New Children's Hospital at Mater site

ricman · 09-12-2010 9:56pm

EVEN IF they built it beside james st hospital, there would have been much more space to build ,more parking space,its has good transport links, it has a luas stop ,it would be cheaper to build there.
IT was a political decision to locate at the mater and fianna fail wont admit they were wrong.IT S designed like a big skyscraper, mediocre design cos there is limited space to build there .ANYONE that knows dublin would say theres at least 5 sites that would be more suitable for building a hospital, near luas, m50 with loads of space for parking , green spaces , and accomodation for parents and easy acess for cars , buses etc
if you were building a state of the art concert arena, the first thing you look at is, ill get a site that is ideal re public acess ,parking , near the dart,luas, its not that hard to find good sites in dublin.This site placement ,seems to me a mixture of cronyism, or incompetence ,ie like anglo bailout this will cost us millions in the future in extra expenses.
its like building a new hotel on a marsh, its more complicated and expensive, to build on such a small site.
if joe bloggs wants to build a hotel on a bad site i don,t care.
PUBLIC hospital s should be built on ideal sites with regard to acess ,cost,transport links and comfort for parents and the patients and should
have green spaces and free parking ,theres feck all room for green spaces on that site.

BostonB · 08-03-2011 11:55am

I'm hoping they'll do some proper research this time...

Govt expected to review site of new children's hospital

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-expected-to-review-site-of-new-childrens-hospital-496385.html

If the proper research says it should be at the mater than fair enough. I can't see it makes sense myself. Of course the new govt might not do any proper research just like the old one. We'll have to wait and see.

Cormac Rabbitt · 13-05-2011 9:08am

National Paediatric / Children's Hospital - Two attractive locations to consider

Location 1: The Royal Hospital Kilmainham car park;
Location 2: St. Patrick’s Hospital and Dr. Steevens.

From a clinical and teaching hospital point of view… It is significant that both locations are within 110 meters of St. James's Teaching Hospital, which has the most extensive and deepest range of health specialities available in Ireland. (UCD and TCD are as accessible to the locations as the Mater Hospital is).

From a child’s point of view… Both locations are beside major recreational facilities (Royal Hospital Kilmainham, Phoenix Park & Zoo), which is important because studies show that children (and adults) outcomes are better in park environs.

From a parent access point of view… The locations are, without doubt, the most readily accessible location within the State. They are served by very extensive national railway & national bus services that extend from Waterford to Ballina (take in all the major cities, etc) and many other bus and Luas services, and most importantly are served directly by our new and very extensive motorway network.

From a staff member perspective… The locations have existing Luas and other local public transport services available. The services are significantly more extensive then those available to the Mater even when it has a Metro North station. In addition the locations provide a great environment for work (co-location, parks, accommodation, etc).

From the State's perspective… The locations: facilitate ticking the most 'boxes'; are on land owned by the State; are the most assessable; and importantly can accommodate over 156,000 square metres.

Summary… The locations could help to facilitate the provision of a National Children's Hospital that is ‘second to none’.

BostonB · 13-05-2011 11:01am

While its a much better location than the Mater.

Isn't that missing the point of the criticisms of the other site. Most people won't use public transport. It doesn't need to be beside an adult hospital, training or not.

I'm not against it, I just have no meaningful criteria to base a decision on as the limited research done for the Mater was so abysmal and almost non existent as to be useless.

dubhthach · 13-05-2011 11:19am

BostonB wrote: »

While its a much better location than the Mater.

Isn't that missing the point of the criticisms of the other site. Most people won't use public transport. It doesn't need to be beside an adult hospital, training or not.

I'm not against it, I just have no meaningful criteria to base a decision on as the limited research done for the Mater was so abysmal and almost non existent as to be useless.

Well ignoring the public transport section you do have the N4 running as dual carriageway in as far as Heuston. There's definetly better road access for most of the country into that part of Dublin then there is into the Mater.

BostonB · 13-05-2011 11:33am

Well the M1 into the Mater is a great road link. The problem is, the whole area gets grid locked with traffic. Something the N4 and the Quays can also suffer from at times. Its a problem for traffic going cross city, and also people driving up from the country. But its better than the Mater for sure. Better than something outside of the city center. Is open to debate.

Cormac Rabbitt · 13-05-2011 11:43am

BostonB wrote: »

While its a much better location than the Mater.

Isn't that missing the point of the criticisms of the other site. Most people won't use public transport. It doesn't need to be beside an adult hospital, training or not.

I'm not against it, I just have no meaningful criteria to base a decision on as the limited research done for the Mater was so abysmal and almost non existent as to be useless.

National Paediatric / Children's Hospital - Two attractive locations to consider

To expand on your issues/concerns.

Co-location - teaching and research/applications of leading edge techniques are most important for good care outcomes.

On access, the vast majority of trips generated to/from the Hospital are at peak hours by staff who will use public transport. Consequently, available public transport could be seen as very important in that it deals with the congestion and quality of life issues...

The point of providing public transport does not diminish the issue of road access. Luckily the Locations at between Heuston Station and St. James's Hospital also provide the highest level of road access available in the State, except for possibility at the junction M50 with the N7 Naas Road. Access by cycles, walks, etc, must also be considered.

dubhthach · 13-05-2011 11:48am

Personally I can't see the option at the "Royal Hospital" been viable. It's by far one of the most important architecture/historic sites in the city. The proposal would completley overawe it as well as destroy the approach context to the hospital.

BostonB · 13-05-2011 12:05pm

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

To expand on your issues/concerns.

Co-location - teaching and research/applications of leading edge techniques are most important for good care outcomes.

On access, the vast majority of trips generated to/from the Hospital are at peak hours by staff who will use public transport. Consequently, available public transport could be seen as very important in that it deals with the congestion and quality of life issues...

The point of providing public transport does not diminish the issue of road access. Luckily the Locations at between Heuston Station and St. James's Hospital also provide the highest level of road access available in the State, except for possibility at the junction M50 with the N7 Naas Road. Access by cycles, walks, etc, must also be considered.

Do you have an stats on the types of transport used by people and staff using the hospital. Also on the journey times peak and off peak from difference locations, for different types of vehicles, ambulances, cars, buses etc. There was no meaningful data for the Mater site as the studies were fundamentally flawed.

Co-location having advantages for paediatric hospital have been called into question by paediatric professionals. Who decided that was a criteria? Likewise that seems to have come from questionable sources.

Cormac Rabbitt · 13-05-2011 12:14pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Personally I can't see the option at the "Royal Hospital" been viable. It's by far one of the most important architecture/historic sites in the city. The proposal would completley overawe it as well as destroy the approach context to the hospital.

National Paediatric / Children's Hospital - Two attractive locations to consider

Stand in the car park (its only a car park) and imagine an architecturally great building that reflects the Royal Hospital building, etc, with its road access totally concealed. Such a building I believe could only enhance the architecture/historic aspects of the Royal Hospital and in addition provide massive added benefits (visual/use)...

dubhthach · 13-05-2011 12:26pm

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

Stand in the car park (its only a car park) and imagine an architecturally great building that reflects the Royal Hospital building, etc, with its road access totally concealed. Such a building I believe could only enhance the architecture/historic aspects of the Royal Hospital and in addition provide massive added benefits (visual/use)...

Stand at the entrance "avenue" the Royal Hospital. you can see the building clearly. You basically have a grand avenue to walk up to the building. The plan for new building would block that view as you enter the grounds. Placing such a building where you propose completely destroys the context that the building was laid out in the 17th century. The Royal Hospital is by far the most important bit of late 17th century architecture Dublin. I'd put your proposed hospital there a equivalent to the damage done by the destruction of the continuity of the "Georgian Mile" by the ESB in the 1960's.

Cormac Rabbitt · 13-05-2011 2:22pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Stand at the entrance "avenue" the Royal Hospital. you can see the building clearly. You basically have a grand avenue to walk up to the building. The plan for new building would block that view as you enter the grounds. Placing such a building where you propose completely destroys the context that the building was laid out in the 17th century. The Royal Hospital is by far the most important bit of late 17th century architecture Dublin. I'd put your proposed hospital there a equivalent to the damage done by the destruction of the continuity of the "Georgian Mile" by the ESB in the 1960's.

National Paediatric / Children's Hospital - Two Attractive Locations to Consider

The context of the Royal Hospital was an environment that worked for the wounded and dispossessed, which ties-in well with it as a new hospital location.

I think that the ghosts of wounded soldiers would understand wounded children trying to get better (medical outcomes are better in park environs, etc).

Avenues are not always straight. They often reveal their secrets slowly, so the curved avenue shown could be a wonderful addition that could reveal 'open-up' aspects of the Royal Hospital better than it does now.

In fact, the proposal could 'open-up' aspects of the Royal Hospital to those who could best benefit, that is sick children (they could talk about its history, battles, wounder soldiers, doctors, nurses, etc) and also could benefit thousands of others who would not otherwise be there.

{By the way, one of the greatest supporters of Dargan Proposals, a soldier of the "Georgian Mile", is Senator David Norris who camped in and fought to save the buildings. I think that he would not agree with you.}

BostonB · 13-05-2011 2:40pm

I think you are confusing hospital with visitor attraction. Sick kids are not going to be doing day trips to the Royal Hospital. The current Royal Hospital could do with more child friendly attractions itself. There little or nothing for them to do there at the moment.

Cormac Rabbitt · 13-05-2011 3:36pm

BostonB wrote: »

Do you have an stats on the types of transport used by people and staff using the hospital. Also on the journey times peak and off peak from difference locations, for different types of vehicles, ambulances, cars, buses etc. There was no meaningful data for the Mater site as the studies were fundamentally flawed.

Co-location having advantages for paediatric hospital have been called into question by paediatric professionals. Who decided that was a criteria? Likewise that seems to have come from questionable sources.

On your first question, there is a Paper by Enda Murphy and James E. Killen Transportation accessibility issues....

Their findings are clear, that for a National Hospital a location to the west of Dublin is preferable.

I think that you could build out from their paper and include the transportation aspects shown on page 3 of National Childerns Hospital Possible Location Choice.pdf, ... for railways and roads. You could take on-board that Parents visiting children to a degree can avoid peak traffic, whereas staff cannot, so issues of sustainable public transport such as trains, cycle-paths, walking, etc, become paramount. In theory, each person using public transport to a degree leaves more road space for a parent that has to drive.

Could I advise you to approach the issue of accessibility not from Stats, but from how it ought to be.

Stats are like measuring transport USAGE which really tells you little as there is always 'pent-up' DEMAND. If you design for DEMAND you end up with ridiculous scenarios (10 lane roads, etc). The Dargan Proposal is based on Transport 'NEEDS' for proper planning and development for civilised life. Luckily the Dargan suggested locations have the existing best possible accessibility already in place within the State and in addition the accessibility could be added to by Dargan's Proposal for a DART Interconnector and Circle Line.

On co-location; Teaching, research, shared facilities... interactions, etc are all important for applying leading-edge care.

monument · 13-05-2011 3:41pm

I'm guessing the problem with the international study under way is that it likely won't see much of a problem with the Matter site in international terms. That'll annoy a lot of people.

There's a lot of very Irish thinking in overstating access issues for the Matter site:

The N1, N2, and N3 all lead to the site, even if they are urban streets at the ends.
There's motorway -- M1 / the Port Tunnel -- about 3km from it straight down the R101 (that's the North Circular Road / Seville Place / Sheriff Street) or 3.6km over the over ground N1 route (Drumcondra Road / Swords Road).
Dual carriage way on the N2 ends just about 1.5km from the Matter.
It's less than 2km from the N4 / the quays.
Anybody driving there in an emergency -- bus lanes can be used and lead right up to the site via the N1 and most of the way via the N2 and N4.
The Greater Dublin Area accounts for nearly 40% (39.3%) of the population of Ireland. Co Dublin alone accounts for 28%. That population share is expected to grow, not decline.
That 40% is even higher if you include the Drogheda area which is currently not included the Greater Dublin Area (GDA), even when other places in the GDA are as close.
Of the 40% of people in the State in the Great Dublin Area, nearly half (47%) live within the M50.
While their arrival to the hospital maybe in cars (ie taxi, getting a lift etc), loads of sick children use trains to get up to Dublin

In a way, those points above are put in a very Irish way. Anywhere else and the first thing I'd be highlighting is the fact that 20% of the population are inside the M50, nearly 30% in Co Dublin and over 40% in Dublin and the surrounding counties.

robd · 13-05-2011 4:21pm

monument wrote: »

I'm guessing the problem with the international study under way is that it likely won't see much of a problem with the Matter site in international terms. That'll annoy a lot of people.

There's a lot of very Irish thinking in overstating access issues for the Matter site:
The N1, N2, and N3 all lead to the site, even if they are urban streets at the ends.

There's motorway -- M1 / the Port Tunnel -- about 3km from it straight down the R101 (that's the North Circular Road / Seville Place / Sheriff Street) or 3.6km over the over ground N1 route (Drumcondra Road / Swords Road).

Dual carriage way on the N2 ends just about 1.5km from the Matter.

It's less than 2km from the N4 / the quays.

Anybody driving there in an emergency -- bus lanes can be used and lead right up to the site via the N1 and most of the way via the N2 and N4.

The Greater Dublin Area accounts for nearly 40% (39.3%) of the population of Ireland. Co Dublin alone accounts for 28%. That population share is expected to grow, not decline.

That 40% is even higher if you include the Drogheda area which is currently not included the Greater Dublin Area (GDA), even when other places in the GDA are as close.

Of the 40% of people in the State in the Great Dublin Area, nearly half (47%) live within the M50.

While their arrival to the hospital maybe in cars (ie taxi, getting a lift etc), loads of sick children use trains to get up to Dublin

In a way, those points above are put in a very Irish way. Anywhere else and the first thing I'd be highlighting is the fact that 20% of the population are inside the M50, nearly 30% in Co Dublin and over 40% in Dublin and the surrounding counties.

What parent with a sick child would choose public transport over a car, in Dublin or anywhere else in the country? Basic human nature would be to go for the most convenient and comfortable mode available, which even at times of "no stress" is the car in Ireland. No-one in their right mind who has access to a car would put their child through Ireland's public transport.

Also, your argument completely ignores parking. Even the crater that is the Mater isn't deep enough to house staff and parent, let alone visitor cars for two hospitals that size. The streets around offer very limited on-street parking.

Staff will always choose the car when available due to the anti-social hours which don't work in this country for public transport. Arguments that they should are idealistic nonsense at best given that public transport is being curtailed all over the country as a result of the downturn.

Then there's the traffic. You've got the N1, N2, N3 and Ballymun Road all feeding into the block. As a result, the whole block around the Mater is completely nuts with traffic all the time. 8-9pm on a week night is still horrendous. Sunday morning is about the only light time.

I live close enough to the Mater (it's my local hospital) and I think it's a terrible idea for Dublin let alone for the whole country. A run around the M50 and onto the N4 or N7 would be a much bigger preference. I generally head to Beaumont rather than the Mater if I need anything due to insane traffic that close to City Centre and lack of parking.

This was a classic "Bertie Special" of a plan if ever I saw one. St. Lukes being only a short stroll up the N1 (Dorset Street).

BostonB · 13-05-2011 4:33pm

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

On your first question, there is a Paper by Enda Murphy and James E. Killen ....

Their findings are clear, that for a National Hospital a location to the west of Dublin is preferable.....

...except its completely flawed....

...It is our considered view that the TCD access study (“Distance and Travel Time Calculations for a Proposed National Paediatric Hospital in Dublin: A Report to the HSE” SAHRU, TCD, March 2006) relied upon by the Joint HSE/DOHC Group was flawed, insofar as it only assessed two city centre sites while assuming free-flow conditions, and did not consider access to other sites such as a peripheral green-field location. In our view the access issue needs to be reconsidered in the wider social appraisal of this vital national capital project. No ambulance access times were studied for any site....

http://thenewchildrenshospital.ie/mater/selection.html

In my opinion that report was specifically constrained in order to deliberately favour the Mater and exclude any other options. You've no research just copying some flawed report, and thus, you're just applying the same bias to another city location.

Its just doesn't make sense that you put something (Mater site) on the far edge of its catchment. Its not even central to the 40% in Dublin. Never mind its definitely not central to the other 60% of the population. It also makes no sense that you'd put it the middle of an area with Heavy traffic, and with little or no parking. Or that all the research complete negates these issues. Theres something rotten about that.

IMO Royal Hospital is better, because it moves it closer to what you'd logically expect a NATIONAL hospital to be, and further outside of a city with lots of traffic problems. Its probably more central to the 40% of Dublin to. But theres no data or unbiased research to prove it either way.

The people looking for these city locations don't seem to the the people using the hospital on a regular basis. Its seems to be the people living near the locations.

BostonB · 13-05-2011 4:44pm

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

...Could I advise you to approach the issue of accessibility not from Stats, but from how it ought to be. ....

I think you'll find peoples idea of how things ought to be varies enormously.

For Royal Kilmainham is a nightmare for me to get to at peak in the morning. Its theoretically on my commuting route. I could get to Navan quicker. Our regular appointments in Temple Street are always at 10am, which in reality is 9am if you want to get to the head of the queue , which in reality is 8am is you want to beat the traffic. Royal Kilmainham would be no improvement for that. And I'm in Dublin. If I was coming from the country god knows what we'd do.

monument · 13-05-2011 5:09pm

This is a longer term project, oil is already getting so expensive driving matters less and less each year. Don't trust greens or left wing loons? Read the right wing, but very fact driven Economist then.

robd wrote: »

What parent with a sick child would choose public transport over a car, in Dublin or anywhere else in the country? Basic human nature would be to go for the most convenient and comfortable mode available, which even at times of "no stress" is the car in Ireland. No-one in their right mind who has access to a car would put their child through Ireland's public transport.

:rolleyes:

What hyperbole nonsense.

When I grew up in Mayo, myself and my sister travailed up to Dublin more than a few times to hospitals, both by car and by train. The train was always much more preferable. As a child it gave use far more comfort and freedom. You can interact with each other, move around, you have toilets on board, and you can use the tables on trains to do a lot more than you can in the car.

Of course, trains don't suit some sick children. Our problems turned out to be fairly minor in the greater scheme of things, but that's the case for many children who need to travel up to Dublin.

robd wrote: »

Staff will always choose the car when available due to the anti-social hours which don't work in this country for public transport. Arguments that they should are idealistic nonsense at best given that public transport is being curtailed all over the country as a result of the downturn

That's just not true.

Most staff in all hospitals are on the day shift and the Mater has been one of the leaders in switching staff from cars to public transport and cycling, as already quoted in this thread:

Mr. Gerry Murphy, National Transport Authority at the Oireachtas Committee on Transport:

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.

robd wrote: »

Then there's the traffic. You've got the N1, N2, N3 and Ballymun Road all feeding into the block. As a result, the whole block around the Mater is completely nuts with traffic all the time. 8-9pm on a week night is still horrendous. Sunday morning is about the only light time.

I pass through the area to get home, that's overstating it. Traffic flows fairly freely most of the time.

There's traffic everywhere, including around green field sites, and that traffic is going to increase hugely on a site where there are few public transport options and for cycling its in the middle of nowhere.

BostonB · 13-05-2011 5:35pm

Apart from these vague soundbites. Are there any hard stats on staff and non staff using public transport vs cars across all the hospital broken down by location

Cormac Rabbitt · 13-05-2011 6:10pm

BostonB wrote: »

Apart from these vague soundbites. Are there any hard stats on staff and non staff using public transport vs cars across all the hospital broken down by location

You are missing a central point. The transport issues are not about public transport vs roads (which also provides mega public transport) it is about each being optimised.

BostonB · 13-05-2011 6:26pm

You are missing the point is that there is no stats, research to form an opinion.

Regardless where you think it should be. Its incredible they would decide on any massive project with national importance, based on almost no credible research into it.

BostonB · 13-05-2011 6:30pm

Imagine a shop, that is set to suit the needs of the staff commute rather than the customers using it. Is that really the best argument for the Mater site?

There probably isn't any money to do build it at all now is there? Will a reduction in budget change anything, like the building costs?

monument · 13-05-2011 8:07pm

BostonB wrote: »

Imagine a shop, that is set to suit the needs of the staff commute rather than the customers using it. Is that really the best argument for the Mater site?

Talking about my posts? Who said anything about best arguments? Somebody talked nonsence about staff, and I replied.

In any case, it's not a shop. It's quite different. There's far more staff vs "customers" than there would be in a shop. The staff matter more too, happy staff with shorter commutes can help lead to better care.

michael999999 · 13-05-2011 10:46pm

When I grew up in Mayo, myself and my sister travailed up to Dublin more than a few times to hospitals, both by car and by train. The train was always much more preferable. As a child it gave use far more comfort and freedom. You can interact with each other, move around, you have toilets on board, and you can use the tables on trains to do a lot more than you can in the car.

Of course, trains don't suit some sick children. Our problems turned out to be fairly minor in the greater scheme of things, but that's the case for many children who need to travel up to Dublin.

My child has kidney disease and he has attended Crumlin regularly since he was a baby.We are in Kerry and public transport is simply not something we can use, even to go for check ups,because of the risk of infection from other people.

It is a long enough trek through Dublin traffic to get there as it is, never mind having to get to the Mater with a very sick child in the back seat.

Any parents we have spoken to while staying in crumlin that travel up from the country feel the same way.

We have the chance to build one of the worlds best hospitals with some of the best doctors and nurses from Crumlin and Temple st. Lets make sure were not looking back in 15 years time and wondering why we built it in the middle of an inaccesable city site, just to keep Bertie and hes cronies who he made promises to locate it at the mater happy.

The mater site is not the place to build this hospital.

monument · 14-05-2011 12:53am

As I said: trains don't suit some sick children.

The board of Crumlin -- as their top two points -- put tri-location as an "ideal solution" and co-location with a maternity hospital as "essential". You're not going to get any of those at a green field site. I'm sorry, those are just not going to happen any time in the next 10-20 years.

Anyway, what I read in the Sunday Business Post, the important thing now is getting it built as soon as possible rather than dragging it on and on. It seems to be a good excuse at the moment for the Government to keep dragging it on, and on, and on.

Nevertheless, on car access:

About 3km away there's the end of a motorway, the M1 / the Port Tunnel
Or 3.6km over ground is the M1
Dual carriage way on the N2 ends just about 1.5km
It's less than 2km from the N4 / the quays

Parking is being planned for, and parents should be fighting to make sure a large percentage of those spaces are for the parents of patients, more so for acute and critical patients. Or, if needed, parents should be fights to get more spaces provided.

Cormac Rabbitt · 14-05-2011 9:52am

monument wrote: »

As I said: trains don't suit some sick children.

The board of Crumlin -- as their top two points -- put tri-location as an "ideal solution" and co-location with a maternity hospital as "essential". You're not going to get any of those at a green field site. I'm sorry, those are just not going to happen any time in the next 10-20 years.

Anyway, what I read in the Sunday Business Post, the important thing now is getting it built as soon as possible rather than dragging it on and on. It seems to be a good excuse at the moment for the Government to keep dragging it on, and on, and on.

Nevertheless, on car access:
About 3km away there's the end of a motorway, the M1 / the Port Tunnel

Or 3.6km over ground is the M1

Dual carriage way on the N2 ends just about 1.5km

It's less than 2km from the N4 / the quays

Parking is being planned for, and parents should be fighting to make sure a large percentage of those spaces are for the parents of patients, more so for acute and critical patients. Or, if needed, parents should be fights to get more spaces provided.

Dundalk & Drogheda are relatively close to Dublin by car, whereas the populations centres of Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Tralee, Limerick, Galway & Sligo and also all the towns between the foregoing and Dublin are all much better catered for by a location between St. James's Hospital and Heuston Station (Westgate) or at the M50/N7 Redcow junction. So from a National aspect your arguments amount to nothing.

Crumlin's top two points for tri-location could be catered for at Westgate. The Dargan sugestion shows over 156,000 square metres, whereas just over 112,000 square metres are shown for the Mater Children's Hospital with another 25,000 square metres for a new maternity hospital there.

Is it not worth considering the Dargan Locations 1 & 2, which are between Crumlin, Coombe, Rotunda & Temple Street Hospitals that are planned to relocate.

As regards planning and time; should the Government declare Westgate as special planning zone, etc?

Could we not use the template used to design, procure and build the IFSC in record time (when the country was also broke) - see Pages 8 & 9 on hyperlink: Role of Government...

monument · 14-05-2011 12:42pm

Cormac, with respect:

The chances of getting the Children's Hospital built any time soon at any location is low. And the chances of getting the Metro North and/or Dart Underground built is even lower. But the chances of getting the Dargan Project built is currently next to zero.

BostonB · 14-05-2011 12:52pm

That at least I agree with. Theres no money to build anything.

Cormac Rabbitt · 15-05-2011 1:37pm

Cormac Rabbitt wrote: »

Dundalk & Drogheda are relatively close to Dublin by car, whereas the populations centres of Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Tralee, Limerick, Galway & Sligo and also all the towns between the foregoing and Dublin are all much better catered for by a location between St. James's Hospital and Heuston Station (Westgate) or at the M50/N7 Redcow junction. So from a National aspect your arguments amount to nothing.

Crumlin's top two points for tri-location could be catered for at Westgate. The Dargan sugestion shows over 156,000 square metres, whereas just over 112,000 square metres are shown for the Mater Children's Hospital with another 25,000 square metres for a new maternity hospital there.

Is it not worth considering the Dargan Locations 1 & 2, which are between Crumlin, Coombe, Rotunda & Temple Street Hospitals that are planned to relocate.

As regards planning and time; should the Government declare Westgate as special planning zone, etc?

Could we not use the template used to design, procure and build the IFSC in record time (when the country was also broke) - see Pages 8 & 9 on hyperlink: Role of Government...

Sunday Times today - Children's Hospital fast-track approval.
WELL DONE GOVERNMENT

A green-field site will save over six months and possibly a year in construction time - where a) the contractor has full control of the site and can use better construction machinery for a faster build time and lower costs, etc, and b) where the hospital's structure height is lowered, for example, 8 floors instead of the 16 proposed at the Mater site (see page 4 on hyperlink: Children's Hospital).

An additional six months to a year could be saved by using the IFSC procurement template, which basically starts with a design-build consortium to make the planning application.

The above is not rocket science. Using the IFSC template will also achieve much better architecture and lower build costs as the IFSC did.

monument · 07-07-2011 11:06am

National Paediatric Hospital Independent Review covers access and other issues...

On access it says:

Access, travel times, and the question of accessibility for the community of greater Dublin, and for those beyond greater Dublin, remain a concern for many of the stakeholders who presented to the review team. These issues have been the source of many submissions and protests to the Minister and to the media.

Comprehensive travel studies have been provided by the NPHDB consultant team. The panel was made aware that a comprehensive Traffic Impact Assessment has been submitted to, and negotiated in detail with, Dublin City Council as part of the planning consultation for the new development. These have reassured the Clinical Review Team. The studies appear to be thorough, well tested and statistically reliable, and they have taken into account the ‘worst case scenario’ – the possibility that the Metro North station will not be developed on the site.

There are also a several background issues which were thought worthy of consideration in the current debate:

Emergency: there is already significant emergency paediatric traffic in Dublin’s city centre. The busiest children’s emergency department in the city – the CUH at Temple Street - is situated 400 metres from the proposed development at Eccles Street. No information which we have received or presentation we have attended has identified that access to Temple Street is of major concern. CUH Temple Street currently deals with 45 000 attendances per year. The proposed volume of activity at the new NPH on opening will be around 65 000 attendances per year ie an increase of 45% on existing levels.
Parking: there is virtually no parking on the CUH Temple Street site. There will be 736 patient parking spaces in the NPH development, which will be secure and safe with direct lift access to the main foyer and the emergency department. A significant proportion of these will be dedicated for emergency patients.

Travel management: The traffic studies looked at journey times for emergency patients from inside and outside the Dublin conurbation using the M50 and established the travel times along the major radial routes from the orbital motorway to the Eccles Street site at various times of the day. They identified, not surprisingly, that the longest journey times are in the morning peak period. The majority of paediatric attendances at emergency departments take place between 12.00 and 20.00, when the journey times are at their shortest.

Elective care: The OCSC Travel Time survey report identifies that elective care is, by its definition, planned and that tertiary attendances from ouside the Dublin conurbation can be planned to make effective use of the highway networks.

The availability of good public transport is a strong positive for the Mater site. One of the laudable successes of the existing Mater Hospital has been to increase staff use of public transport to 70% for journeys to work by means of Mobility Management Planning. It is important in the wider context of Europe-wide carbon reduction targets that the NPH is not planned around over-reliance on private car transport for staff travel. Furthermore, for parents who are staying at the hospital with their children for significant periods of time, the ability to access the city centre for brief periods of time on public transport is an advantage.

Access is less of an issue for parents than appropriate and high quality care. Currently parents can and do travel across the globe to access care for their children.

The provision in Ireland of a first class facility that unites expertise and develops local care is by far the most important factor for this group.
There has also been comprehensive planning and coordination with local councils and ambulance services.

An on issue of expansion it says:

There are general concerns (very acute for some groups) about the expansion / future proofing options given the choice of the inner city Eccles Street site, with little current land for expansion once the only remaining building footprint is committed to the Rotunda Maternity Hospital for tri-location with the adult and paediatric hospitals.

The NPH Development Board has planned expansion space within the facility envelope, but this is not widely known nor understood. More importantly, the Temple Street facility will remain committed to health care service use once the Children’s Hospital moves. This was confirmed by the Temple Street Board.
It would be advantageous to have a ‘master planning’ process for the Temple Street site with a view to having the site committed to children’s health care and having a binding understanding with the Temple Street site owners. Being able to speak to this availability more explicity would allay some concerns. Beginning the dialogue with the hospital and clinical community now will be an important part of long term strategies.

On design:

The Clinical Review Team supports the overall design proposed for the NPH on the Mater site. However, a number of concerns about elements of the existing design were raised by clinicians during our interviews. As a result, and in line with established practice, we would recommend a focussed review of some elements of the planned facility; namely:
Emergency department design

Radiology adjacencies

Patient flows (particularly to operating theatres and the paediatric intensive care unit)

The vertical alignments and associations of the usual ‘hot floor’ elements.

Design development should at the earliest opportunity test the plans against patient journeys to ensure the facility is child focussed and operationally efficient. A wide range of clinician representatives should be involved in this work, and it would be beneficial to have greater clinical representation on the development board.

As a general point, the design of every department in the new NPH should be of a comparable standard, or preferably superior to, any current facilities for children in Dublin.

This is also interesting...

Parents and Care Givers
The review team heard from a group of parents and care givers, representing a coalition of around 40 disease-specific support groups.

This coalition of parents is passionate and committed to the NPH project, and they clearly want to see early progression on the current selected site. They spoke positively about their engagement at all stages of the planning process and expressed grave concerns regarding any delay that may be consequent on decisions taken as a result of the independent review. The parents expressed disappointment at the division within the clinical community and institutional leadership regarding the progression of the NPH project. They suggested that there remained (sadly) an inappropriate weighting on an individual institution’s welfare rather than a genuine priority for the child and the future of child health.

The parents also pointed out – from their own experience – the poor state of the current children’s hospital facilities and the woeful nature of parent and patient accommodation in children’s hospitals. They expressed their concern that any delay in this development in improving the physical environment in which children are cared for, would unnecessarily place children at risk of serious harm.

BostonB · 08-07-2011 10:36am

I have no idea what travel survey this refers to and you've posted no links. From where did you drag this up from?

It doesn't answer any specifics, but is typically vague as usual.

monument · 08-07-2011 10:38am

BostonB wrote: »

I have no idea what travel survey this refers to and you've posted no links. From where did you drag this up from?

National Paediatric Hospital Independent Review
http://www.dohc.ie/publications/paediatric_hospital_review.html

eia340600 · 23-07-2011 11:15pm

New website put up with the plans @ http://www.newchildrenshospitalplanningapplication.ie/#volume_4

The plans definitely seem impressive, with exception to the previously hidden north elevation and the slightly confused emergency department.

From the plans it looks like it will be the tallest building in Dublin at over 77m.Even if the board were to try to chop off some floors, it would remain tall.Though, any attempt to lower the height would result in 49 beds lost per floor.Far too many to even consider.There is some slack where the 9th floor could be chopped as it houses the hospital school and sensory rooms which some might argue aren't entirely necessary. However, these are some of the features that would stand to separate it from other hospitals and make it truly "world class".

FreudianSlippers · 24-07-2011 1:28pm

I really like it. I, personally, have no problem with the height either... it's not exactly blocking much of a view in that area tbh.

Build up, not out!

L1011 · 24-07-2011 8:07pm

Looking at the demolition plan, when are all the bits of the Mater that need to be wiped going to be moved to their new locations? Looks like the existing radiology department, part of outpatients and A&E and a fair few other areas are goners.

FreudianSlippers · 24-07-2011 8:40pm

Looks like Rosary House, Radiology, Opthomology, Outpatients, A&E, Cardiology, Auditorium, Canteen, Hear/Lung GI and all the nasty link corridors.

I hope they do something about the outside of the hideous main wards building too.

eia340600 · 24-07-2011 10:45pm

I presume all the buildings to be demolished will be housed in the extension currently being built there.The development is to open in spring of next year.http://www.mchd.ie/

BostonB · 24-07-2011 11:19pm

Theres pretty much no hard information on access in that. Its even more vague than the original reports. Ditto expansion. If it was dragons den it would be laughed out of the room.

Currently parents can and do travel across the globe to access care for their children.

Isn't the point they shouldn't have too? Also because some is forced to travel to get treatment doesn't not mean this is an easy place to access. Its completely irreverent. Its condescending in the extreme.

At this point, its obviously pointless discussing it. Its going ahead regardless. I'm just staggered how little research was done on this site, and how it was railroaded. At this point its getting a little irrelevant discussing the site. Theres much bigger issues with the HSE and the hospitals now, the problems with the site pale in comparison.

uncanny · 23-02-2012 11:02am

Planning permission refused

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/planning-permission-refused-for-new-childrens-hospital-3029219.html

Terrible decision

Depressing

antoobrien · 23-02-2012 11:16am

uncanny wrote: »

Planning permission refused

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/planning-permission-refused-for-new-childrens-hospital-3029219.html

Terrible decision

Depressing

Why is it a bad decision, there are probably better locations withing Dublin city for this - let alone greenfields sites across the county or country.

The only bit that I finds strange is the reasons for the rejection/not building of the heilpad:

Plans to build a helipad on the roof of the proposed new hospital had to be scrapped because it would be unusable during high winds.

There are far higher buildings in New York that have helipads, I'd love to know where the rationalization that this one would be unsafe came from.

markpb · 23-02-2012 11:41am

antoobrien wrote: »

Why is it a bad decision, there are probably better locations withing Dublin city for this - let alone greenfields sites across the county or country.

That's not a matter for ABP and it's not why they rejected it.

The only bit that I finds strange is the reasons for the rejection/not building of the heilpad. There are far higher buildings in New York that have helipads, I'd love to know where the rationalization that this one would be unsafe came from.

They didn't say anything about the height - wind conditions are caused by the surrounding landscape, not the height.

antoobrien · 23-02-2012 11:46am

markpb wrote: »

That's not a matter for ABP and it's not why they rejected it.

True, and that's just my opinion. I'm curious though as to the posters reasons for thinking it's a bad decision.

markpb wrote: »

They didn't say anything about the height - wind conditions are caused by the surrounding landscape, not the height.

Yeah, it's not clear from the report who stopped that bit, the hospital or planners but the point stands. The proposal is for a 16 storey building, which would make it considerably higher than anything else in the area, and also the surrounding landscape.

The Tyre Dude · 23-02-2012 11:51am

Great news, but will it be the end of this sorry saga?

riclad · 23-02-2012 12:04pm

Well a tallaght or blanchardstown site could be found with good transport links ,there was even a builder who offered a site free to hse.
THIS eccles st site is another fianna fail con job/shambles.IF you have to dig a large hole in the ground to provide parking for a hospital ,then you are on the wrong site.International experts say a childrens hospital should have green spaces ,loads of space for parents accomodation ,easy acess , The present site is a traffic blackspot with very limited parking.
IT was chosen to give extra jobs in the area ,ie for political reasons ,the only plus point is its near other hospitals which can provide extra specialist medical
help and expertise.
ON match days in croke park ,many nearby roads are
closed ,which limits acess.
AT the moment land ,sites in dublin are cheaper than 2005,building costs are lower.They could start from scratch on another site.

jd · 23-02-2012 12:21pm

riclad wrote: »

... experts say a childrens hospital should have green spaces ,loads of space for parents accomodation ,easy acess , T

...,the only plus point is its near other hospitals which can provide extra specialist medical
help and expertise.
.

Colocation (access to specialist services) is more important than green space according to the experts. A stand alone green field site would not be the best outcome.

BostonB · 23-02-2012 1:55pm

jd wrote: »

Colocation (access to specialist services) is more important than green space according to the experts. A stand alone green field site would not be the best outcome.

If theres no problem with access to the mater site, then theres no problem with with not being co located.

. Also colocation assumes theres common areas of expertise and that the mater doesn't send people out to other hospitals, (for example beaumount) already. I think that neither was the case when I looked at experts comments on it previously.

That said I read so many contradictory expert opinions, that I dunno what to believe anymore, I'm too jaded to read it all again. I'm a regular visitor to these hosptials and I hate the location. I think some people look at it as city hospital not a national one.

Tragedy · 23-02-2012 4:26pm

jd wrote: »

Colocation (access to specialist services) is more important than green space according to the experts. A stand alone green field site would not be the best outcome.

What specialist services will the Mater offer that the three children's hospitals don't have already?

Winters · 23-02-2012 4:31pm

Location isn't the problem, its the lazy design or more importantly over-design. You have to wonder why they decided to plonk a cruise ship on the roof.

Correct and brave decision by ABP.

robd · 23-02-2012 4:38pm

It's always an amazing co-incidence when consultant reports tell you exactly what you want them to tell you.

The decision by An Bord Pleanala is a major win for common sense. The decision to built there was a travesty of planning, as seems way to normal in this country.

Anyone with basic knowledge of commuter patterns and traffic congestion within Dublin city can see that.

If you're going to build a central hospital of the size intended for access by the whole country it needs:

Co-location
Commuter Access
Car Access

All of these need to be in place ahead of opening, not some promise to build them (as was the case with Metro North).

Tallaght hospital should be able to meet those needs provided extra car parking is built and surrounding roads are upgraded. Proper planning would stipulate this in advance. Plenty of low rise low quality warehousing adjacent to hospital which could be purchased for extending the campus. The Luas is already outside.

New Children's Hospital at Mater site

Comments