.
    BostonB wrote: »
    Whatever the problems of building extra roads and infrastructure out of the city center. Doing it in the city center on a site the fraction of the size is ultimately restricted, because its in the city center. Thus because its high rise, and city center everything will be more expensive and complicated. Thats just logic.

    There's short term costs and there's longer term and wider costs (ie if it's near the M50 the far more likely staff will need to drive which leads to more congestion and that's more environmental costs which affects children and adults as well as costs of building extra roads and parking for staff volumes).
    BostonB wrote: »
    The big issue here is not taxi's.

    Depending if they are counted or not they could mess with how valid it is to be banding around that 85% figure arriving by car figure... or -- again -- is it 80%?


  • #69
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Really to Navan quicker than the M50 to the Mater you must live in Meath so

    Nope. D.15. Takes 25 mins to Navan. Temple street takes 30~40 at 7.30am. Appointments at 9/9.30 leave early otherwise it would take 60 mins to get there.

    Main reason is traffic, and theres so many lights around dorset/mater area.


  • #70
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    monument wrote: »
    No, I never said there was no population outside the city, I said there's more of a bulk in the city.

    I was more specific. City center. Which is where the Mater is. I don't know the figures, but the suburbs have to have the vast majority of Dublin population. Just look at them. D.15 is the size of Galway alone. I found this in the absence of any figures from you.
    The population of the administrative area controlled by the City Council was 505,739 in the 2006 census, while the population of the urban area was 1,045,769. The County Dublin population was 1,186,159, and that of the Greater Dublin Area 1,661,185. The city's population is expanding rapidly, and it is estimated by the CSO that it will reach 2.1 million by 2020.[44]
    monument wrote: »
    There's short term costs and there's longer term and wider costs (ie if it's near the M50 the far more likely staff will need to drive which leads to more congestion and that's more environmental costs which affects children and adults as well as costs of building extra roads and parking for staff volumes).

    How many staff drive currently? I'd guess most of them already drive. How big is the current staff car park. I'd also guess most of the staff drive from the suburbs already. Do you have figures for the number of staff or patients who live within 10 mins walk of the hospital? Or any hospital. Or any city center business?
    monument wrote: »
    Depending if they are counted or not they could mess with how valid it is to be banding around that 85% figure arriving by car figure... or -- again -- is it 80%?

    Why is a taxi not a car? Taxi's are not public transport.

    What difference does it make how many use taxi's. It still the same outcome. Public transport is inadequate and/or unsuitable for the vast majority using hospitals. So it makes no sense to bias the planning of a major project on the minority rather then majority.

    Considering you've offered no figures at all, its a bit rich to be calling into question my figures. Of course you have none because this project was lashed together without proper research. The studies done were seriously flawed.

    The location of this project has been decided on by the HSE and in effect by the Govt. You'd have to question the sanity of this based on their track record to date.


  • #71
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    BostonB wrote: »
    Nope. D.15. Takes 25 mins to Navan. Temple street takes 30~40 at 7.30am. Appointments at 9/9.30 leave early otherwise it would take 60 mins to get there.

    Main reason is traffic, and theres so many lights around dorset/mater area.


    Why are you on Dorset st? You should be on the N2 with I'm trying to remember here so forgive me if incorrect 8 sets of light of whichh the N2 has priority on about 6. Dorset st alone would have more than 8 sets of lights


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Why are you on Dorset st? You should be on the N2 with I'm trying to remember here so forgive me if incorrect 8 sets of light of whichh the N2 has priority on about 6. Dorset st alone would have more than 8 sets of lights

    Actually I don't go that way at all. I was just talking about the area in general terms. I usually come via the Phoenix Park and rat runs towards constitution hill. Sometimes I do a run to the Central Remedial Clinic but it much later in the morning, then I use the M50/M1, and its about 30 mins once the rush hour traffic has cleared. Unfortunately I can't move the temple st appointment to another time. So go in early, have brekkie, there and beat the traffic.

    In general I'd avoid the mater area when route planning. I almost always regret it, if I go that way.


  • #73
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    BostonB wrote: »
    That makes no sense.

    You say, traffic is bad because of the population out of the city center, but at the same time you're arguing thats not where the population is.

    The problems with traffic in this country are due to the fact that we have too many people living in low density settlements outside of the city centre. Most businesses want to locate in the city centre because they will be close to their clients and they can avail of the services offered to other businesses close to them. In this country we too many satellite towns full of three bed semis and it is impossible to provide decent public transport because none of these satellite towns have the critical mass to justify the expense of building a proper public transport network. This means we have too many people forced to drive into the city centre which causes traffic problems. So yes, the traffic is bad because of the population out of the city centre.

    The solution to this is not to build everything just off a motorway. The point of a motorway is to connect urban centres, which are the drivers of economic activity, and distribute traffic to smaller urban centres (towns and villages) along its route. No development, be it a hospital or otherwise, should be allowed along any motorway because it leads to more and more traffic using the motorway and it quickly reaches capacity. You are then left with a half a billion euro road with slow moving traffic and serious traffic jams exiting the motorway. The problem this country has at the minute is due to poor planning which allowed developments (residential, commercial and industrial) to spring up all over the place in an incoherent manner. This makes it impossible to provide a decent level of service in terms of broadband, water, public transport, etc. From a sustainable development point of view the hospital should be located in the city centre, not to do so would be to condemn the country to poor quality services and serious traffic problems for the next 100 years.
    BostonB wrote: »
    Whatever the problems of building extra roads and infrastructure out of the city center. Doing it in the city center on a site the fraction of the size is ultimately restricted, because its in the city center. Thus because its high rise, and city center everything will be more expensive and complicated. Thats just logic.

    Thats just logic based on your flawed set of assumptions. Construction in the city centre is not necessarily more complicated and when you consider the greenfield site would cost a good €100million more than the one we already have, the ultimate costs would be similar. The site itself may not actually be restricted, as you think it is, and anyway, the construction industry is well able to deal with any issues with the site and the entire construction process would be planned to alleviate any problems. Where ever the hospital is built, most of the construction elements will be prefabricated off site, transport site and lifted into place by a tower crane so there really will be very little difference in cost there. Building on a greenfield site however, would have a lot of extra costs in terms of providing utilities and services. ESB substations, clean water pumping stations, waste water treatment plants, miles of pipes and ducting, as well as new roads would all have to be provided, whereas the Mater site as all utilities in place already as it is in the city centre. The Mater site would also be cheaper long term as any future upgrades of these would be required in the city centre anyway because of the hundreds of businesses and thousands of people living there, whereas with a greenfield site any services upgrade are an extra and unnecessary cost.


  • #74
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Your logic is flawed.

    Places like Tallaght, D.15 are the size of somewhere like Galway. They are already served by the M50. They have had enough population (ciritical mass) for decades to justify improvements in public transport. Arguably they are closer to water supplies than the city center is. Theres a load of data centers out along the M50 because of the data network out there. Microsoft biggest data center out side of the US is out of the city center.

    What they are not served is by decent public transport. and its not because there isn't the demand. Its because the govt did nothing about it for decades. The move to the suburbs came about because of poor planning in Dublin city center. Indeed most business don't want to be in the city center because of the grid lock and lack of integrated transport.

    The irony being Dublin bike being so successful because it easier to get around this city on a bike because the public transport, and traffic is so bad. If you have some stats to say most people visit hospitals on bikes, you might be on to a winner with the city center location.


  • #75
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I don't disagree that suburban sprawl is bad thing. But its already happened. Also your talking from the point of view of having good infrastructure and planning in the city center, and there simply hasn't been. Do that first and you'll entice people back into the center. Not the other way around. Force the people in to justify improving the infrastructure is anti logic.


  • #76
    eia340600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭eia340600


    Tragedy wrote: »
    That's bollocks. Construction costs+economic cost of disruption to the surrounding area is the main cost in any proposed site. Do you have detailed costings that show building on (any) greenfield site is going to cost more?

    Do you have figures that say it won't?We have no idea what the economic costs will be, but it is highly unlikely that they will surpass the figures for the extra utilities, land, infrastructure and new plans for a greenfield site.The extra building costs for the city center are negligible.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    If you wanted to go that route, Crumlin have had a plan to build the new NCH on their site for years, which would surely cost even less than the Mater.

    On what space?They'd have to knock down the old hospital to build the new one.Where would that 200 or so beds be transferred to in the mean time?
    Tragedy wrote: »
    Why did you parrot the whole co-location thing again? International and Irish experts have already come out in droves to say co-location with an adult hospital will offer no real tangible benefit.

    And other experts have come out in their own droves to say the exact opposite!Many of them have said that this hospital is much too important for us to lose over some fools who want somewhere to park their SUV's.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    Plenty of potential greenfield sites also offer the same(or better!) public transport than Mater, without having to wait for the white elephant that is Metro North.

    What greenfield site has better public transport (proposed or otherwise) than the Mater? Has a high frequency line that's connected to every other rail line in the city and is easily accessible to where planners are aspiring and planning for people to live in the near future?Nowhere..Unless you want to build it on the green...
    Tragedy wrote: »
    And you're forgetting that
    a)CoCo already have land in Tallaght that costs nothing
    b)Connolly has large grounds that don't need to be purchased.

    And they are both inadequately accessible from the opposite side of the city- hence the reason why we have both of them, rather than a single central one.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    Have you actually looked at the architectural plans? The sheer amount of work in shoehorning a hospital on to a site that small and tying it in with a current hospital is mad.

    Most hospital design experts believe that hospitals that go up are vastly more user friendly than hospitals that go out.Have you walked from one end of tallaght hospital to the other?Not a pleasant experience.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    It isn't going to be giving the sick children the facilities they need.

    You mean every pediatric specialist in the city under one roof?Or any of the equipment that a sick child could possibly need?...Yes it will.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    There's a very good chance they'll be giving them even less, without the possibility of ever, EVER expanding.

    They'll have plenty of room to expand when the HSE decides to build a central Adult hospital, after seeing the success of the central children's hospital ( :D ) and the enire Mater site opens up to them.
    Tragedy wrote: »
    And the HSE should be blamed, there's plenty of evidence that they fudged reports, cherry picked quotes and statistics to make the Mater the 'best' choice while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
    It is their fault that people are starting to realise that the Mater isn't the answer to the NCH, and it's their fault if it gets cancelled because they made the wrong decisions and choices.

    There isn't one piece of evidence to that effect.If they had picked a green field site people would say that the HSE "ignored" the evidence that said it was a bad idea.
    BostonB wrote: »
    You say, traffic is bad because of the population out of the city center, but at the same time you're arguing thats not where the population is.

    That is why the traffic is bad.If everybody lived in the city, we could afford to build effective mass transit systems and traffic from the suburbs would be effectively gone.
    BostonB wrote: »
    The big issue here is not taxi's.

    If your going to keep shouting 80% (not 85%) then taxi's is the big issue.Many people who traveled in taxis could have otherwise used public transport if a fast efficient service was provided.Unfortunately Crumlin doesn't have such a service.
    BostonB wrote: »
    Nope. D.15. Takes 25 mins to Navan. Temple street takes 30~40 at 7.30am. Appointments at 9/9.30 leave early otherwise it would take 60 mins to get there.

    That's just a downright lie.


  • #77
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    eia340600 wrote: »
    That is why the traffic is bad.If everybody lived in the city, we could afford to build effective mass transit systems and traffic from the suburbs would be effectively gone.

    Sorry on one hand ye are saying theres not enough population out of the city for a hospital, then ye say there is the population in the city for a hospital, now you say theres not enough in the city to build effective public transport.

    You can't have it both way. Reality is theres a huge demand for effective public transport now as always across the city. It wasn't the lack of money, it was the lack of political will to get it done. Theres no reason to believe it will change.

    Lets have some figures on those using public transport on the existing city center hospitals to back up what your saying.
    eia340600 wrote: »
    If your going to keep shouting 80% (not 85%) then taxi's is the big issue.Many people who traveled in taxis could have otherwise used public transport if a fast efficient service was provided.Unfortunately Crumlin doesn't have such a service.

    There isn't fast efficient service now. Theres no evidence to believe this govt or public sector can deliver it. Its not even practical or sensible for sick kids. You offer no stats otherwise. Its a nonsense suggestion.
    eia340600 wrote: »
    That's just a downright lie.

    I do it every other week, so how is it a lie. At times I even timed on the GPS on the phone, to compare with my cycle journeys.


  • #78
    ForiegnNational
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭ForiegnNational


    eia340600 wrote: »
    And they are both inadequately accessible from the opposite side of the city- hence the reason why we have both of them, rather than a single central one.

    Reminder: This is a NATIONAL hospital, it has to be accessible from the whole country. Boo hoo, it takes people in Clontarf an extra X minutes to reach Tallagh / Crumlin that it does the Mater.

    What about people in Donegal, Sligo, Galway, Kerry or Cork?

    Looking at the population density map of Ireland, the most obvious location for national facilities (when Northern Ireland is included) seems to be about Meath or Kildare, not central Dublin.

    In fact Salins is on the mainline, has extensive motorway connections, is about equi-distant to West Cork as it is to Donnegal.

    Ok, I am playing devils advocate here, but the quote above simply shows a complete lack of understanding of national resources.


  • #79
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Has to be a compromise. Certainly no location is perfect. But thats no excuse to accept a location more compromised than others. or bias'ed on false priorities.


  • #80
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    BostonB wrote: »
    Sorry on one hand ye are saying theres not enough population out of the city for a hospital, then ye say there is the population in the city for a hospital, now you say theres not enough in the city to build effective public transport.

    You can't have it both way. Reality is theres a huge demand for effective public transport now as always across the city. It wasn't the lack of money, it was the lack of political will to get it done. Theres no reason to believe it will change.

    Lets have some figures on those using public transport on the existing city center hospitals to back up what your saying.

    Yes you should be apologising, but for continue to ignore what has been explained to you several times. There is a huge demand for effective public transport but because of the way the Greater Dublin Area has developed, we can not afford to provide effective public transport. For public transport to be effective, it must be a network linking the city centre and the population centres surrounding it. The problem here is we have too many population centres surrounding Dublin and the population of each of them is too small for to generate enough passengers to cover the cost of building the public transport. So for there to be effective public transport we would have to build loads of lines, each of which would not be able to cover its own costs. Based on an early analysis, Metro North will have a CBA of 2:1 so it would cover its costs. Part of this is due to having the National Childrens Hospital on the route, so if it is not located beside the Mater we may lose another vital piece of transport infrastructure.

    The current state of our public transports has nothing to do with a lack of political will to improve it and has everything to do with a lack of political will to end poor planning practices and stop unsustainable residential developments. By wanting to have the National Childrens Hospital built on a greenfield site, you are advocating continuing with poor planning and unsustainable development. You can't have it both ways, you cant have major employment centres located in the middle of nowhere and expect to have good public transport links. If we learn one thing from the Celtic Tiger let it be this; you can not let low density residential developments spring up willy-nilly all over the country and expect the development levies to cover the cost to the state of providing the necessary infrastructure, it wont.
    ForiegnNational wrote: »
    Reminder: This is a NATIONAL hospital, it has to be accessible from the whole country. Boo hoo, it takes people in Clontarf an extra X minutes to reach Tallagh / Crumlin that it does the Mater.

    What about people in Donegal, Sligo, Galway, Kerry or Cork?

    Looking at the population density map of Ireland, the most obvious location for national facilities (when Northern Ireland is included) seems to be about Meath or Kildare, not central Dublin.

    In fact Salins is on the mainline, has extensive motorway connections, is about equi-distant to West Cork as it is to Donnegal.

    Ok, I am playing devils advocate here, but the quote above simply shows a complete lack of understanding of national resources.

    No ForiegnNational, your post above shows a complete lack of understanding of national resources. Locating the National Childrens Hospital in Meath or Kildare would be continue with the misguided planning policies that have destroyed this country. The reason we are in the current crisis is because we allowed sparsely populated, low density settlements everywhere. This means funding and resources are thinly spread over a wider area and no area gets a decent level of services. This is why public transport, broadband, roads etc are so poor here, there is only money available to do a half arsed everywhere instead of doing it right in a limited number of areas. If we focused on building up a number of higher density cities, the economic returns would be much greater and we would get better value for money from spending on infrastructure, instead of the current situation where the GDA is basically supporting most of the rest of the country but we still need to borrow €20bn a year to balance the books.

    Building the National Childrens Hospital on a greenfield site at the side of a motorway would mean the 1,500 staff all have to drive to work and they all live in low density towns and villages in the region. Encouraging more development in low density towns is wrong. The multiplier effect for jobs resulting indirectly from the existance of a large hospital would be much higher if the hospital is in the city centre. Basically, there will be more shops/pubs/restaurants etc. employing people if there are thousands of people living and working in a relatively small area then there would be if all the staff from the hospital are spread over twenty small towns with a population of couple of hundred. The bigger shops/pubs/restaurants etc. in the high density area would also employ more people indirectly (ie accountants, solicitors etc.) than a small shop/pub/restaurant in a small town.

    International and domestic evidence shows that high density urban centre perform better economically than low density areas. The people of this country have to realise this and accept the facts if we are ever to achieve sustainable growth and prosperity. So, in terms of the future development of this country, Dublin city is the only option.


  • #81
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Its nonsense, you can't provide one statistic that the bulk of the population is in the city center, or that the majority of people (or staff) travel to hospitals on public transport. In fact any statistics, (questionable or not) suggest the exact opposite. No figures on how many staff live in the city center either. So now we'll lose the metro if the NCH isn't at the Mater. The Mater, DCU, Ballymun, Airport and Swords with 34 million passengers a year isn't enough to make the metro viable. The logic being you need the NCH when you can't provide any figures of how many will use the metro to get to it.

    You're only looking at this from the point of view of Dublin aswell. Apart from dragging staff, and people using the hospital, through the suburbs, M50, M1, and through the city center. Your plan is to drag all the people from the country through the same infrastructure too. It puts worse demands on the infrastructure across the city and suburbs and ring roads than a Greenfield site. A greenfield site wouldn't be in the middle of nowhere. It would be in the middle of the population.

    One minute we have a national development plan, then decentralisation, now centralisation with the NCH. Not one plan linked to the other, and each one built on increasingly vague research, stats and finance then then next.
    The only common thread in the locations and plans being political influence.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    dRNk SAnTA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 777 ✭✭✭dRNk SAnTA


    From the recent meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and the National Transport Authority.
    Mr. Gerry Murphy, National Transport Authority wrote:
    The National Transport Authority operates the national smarter travel workplaces programme which supports employer organisations in encouraging more sustainable commuting and travel choices among staff. At this stage, the number of large workplaces participating has reached 66, involving 110,000 staff representing a wide variety of sectors, including for example the ESB, Microsoft, Pfizer, University College Galway, and Letterkenny General Hospital. We plan to work with 100 of the largest employers in Ireland by mid-2012, involving 250,000 staff, and then to extend the principle of workplace travel planning to smaller organisations across the country. The results from this programme are enormously encouraging. A recent comprehensive staff travel survey in the Mater Hospital, one of the first partners in the programme, has shown a 30% reduction in car usage among staff. Results from five other organisations have been received, the Department of Transport, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, South Dublin County Council, Dublin Institute of Technology, and Dublin Airport Authority and these show an average reduction of 16% single occupancy car use.


  • #83
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    According to DTO back in 2006 37% of people working in the city centre used public transport to get to work. In comparison the level of public transport usage into South Dublin (Tallaght/Lucan/Clondalkin) is about 10%

    Even if it's only 20% of Mater staff currently use public transport that's twice the average for commuter trips into the South Dublin area.


  • #84
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    This is the website

    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/mobility.html
    http://www.smartertravelworkplaces.ie

    All good ideas, and I'm all for smarter travel. But as someone who uses trains and cycles to work on a regular basis, even I have to concede its not doable or appropriate for everyone.

    But if you build the infrastructure people will use it, its better than the alternative. Hence the tokyo express cram on the luas, suburban trains.


  • #85
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    Its nonsense, you can't provide one statistic that the bulk of the population is in the city center,

    What are you talking about?

    The bulk of population may not be in the city centre, but it is in the city! The the bulk of the population and the population density is within the M50 and is due to continue to grow in the same area. It's highly misleading or misinformed that you're trying to suggest otherwise -- I don't know which.

    132196.PNG

    IMAGE: Dublin's population density, by Victor, first posted here.


  • #86
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    dubhthach wrote: »
    According to DTO back in 2006 37% of people working in the city centre used public transport to get to work. In comparison the level of public transport usage into South Dublin (Tallaght/Lucan/Clondalkin) is about 10%

    Even if it's only 20% of Mater staff currently use public transport that's twice the average for commuter trips into the South Dublin area.

    It suggests Mater s staff use public transport 50% less then the average for the city center.


  • #87
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    BostonB wrote: »
    Its nonsense, you can't provide one statistic that the bulk of the population is in the city center...
    monument wrote: »
    What are you talking about?

    The bulk of population may not be in the city centre,...

    You've just agreed with me?

    Higher density in isolation does not mean more people. If thats what you're suggesting. Are more people closer to the M50 or the city center. Because thats the issue. Also you can't just ignore everything outside of Dublin either. Whats up with that?


  • #88
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    You've just agreed with me?

    Higher density in isolation does not mean more people. If thats what you're suggesting. Are more people closer to the M50 or the city center. Because thats the issue.

    Nearly all of that density is inside the M50 and it's not density in isolation.

    More people (around Dublin) are closer to the city centre....

    BostonB wrote: »
    Also you can't just ignore everything outside of Dublin either. Whats up with that?

    The extra distances are next to meaningless for people driving from places like Cork, Limerick, Galway, Kerry, Mayo, Waterford, Dundalk etc. For people getting the train from those locations the Matter is closer -- again these people are important as they likely don't / can't have access to a car.


  • #89
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    monument wrote: »
    Nearly all of that density is inside the M50 and it's not density in isolation.

    More people (around Dublin) are closer to the city centre....

    According to the CSO, there are twice as many living in the Co Dublin/Great Dublin area than the city center. So either you're right or they are.

    Besides its a national hospital not a dublin, I'm guessing more then 50% of the population live outside of Dublin.
    monument wrote: »
    The extra distances are next to meaningless for people driving from places like Cork, Limerick, Galway, Kerry, Mayo, Waterford, Dundalk etc. For people getting the train from those locations the Matter is closer -- again these people are important as they likely don't / can't have access to a car.

    If driving into city centers was meaningless they would be no need for bypass'es and ring rounds. Distance is not the only factor, time is a factor. Traffic in the city center is a massive issues. But you just ignore it.

    Theres a train station near the Mater at the moment. 15 mins walk. Assuming the person can walk that far. I have no idea how many people using the mater use that currently. That might be some indication of the interest in rail use of people outside of Dublin. Thats a train I use a lot, and at peak its packed. Has been for decades. Almost never get a seat. For decades. Personally I prefer cycling to getting the train. Always catch colds and such on the train. hardly ever on the bike.


  • #90
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    The fact remains that sub-urbanisation is not the answer. Building this on some greenfield site really doesn't benefit those outside of Dublin that much. This may have already been posted, but what is the time difference realistically between the greenfield location and the Mater site?

    Doesn't it benefit these children to have a working full hospital next door as well?


    I couldn't imagine many doctors wanting to have to travel or move away to work at a hospital outside of Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    According to the CSO, there are twice as many living in the Co Dublin/Great Dublin area than the city center. So either you're right or they are.

    What I'm saying is not in conflict with the CSO. You keep saying city centre, I'm talking about the city or the city within the M50 -- those are not the same things. And Co Dublin and the Greater Dublin Area are not interchangeable but two different things.

    BostonB wrote: »
    If driving into city centers was meaningless they would be no need for bypass'es and ring rounds. Distance is not the only factor, time is a factor. Traffic in the city center is a massive issues. But you just ignore it.

    Where have I ignored it? Called it meaningless? I called it next to meanness in the context of travelling cross the country, quite different in my book from meaningless. Traffic is also an issue in locations around the M50 and putting a in a hospital in such will increase traffic in the areas given that vast bulk of staff would be more likely to drive.


  • #92
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    OisinT wrote: »
    The fact remains that sub-urbanisation is not the answer. Building this on some greenfield site really doesn't benefit those outside of Dublin that much. This may have already been posted, but what is the time difference realistically between the greenfield location and the Mater site?

    A study was never done. The report that was done, was based on freeflow conditions. No account of peak traffic. So average city speeds were estimated 32~64 kph. It was only done for 2 city locations, no greenfield site was included in the study.
    OisinT wrote: »
    Doesn't it benefit these children to have a working full hospital next door as well?...

    Why?
    A children's hospital is a full hospital.
    Does the mater have all services/facilities required? No.


  • #93
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    monument wrote: »
    What I'm saying is not in conflict with the CSO. You keep saying city centre, I'm talking about the city or the city within the M50 -- those are not the same things. And Co Dublin and the Greater Dublin Area are not interchangeable but two different things.

    If you are going to lump Finglas or Palmerstown, in with Phibsoro and not distinguish between the two in terms of access to Mater or a M50 site, then you might aswell say Dublin and not city at all.

    But if at peak it takes you 40 mins from one place and 4 mins from another to get somewhere, it can't be the same location, and shouldn't be treated the same.
    monument wrote: »
    Where have I ignored it? Called it meaningless? I called it next to meanness in the context of travelling cross the country, quite different in my book from meaningless.

    You didn't mention traffic at all. I'd call that ignoring it. Even in the context of travelling anywhere, spending an extra 30 mins or even an hour in the car is hardly meaningless.
    monument wrote: »
    Traffic is also an issue in locations around the M50 and putting a in a hospital in such will increase traffic in the areas given that vast bulk of staff would be more likely to drive.

    The vast majority of staff drive already. Besides theres more traffic from people using the hospital than the staff. A lot of people will have to drive through the M50 to get to the Mater even now. You might actually reduce people on the M50.


  • #94
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    If you are going to lump Finglas or Palmerstown, in with Phibsoro and not distinguish between the two in terms of access to Mater or a M50 site, then you might aswell say Dublin and not city at all.

    But if at peak it takes you 40 mins from one place and 4 mins from another to get somewhere, it can't be the same location, and shouldn't be treated the same.

    Even for large parts of Finglas (and many other areas), the Matter is closer time-wise than many locations around the M50.

    BostonB wrote: »
    You didn't mention traffic at all. I'd call that ignoring it. Even in the context of travelling anywhere, spending an extra 30 mins or even an hour in the car is hardly meaningless.

    Err... I've mentioned traffic a number of times in the thread... and you now seem to be pulling random figures out of you head.

    BostonB wrote: »
    The vast majority of staff drive already. Besides theres more traffic from people using the hospital than the staff. A lot of people will have to drive through the M50 to get to the Mater even now. You might actually reduce people on the M50.

    Do the vast majority of staff drive? What hospital? What percentage?


  • #95
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    You have to view these things in context. The CSO reported from 2006 stats: "Meath had the highest proportions of car ownership at 90% of households, followed by Waterford County and Kildare (both 87%). Four out of ten Dublin households had no car in 2006."

    So, it's more likely easer / quicker / cheaper for people from outside Dublin to get to the Matter than it is for people around Dublin to get to a location outside the M50.


  • #96
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    monument wrote: »
    Even for large parts of Finglas (and many other areas), the Matter is closer time-wise than many locations around the M50.

    Thats not been my experience of that that route. So I can't agree. Of courses theres no stats to prove it either way. So its basically a guess. Which is hardly the best way to plan a national hospital.
    monument wrote: »
    Err... I've mentioned traffic a number of times in the thread... and you now seem to be pulling random figures out of you head.

    The context was what I quoted, not the entire thread. Thats the point of quoting something. What I said didn't need accurate figures, because it was example of logic. The irony being there was no study done on traffic volumes/problems in the location of this site. Which seems incredible.
    monument wrote: »
    Do the vast majority of staff drive? What hospital? What percentage?

    I asked YOU that previously.

    But the reality we have no stats on this. So you can only pull stats from other studies. which of course are flawed because they are about different locations, and/or business which may not be applicable or comparable.

    Again its incredible to select a site for a 650ish million dollar project based on so little.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    monument wrote: »
    You have to view these things in context. The CSO reported from 2006 stats: "Meath had the highest proportions of car ownership at 90% of households, followed by Waterford County and Kildare (both 87%). Four out of ten Dublin households had no car in 2006."

    So, it's more likely easer / quicker / cheaper for people from outside Dublin to get to the Matter than it is for people around Dublin to get to a location outside the M50.

    Do you have the same stats with only households with kids? Otherwise they won't be using a children's hospital at all.

    Best I could get was 1/5 of Dublin households have a traditional family (19.4%). below the national average. Highest are Meath (39.5%) and Kildare (38.3%).


  • #98
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    The context was what I quoted, not the entire thread. Thats the point of quoting something. What I said didn't need accurate figures, because it was example of logic. The irony being there was no study done on traffic volumes/problems in the location of this site. Which seems incredible.

    Sorry, but the context is the whole thread. It's a thread, not a private chat between me and you. :)

    BostonB wrote: »
    I asked YOU that previously.

    But the reality we have no stats on this. So you can only pull stats from other studies. which of course are flawed because they are about different locations, and/or business which may not be applicable or comparable.

    Again its incredible to select a site for a 650ish million dollar project based on so little.

    You just said the vast majority of staff drive... Where did you get that from? And for what hospital?

    BostonB wrote: »
    Do you have the same stats with only households with kids? Otherwise they won't be using a children's hospital at all.

    Best I could get was 1/5 of Dublin households have a traditional family (19.4%). below the national average. Highest are Meath (39.5%) and Kildare (38.3%).

    Just because there are less "traditional" families does not mean there are less children (ie single parents, other less traditional families etc).

    All signs are that more and more people will be living in the city and -- as oil prices goes up -- less and less will likely be driving everywhere.


  • #99
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The context is not the whole thread. Not if you quote something specifically. otherwise theres no point in quoting. But theres no point quoting it you ignore it.

    Its been covered earlier in the thread. In general public transport use is always in the minority. So its logical. I'd quote it but...

    Its a bit more related than car ownership per household. Considering there isn't a trend of people moving into cites to rear families, or of single people moving out of the city for the night life either.


  • #100
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    BostonB wrote: »
    The context is not the whole thread. Not if you quote something specifically. otherwise theres no point in quoting. But theres no point quoting it you ignore it.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here, but anything quoted or said after quoting much be taken in the context already in the thread, otherwise you're just replying to single points with no context.

    Its been covered earlier in the thread. In general public transport use is always in the minority. So its logical. I'd quote it but...

    What exactly was in that survey which was mentioned before in this thread is still questionable, such as: Was it public transport with or without taxis? All visits to the hospital or just how the sick child arrived? etc

    Its a bit more related than car ownership per household. Considering there isn't a trend of people moving into cites to rear families, or of single people moving out of the city for the night life either.

    That stat on households without a car was for Co Dublin. If you're trying to imply there's no children in Co Dublin, have fun with that one. :)

    Four out of ten Dublin households had no car in 2006. That's quite a stat. Yes, a lot of people moved out of Dublin, but a lot stayed and the population has grown too. Just because many people live their life in a place one way does not mean there are many others living in other places and living in other ways.


  • #101
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    If the best stat you can come up with car ownership, unrelated even to children. Its obvious theres no quality research been done on Mater site. Pretty much none on a greenfield site.

    Why would the govt/minister not do proper research on the site, then close of all debate on the location.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement