Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

strassenwo!f · 06-01-2019 5:11pm

salmocab wrote: »

Strassenwolf has purposely picked a journey that could conceivably depending on the final layout take an extra couple of minutes using a hypothetical commuter.
It ignores all the other extra journeys that become doable and in fact way quicker than what’s currently available.
So if the guy working in harcourt is possibly spending an extra 2 minutes commuting then so be it because I hear that he has a daughter in DCU and his son works as a baggage handler in the airport, neither can afford cars but they don’t mind as they have great links to where they need to be compared to before the metro was put in.

I'm not sure I'm getting all of that, particularly the bit about the daughter and the son.

I don't own a car, because I live in a city with excellent public transport

marno21 · 06-01-2019 5:39pm

There would be more net journeys from the Luas Green Line to the airport than from Cherrywood to Harcourt Street. Just not the same people every day, but still a sizeable amount of people

Added to the fact that having Metro in place makes living along the route attractive for anyone working along the route, including the Airport

Plus, plan for the future not the present - https://www.dublinairport.com/dublin-airport-central

salmocab · 06-01-2019 5:50pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I'm not sure I'm getting all of that, particularly the bit about the daughter and the son.

I don't own a car, because I live in a city with excellent public transport

My point which I’m full sure you did actually get is that whilst it is possible that a small amount of people going north on the current green line may have slightly longer commutes of an extra 2/3 minutes there will be a lot more who can start using the metro as it services places north side that would currently be a hassle to get to from South Dublin.

Regards your lack of car ownership I don’t know why you felt the need to post that it’s completely irrelevant.

Sam Russell · 06-01-2019 5:56pm

Dublin Airport has 16,000 employees and an average daily throughput of 9,000 passengers, I would think a sizeable number would travel on the Metro, and many from south of CC. Add DCU, the Mater, and the connection at Whitworth Rd, I think there would be many more travelling from south of Beechwood to those locations than would be bothered by the extra few minutes walk involved with the Harcout Centre.

If it is built as currently planned, everyone currently making political football (including Na Fianna) out of it will wonder what they were complaining about, and how wonderful it has turned out, and when will Metro II be built.

Stephen Strange · 06-01-2019 6:41pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Dublin Airport has 16,000 employees and an average daily throughput of 9,000 passengers, I would think a sizeable number would travel on the Metro, and many from south of CC.

I'm assuming you meant 90,000 passengers per day? Average is closer to that, although I'll accept quite a lot would be from outside Dublin.

marno21 · 06-01-2019 6:46pm

Stephen Strange wrote: »

I'm assuming you meant 90,000 passengers per day? Average is closer to that, although I'll accept quite a lot would be from outside Dublin.

Indeed he forgot a zero.

It's also worth remembering that that figure is growing year on year and has done since 2010

strassenwo!f · 06-01-2019 6:50pm

salmocab wrote: »

My point which I’m full sure you did actually get is that whilst it is possible that a small amount of people going north on the current green line may have slightly longer commutes of an extra 2/3 minutes there will be a lot more who can start using the metro as it services places north side that would currently be a hassle to get to from South Dublin.

Regards your lack of car ownership I don’t know why you felt the need to post that it’s completely irrelevant.

No I didn't understand your earlier post. It was totally incomprehensible.

I'll get back to this post when and if I have time.

salmocab · 06-01-2019 6:56pm

strassenwo!f wrote: »

No I didn't understand your earlier post. It was totally incomprehensible.

I'll get back to this post when and if I have time.

You really do love trying to insult people. When and if? Well I’m sure we are all looking forward to when you have a few minutes to keep repeating yourself.

strassenwo!f · 07-01-2019 1:30am

jvan wrote: »

Never thought I'd see the day, a positive post about Metrolink.

I am broadly in favour of the northside part of the metrolink proposal, but I feel there is much to be squeezed out of the southside Green luas, as a tram line, over the next 25 years or so, before it needs to be upgraded to a metro.

marno21 · 07-01-2019 2:14am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I am broadly in favour of the northside part of the metrolink proposal, but I feel there is much to be squeezed out of the southside Green luas, as a tram line, over the next 25 years or so, before it needs to be upgraded to a metro.

Yes, and the agencies behind the Luas system have spent time and money looking into it and have come to the conclusion that it's not feasible. If the Luas Green Line was upgradable beyond current capacity (and beyond the ongoing upgrade), then they would be getting to work on that immediately rather than concentrating on Metrolink which won't be operational for another 8 years.

antoinolachtnai · 07-01-2019 9:08am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

jvan wrote: »

Never thought I'd see the day, a positive post about Metrolink.

I am broadly in favour of the northside part of the metrolink proposal, but I feel there is much to be squeezed out of the southside Green luas, as a tram line, over the next 25 years or so, before it needs to be upgraded to a metro.

You keep saying that. You never really justify it with a coherent idea for how to further ‘squeeze’ it

(Other than a plan that would cost almost as much and cause more disruption than the part of the Metrolink project that you object to. )

LeinsterDub · 07-01-2019 9:34am

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I am broadly in favour of the northside part of the metrolink proposal, but I feel there is much to be squeezed out of the southside Green luas, as a tram line, over the next 25 years or so, before it needs to be upgraded to a metro.

And you say that despite the fact it's had to upgraded twice in the last 15 years?

AngryLips · 07-01-2019 9:42am

Why would anyone take issue with needing to change twice when getting from beyond Sandyford to city centre with ML vs current Luas arrangement? Almost everyone would not choose to change twice because the fact is every Luas stop is within the catchment area of the next Luas stop. In the city centre Metrolink stops are, at furthest, one stop away from anyone's original destination Luas stop. The time added by walking the extra bit is going to be taken away by the faster journey time of fewer stops on Metrolink vs original Green Luas

cgcsb · 07-01-2019 10:43am

If you're commuting from some point south of Sandyford to Harcourt the current theoretical journey is better facilitated. However that's purely theoretical because in the do-nothing scenario for the green line 10 years from now, hardly anyone will be able to get on the green line north of Sandyford.

prunudo · 09-01-2019 12:32pm

Infuriated here listening to Pat Kenny on Newstalk continually calling it Metro north, saying the green line will be closed for 2 years, they should just extend from broombridge to the airport etc etc. Asking why we need a tram line and metro basically underneath it and in the same breathe complaining about the over capacity.
2 guests with him and neither picking him up on the mis information. Is it any wonder nothing gets built when there is this crap being spouted in the media.

Ps. And then he's reading out comments about building mag lev monorails and elevated trainlines!

NTA needs to get out and up their pr if they want to sell this project.

FreudianSlippers · 09-01-2019 1:36pm

Metrolink does need to be built and the green line does need to be upgraded to Metro, but other than cost, is there a reason to combine the two projects?

AlmightyCushion · 09-01-2019 2:00pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Metrolink does need to be built and the green line does need to be upgraded to Metro, but other than cost, is there a reason to combine the two projects?

Isn't cost a good enough reason? You're saving money and getting a better system put in place. I would think so. If you do the metro section first then you have to build a big ass station with storage facilities and turnback facilities at the end point which will all be underground and that will cost a lot of money. Then once you extend it to include the green line, those facilities you spent a fortune on are pointless because you'll have to have those in Sandyford once you complete the green line tie in.

If you do the green line upgrade first you have a high capacity metro that goes from Sandyford to where ever the tie in is with metro which would be around charlemont. So, you have a high capacity metro bringing people from sandyford and dropping them further outside the city centre than the original green line did. You solve capacity issues further out but then you have a load of people getting off the metro at charlemont and switching to a much lower capacity luas. It's a stupid idea. You still have the problem above with needing turnback facilities at charlemont that won't be needed once the metro gets extended.

FreudianSlippers · 09-01-2019 2:06pm

I think fretting about cost is partially what got our transport infrastructure into the state it's in at the moment. However, I accept the remaining points raised.

tom1ie · 09-01-2019 2:23pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Isn't cost a good enough reason? You're saving money and getting a better system put in place. I would think so. If you do the metro section first then you have to build a big ass station with storage facilities and turnback facilities at the end point which will all be underground and that will cost a lot of money. Then once you extend it to include the green line, those facilities you spent a fortune on are pointless because you'll have to have those in Sandyford once you complete the green line tie in.

If you do the green line upgrade first you have a high capacity metro that goes from Sandyford to where ever the tie in is with metro which would be around charlemont. So, you have a high capacity metro bringing people from sandyford and dropping them further outside the city centre than the original green line did. You solve capacity issues further out but then you have a load of people getting off the metro at charlemont and switching to a much lower capacity luas. It's a stupid idea. You still have the problem above with needing turnback facilities at charlemont that won't be needed once the metro gets extended.

Why do you need to build a big ass station with turnaround facilities? Can you not just put in a set of points that allow the metro swap tracks and then the metro is pulled from its opposite end? Why do we need a huge turnaround loop built?

prunudo · 09-01-2019 2:46pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Why do you need to build a big ass station with turnaround facilities? Can you not just put in a set of points that allow the metro swap tracks and then the metro is pulled from its opposite end? Why do we need a huge turnaround loop built?

Neither are ideal if they plan to operate the trains at high frequency.

antoinolachtnai · 09-01-2019 3:08pm

tom1ie wrote: »

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Isn't cost a good enough reason? You're saving money and getting a better system put in place. I would think so. If you do the metro section first then you have to build a big ass station with storage facilities and turnback facilities at the end point which will all be underground and that will cost a lot of money. Then once you extend it to include the green line, those facilities you spent a fortune on are pointless because you'll have to have those in Sandyford once you complete the green line tie in.

If you do the green line upgrade first you have a high capacity metro that goes from Sandyford to where ever the tie in is with metro which would be around charlemont. So, you have a high capacity metro bringing people from sandyford and dropping them further outside the city centre than the original green line did. You solve capacity issues further out but then you have a load of people getting off the metro at charlemont and switching to a much lower capacity luas. It's a stupid idea. You still have the problem above with needing turnback facilities at charlemont that won't be needed once the metro gets extended.

Why do you need to build a big ass station with turnaround facilities? Can you not just put in a set of points that allow the metro swap tracks and then the metro is pulled from its opposite end? Why do we need a huge turnaround loop built?

You don’t need a big loop. But you do need three or four platforms rather than two. That in itself means you need a much bigger station ‘box’.

Building a crossover for three platforms underground is difficult. The space for it needs to be somehow cut out of the rock.

Added to that, this station will be twice as busy as any other station. You need escalators and lifts to cope with that.

From an emergency safety point of view, the trains can only ‘escape’ in one direction. If this is somehow blocked it means that you have to quickly evacuate two or even three full trains and two full platforms of passengers through the surface exits. . The arrangements to allow this for this get pretty complex and expensive.

salmocab · 09-01-2019 3:50pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Metrolink does need to be built and the green line does need to be upgraded to Metro, but other than cost, is there a reason to combine the two projects?

To not combine them would mean 2 separate lines with the city center ends very close to each other. The city center couldn’t possibly take metro so it would need to stop at charlemont anyway.
The green upgrade numbers would rely on the extra journeys possible from Stephens green out to the airport, of which mainly DCU and the airport would be big journey generators.

markpb · 09-01-2019 5:44pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Why do you need to build a big ass station with turnaround facilities? Can you not just put in a set of points that allow the metro swap tracks and then the metro is pulled from its opposite end? Why do we need a huge turnaround loop built?

This is how the green line operated until LCC opened and it caused congestion at both peaks periods. Metrolink is envisaged to operate at higher frequencies than Luas but that wouldn't be possible with a crossover terminus.

D.L.R. · 09-01-2019 7:05pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Metrolink does need to be built and the green line does need to be upgraded to Metro, but other than cost, is there a reason to combine the two projects?

Common sense? The sooner Dublin has a fully operational cross-city Metro line, the sooner the city starts to see the benefits and the sooner more lines are discussed and planned.

marno21 · 09-01-2019 7:07pm

jvan wrote: »

Infuriated here listening to Pat Kenny on Newstalk continually calling it Metro north, saying the green line will be closed for 2 years, they should just extend from broombridge to the airport etc etc. Asking why we need a tram line and metro basically underneath it and in the same breathe complaining about the over capacity.
2 guests with him and neither picking him up on the mis information. Is it any wonder nothing gets built when there is this crap being spouted in the media.

Ps. And then he's reading out comments about building mag lev monorails and elevated trainlines!

NTA needs to get out and up their pr if they want to sell this project.

Dear God listening to that was ****ing headwrecking.

Pat Kenny rolling out all the McDowellisms and then at the end of the discussion asks when Cherrywood is fully operational what will they do about all the crammed Luas trams. Amongst other things suggesting elevated railways, maglevs, and continuing the Luas from Broombridge to the airport.

What's so hard about putting 2 + 2 together here and realising what the whole purpose of this upgrade is ?

prunudo · 09-01-2019 7:38pm

marno21 wrote: »

Dear God listening to that was ****ing headwrecking.

Pat Kenny rolling out all the McDowellisms and then at the end of the discussion asks when Cherrywood is fully operational what will they do about all the crammed Luas trams. Amongst other things suggesting elevated railways, maglevs, and continuing the Luas from Broombridge to the airport.

What's so hard about putting 2 + 2 together here and realising what the whole purpose of this upgrade is ?

Its actually hugely irresponsible, if that is his own view fair enough but he shouldn't be allowed spout sound bites without being challenged.
The project is too important to be rerailed by people listening to the radio and suddenly thinking there are all these hair brained alternatives. And then he comes out with how he was impressed with the guys who suggested a better cheaper option like Madrid. This crowd havent done any studies, no plans and they're being lauded as if they have a credible alternative.
Is the design perfect, no, but its the only plan on the table and we can't keep going back to redesigns every few years.
The thing needs to be put through the planning process and then get the construction started asap. Its taken far to long to get a metro as it is.

Idbatterim · 09-01-2019 9:28pm

why arent the NTA onto these morons then? if its all a load of bull****, why arent they NTA addressing this on the farcical show or even in the media?

LongboardPro · 10-01-2019 9:14am

The question that will never have an answer. The fake news legacy mainstream media will continue to push their anti-progress propaganda if it continues to go unchallenged. The NTA need to cop on before it's too late and set the facts right.

FreudianSlippers · 10-01-2019 11:58am

D.L.R. wrote: »

Common sense? The sooner Dublin has a fully operational cross-city Metro line, the sooner the city starts to see the benefits and the sooner more lines are discussed and planned.

I mean, I was asking a genuine question to which I had hoped to receive something of a more robust answer... but cheers I guess. Better go looking for some common sense to explain the technical benefits :rolleyes:

madbeanman · 10-01-2019 1:31pm

LongboardPro wrote: »

The question that will never have an answer. The fake news legacy mainstream media will continue to push their anti-progress propaganda if it continues to go unchallenged. The NTA need to cop on before it's too late and set the facts right.

This is a very American turn of phrase. I don't think the "mainstream media" in Ireland (a very very tiny country) is out to stymy Metro Link. I think that Pat Kenny didnt have a very considered opinion by the sounds of things and Micheal Mc Dowell is a clown god bless him (How is that Seanad reform going Micheal?) but I think elevating it to the level you do perhaps edges a little bit into tin foil hat territory.

Anyways pulling it back from this topic for a second I am a little bit concerned about the project not meeting its goal of having the review of the consultation done by November last year. Because this project (or similar projects) have been stymied so much in the past any delay is not great. I know that at this point its only a month and a half but still, delays give opportunities to opponents of the project I think.

D.L.R. · 10-01-2019 4:38pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I mean, I was asking a genuine question to which I had hoped to receive something of a more robust answer... but cheers I guess. Better go looking for some common sense to explain the technical benefits :rolleyes:

Can you give me a good reason why we shouldn't combine metro with the green upgrade?

Sam Russell · 10-01-2019 5:36pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I mean, I was asking a genuine question to which I had hoped to receive something of a more robust answer... but cheers I guess. Better go looking for some common sense to explain the technical benefits :rolleyes:

1. The original GL was designed to allow easy upgrade to metro type trains on the old Harcourt St line.

2. The Metrolink project needs to be cross city to avoid a terminus in the CC, and taking it to Sandyford gives it an existing depot.

3. The GL is currently straining at peak times, with passengers left on platforms, and runs the longest trams in the world. It is not possible to run more trams per hour or longer trams.

4. There are plans for significant housing developments which will increase demand on the GL, which requires an upgrade to metro.

5. The additional cost of upgrading the GL is a few hundred million, but to provide a SW Metrolink towards Rathfarnum, Tallaght would add at least a billion or two.

The final alignment and design decisions has not been published yet.

Lord Glentoran · 11-01-2019 6:20am

Sam Russell wrote: »

1. The original GL was designed to allow easy upgrade to metro type trains on the old Harcourt St line.

2. The Metrolink project needs to be cross city to avoid a terminus in the CC, and taking it to Sandyford gives it an existing depot.

3. The GL is currently straining at peak times, with passengers left on platforms, and runs the longest trams in the world. It is not possible to run more trams per hour or longer trams.

4. There are plans for significant housing developments which will increase demand on the GL, which requires an upgrade to metro.

5. The additional cost of upgrading the GL is a few hundred million, but to provide a SW Metrolink towards Rathfarnum, Tallaght would add at least a billion or two.

The final alignment and design decisions has not been published yet.

Agreed - tinkering with plans is a cast iron excuse for delay, delay and more delay. Don’t @ me with ‘but we have to get it right’ nonsense - we’ve had since the mid seventies since anything like this was first seriously put forward.

CatInABox · 11-01-2019 11:31am

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Agreed - tinkering with plans is a cast iron excuse for delay, delay and more delay. Don’t @ me with ‘but we have to get it right’ nonsense - we’ve had since the mid seventies since anything like this was first seriously put forward.

Indeed, the old saying is so true: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

markpb · 11-01-2019 12:40pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Indeed, the old saying is so true: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I don't believe for a minute that the mess of Metro North and MetroLink is anyone's attempt at tinkering to improve, it's just political game playing.

CatInABox · 11-01-2019 5:04pm

markpb wrote: »

I don't believe for a minute that the mess of Metro North and MetroLink is anyone's attempt at tinkering to improve, it's just political game playing.

I've no doubt that the main reason behind the Metro North delay was political expedience rather than a serious belief by the politicians of the day that there was a better plan out there, but regardless of how it came about, MetroLink is better in nearly every fashion than Metro North.

markpb · 11-01-2019 5:44pm

CatInABox wrote: »

I've no doubt that the main reason behind the Metro North delay was political expedience rather than a serious belief by the politicians of the day that there was a better plan out there, but regardless of how it came about, MetroLink is better in nearly every fashion than Metro North.

That's true but the downside is that Metro North had an approved railway order in 2011. It will be at least 2021 before MetroLink gets to the same stage so we lost a decade with all the tinkering. After a railway order, I'm guessing there will be another 2-3 years taken up by issuing and awarding tenders and then another decade of construction after that so it'll be 2034 before we get bums on seats.

AngryLips · 11-01-2019 8:22pm

CatInABox wrote: »

I've no doubt that the main reason behind the Metro North delay was political expedience rather than a serious belief by the politicians of the day that there was a better plan out there, but regardless of how it came about, MetroLink is better in nearly every fashion than Metro North.

Frankly I'd prefer MN today than ML tomorrow

tom1ie · 11-01-2019 9:09pm

markpb wrote: »

That's true but the downside is that Metro North had an approved railway order in 2011. It will be at least 2021 before MetroLink gets to the same stage so we lost a decade with all the tinkering. After a railway order, I'm guessing there will be another 2-3 years taken up by issuing and awarding tenders and then another decade of construction after that so it'll be 2034 before we get bums on seats.

I think a lot of the delays are down to the nta not having the resources. This is because they haven’t hired enough people (maybe due to lack of funds, or the skills just not being available in Ireland) and also because they are splitting their resources on too many projects, ie bus connects and metrolink, two massive projects.
I’m going to play devils advocate and say bus connects is the far more important project as it will effect all of Dublin not just the north south corridor. To speed up bus connects maybe metrolink should go the same way as metro north.
I know people on here will not like to hear that but isnt it more important to concentrate on the project that will give the greater benefit to more people?
Maybe the nta need to concentrate on one project at a time.
Quality not quantity.

Lord Glentoran · 12-01-2019 12:39am

tom1ie wrote: »

I think a lot of the delays are down to the nta not having the resources. This is because they haven’t hired enough people (maybe due to lack of funds, or the skills just not being available in Ireland) and also because they are splitting their resources on too many projects, ie bus connects and metrolink, two massive projects.
I’m going to play devils advocate and say bus connects is the far more important project as it will effect all of Dublin not just the north south corridor. To speed up bus connects maybe metrolink should go the same way as metro north.
I know people on here will not like to hear that but isnt it more important to concentrate on the project that will give the greater benefit to more people?
Maybe the nta need to concentrate on one project at a time.
Quality not quantity.

Probably just too many people convinced that buses are absolutely fine and Rail is just the icing on the cake. How much time and money was wasted on ‘Bus Rapid Transit’ for the north side?

marno21 · 12-01-2019 3:22am

Metro North, whatever about its pros and cons, has one major flaw from the point of view of when it was effectively canned and replaced with New Metro North in 2015. Firstly, it has relatively poor connectivity and secondly it makes the assumption that DART Underground is in place. It also doesn't account for Luas BXD being in place and has poor connectivity with the Green Line given it doesn't connect directly to the Green Line. I think it would struggle with passing cost benefit analysis today and certainly would have in 2015 for these reasons.

MetroLink is planned to go to ABP in Q4 2019/early 2020 with a decision within 2020, and the project to start in 2021. This timetable may be subject to change.

tom1ie · 12-01-2019 9:55am

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Probably just too many people convinced that buses are absolutely fine and Rail is just the icing on the cake. How much time and money was wasted on ‘Bus Rapid Transit’ for the north side?

Busses effect all the residents of Dublin. Metrolink effects a much smaller amount. Metrolink is a great project, but it's clear the NTA are struggling to deliver both metrolink and bus connects. We should concentrate on the project that will have an effect on most people and that's bus connects in my opinion.

Sam Russell · 12-01-2019 12:04pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Busses effect all the residents of Dublin. Metrolink effects a much smaller amount. Metrolink is a great project, but it's clear the NTA are struggling to deliver both metrolink and bus connects. We should concentrate on the project that will have an effect on most people and that's bus connects in my opinion.

1. Well, this thread is about Metrolink.

2. Taking a 'one for everyone in the audiense' approach will dilute the NTA resources.

3. Metrolink is a project that once with ABP is a launch and forget - a bit like a motorway project. Busconnects will need micromanagement for ever. It affects so many NIMBY areas, it is unreal. Metrolink has Na Fianna, Dunville Avenue, and a few vote chasing politicians.

I think Metrolink needs high profile backing from FF and FG - full on.

Lord Glentoran · 12-01-2019 12:13pm

marno21 wrote: »

Metro North, whatever about its pros and cons, has one major flaw from the point of view of when it was effectively canned and replaced with New Metro North in 2015. Firstly, it has relatively poor connectivity and secondly it makes the assumption that DART Underground is in place. It also doesn't account for Luas BXD being in place and has poor connectivity with the Green Line given it doesn't connect directly to the Green Line. I think it would struggle with passing cost benefit analysis today and certainly would have in 2015 for these reasons.

MetroLink is planned to go to ABP in Q4 2019/early 2020 with a decision within 2020, and the project to start in 2021. This timetable may be subject to change.

Personally, I’d strike the word “may” from your last sentence and substitute “will”.

Because that timetable will be interfered with. Make no mistake about that.

marno21 · 17-01-2019 12:52am

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0116/1023678-capital-projects/

Idbatterim · 17-01-2019 12:58am

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0116/1023678-capital-projects/

Imagine they hadn’t slashed the capital budget during the recession and kept more people working and skilled people in the country and the tender prices would have been significantly lower than now and this desperately needed infrastructure would be in place now. But yeah ... they made really “ hard choices” pathetic!

BonnieSituation · 17-01-2019 2:05am

Idbatterim wrote: »

Imagine they hadn’t slashed the capital budget during the recession and kept more people working and skilled people in the country and the tender prices would have been significantly lower than now and this desperately needed infrastructure would be in place now. But yeah ... they made really “ hard choices” pathetic!

Well I for one did not see that coming...:rolleyes:

prunudo · 17-01-2019 7:29am

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0116/1023678-capital-projects/

Ah thats handy Paschal, blame the lack of progress on major projects on something else other than FG's policies.

LeinsterDub · 17-01-2019 8:57am

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0116/1023678-capital-projects/

If only they had of been in charge when labour was cheap and people crying out for work....

Uriel. · 17-01-2019 9:05am

jvan wrote: »

Ah thats handy Paschal, blame the lack of progress on major projects on something else other than FG's policies.

The fall out out of the overruns of the Children's Hospital is going to have a serious effect on capital projects. Looking at the exchanges yesterday's in the Joint Committee with the hospitals development board tells its own story. Circa 1.0 to 1.5b overspend on the cards. That is going to impact other capital projects.

We won't be seeing actual work on the metro any time soon.

Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

Comments