Government's Transport 21 plans facing major shake-up

paulm17781 · 09-03-2008 2:25pm #1

breakingnews.ie wrote:

The Government's Transport 21 strategy is in for a major shake-up.

Amid fears of crippling congestion in the capital for the next five years, plans to join the two Luas lines are being postponed.

A number of projects were expected to be under construction together, including the Metro from the City Centre to the Airport and new and extended Luas lines.

Dublin City Council is now looking to produce massive changes to existing traffic plans.

The Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey has hinted at possible restrictions on the number of cars allowed into the city centre during construction.

I'm not certain what the 'major shake up' is. Are they saying they're going to accelerate the projects or put some off as they'll cause traffic disruption?

AlekSmart · 09-03-2008 2:39pm

I rather suspect it`s the initial "soft" announcement of the decision (Taken long ago) NOT to proceed with the Luas link up.

As Minister Dempsey alluded to on the Bus Atha Cliath issue the situation has altered and rapidly at that.
The T21 provisions which have not been copper fastened are dead in the water.

We will now see a regular stream of weekend announcements concerning delays,suspensions or cancellations of NDP(Yes)/T21 projects throughout the land as the Emperor is finally seen to be without any clothing.

If one takes a peep at another article on the Sunday Indo`s front page today one can see an example of the "altered situation" as the first large scale numbers of foreign "gastarbeiter" begin to turn up at the voluntary shelters dotted throughout Dublin and the other large towns.

The capacity for this situation to escalate and run out of control is enormous and frankly has been well flagged by those who could be conveniently dismissed as Right Wing Bigots by the well heeled articulate governing class.

Noel Dempsey has at least been honest in his appraisal of the Bus situation and recognises that part of the solution lies in Maximizing the effeciency and deployment of EXISTING resources before spending vast wodges of (non-existant) cash on mighty temples to the grand designers.

Reality is coming fast to a line near YOU :eek: :eek: :eek:

Idbatterim · 09-03-2008 3:28pm

the decion not to proceed with the link up in the immediate future is correct, the affect on the citys traffic would be unbelievable. the two lines will already be linked with the metro.

bk · 09-03-2008 4:28pm

I don't mind the Luas line link up being delayed/suspended as long as the Metro and Dart Underground go ahead ASAP.

The Luas link up pretty much follows the route of the Metro anyway, so it makes sense that it shoul be a lot lower priority then Metro. Only when they are ready to extend the Luas out to the Finglas direction, will the link up be worth carrying out.

murphaph · 09-03-2008 4:29pm

One presumes then that the "Lucan Luas" may also be for the chop, or at most will make its way from Lucan to the red line at the Black Horse in Inchicore. No big loss at this time IMO. I've never believed the Lucan Luas was a good idea ahead of other areas. Lucan will afterall have close enough proximity to the Maynooth and Hazelhatch DART lines to take advantage of them. A QBC all along the N4 to Heuston could easily whisk passengers there where they could change for DART to the south inner city or stay on board for the north inner city.

We could get so much more out of our bus fleet if the ground infrastructure and political will was there.

trellheim · 09-03-2008 6:11pm

Yee Ha at least someone saw sense. [ or no money was in the kitty, ]

Bill McH · 09-03-2008 7:29pm

It shouldn't be forgotten, of course, that the reason the government are particularly keen not to proceed with the link-up, is that it might revive old routes for the interconnector or raise the potential for new ones.

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how ripping up St. Stephen's Green is going to sit with the environmental lobby, especially as it's probably going to take 25-50 years to restore it to its current glory after the interconnector is built.

Building it through College Green or thereabouts has always been the obvious option. The area is to be pedestrianised in the future, so disruption during construction should not have long lasting effects.

And there's one important thing to remember. If the link-up were to be built, it's certain that a stop near College Green would be busier than a stop at St. Stephen's Green. In other words, more people want to go there.

So bring them there.

The problem is that it would now be a major embarrassment for the government to admit that it got it so monumentally wrong - chasing after a LUAS line which was cut short by some fool of a minister, rather than looking at the best public transport options for the city.

Nostradamus · 09-03-2008 7:54pm

One must bear in mind that the SB Post is generally a joke when it comes to the majority of their public transport reporting and should be taken with massive pinch of salt. They have an almost comical pro-CIE bias at times, and many of their public transport stories often read as if the print copy was sent over to Amiens Street for the final editorial swing before they go to the printers.

All them "Aren't We Just Fecking Amazing!" supplements CIE have taken out in the Post over the years has worked wonders.

They also ran the most pathetic story in the history of world journalism relating to public transport on the eve of the opening Luas Green Line which might of been considered classic "bloke down the pub told me" stuff, except it was even less credible and million times more moronic.

SB Post is a rag that thinks it's a broadsheet.

Bill McH · 10-03-2008 12:52pm

What's needed on this thread is an assessment of the situation from Transport21 Fan. Unfortunately, he seems to be keeping rather a low profile recently.:D

Skyhater · 10-03-2008 1:04pm

bk wrote: »

I don't mind the Luas line link up being delayed/suspended as long as the Metro and Dart Underground go ahead ASAP.

The Luas link up pretty much follows the route of the Metro anyway, so it makes sense that it shoul be a lot lower priority then Metro. Only when they are ready to extend the Luas out to the Finglas direction, will the link up be worth carrying out.

Totally Agree!!!!

alias no.9 · 11-03-2008 4:01pm

murphaph wrote: »

One presumes then that the "Lucan Luas" may also be for the chop, or at most will make its way from Lucan to the red line at the Black Horse in Inchicore. No big loss at this time IMO. I've never believed the Lucan Luas was a good idea ahead of other areas. Lucan will afterall have close enough proximity to the Maynooth and Hazelhatch DART lines to take advantage of them. A QBC all along the N4 to Heuston could easily whisk passengers there where they could change for DART to the south inner city or stay on board for the north inner city.

We could get so much more out of our bus fleet if the ground infrastructure and political will was there.

A QBC along the N4 you say? THere's been a QBC along the N4 for donkeys years with the exception of the short section from island bridge to heuston which is a more recent feature.
The public transport defecit in lucan is in 'south lucan', previously known as 'lucan, dublin 22' during the short period of time between when the houses were built on fields in clondalkin and when Liam Lawlor managed to get the postal boundaries changed. Public transport in south lucan ammounts to the horrendus 25a which can take a hell of a long time to get anywhere near the QBC on the N4. Maybe a luas isn't necessary, but a radically revised bus service definitely is.

spacetweek · 13-03-2008 12:56am

alias no.9 wrote: »

A QBC along the N4 you say? THere's been a QBC along the N4 for donkeys years with the exception of the short section from island bridge to heuston which is a more recent feature.
The public transport defecit in lucan is in 'south lucan', previously known as 'lucan, dublin 22' during the short period of time between when the houses were built on fields in clondalkin and when Liam Lawlor managed to get the postal boundaries changed. Public transport in south lucan ammounts to the horrendus 25a which can take a hell of a long time to get anywhere near the QBC on the N4. Maybe a luas isn't necessary, but a radically revised bus service definitely is.

The existing QBC on the N4 was never integrated into bus routes for Lucan and doesn't count. A new, improved QBC is currently under construction as part of the Lucan N4 Upgrade. This will provide a rapid frequent bus service by 2009.

Red Alert · 13-03-2008 9:57am

The LUAS link up is important, metro or no metro, as it will improve efficiencies in tram dispatch and servicing which can be consolidated at one depot. We have just got to do this and stop listening to big businesses like BT's who will be inconvenienced by the disruption during construction.

KC61 · 13-03-2008 12:55pm

Red Alert wrote: »

The LUAS link up is important, metro or no metro, as it will improve efficiencies in tram dispatch and servicing which can be consolidated at one depot. We have just got to do this and stop listening to big businesses like BT's who will be inconvenienced by the disruption during construction.

I'm not sure that you have followed the plans correctly.

I am not aware of any plan to physically join the two routes. The green line is to be extended to O'Connell Street, crossing the red line and terminating at Sean McDermott Street, returning via Marlborough Street and a new bridge over the Liffey.

The real issue is nothing to do with the businesses. It is the impact on the bus network, most of which will be seriously disrupted in the city centre.

At the end of the day, if you can buy a through ticket from, say Dundrum, to O'Connell Street Metro stop, then I do not see any point whatsoever in causing massive disruption in the city centre when the Metro will travel exactly the same route. It makes no sense at all.

In Barcelona, one of the tram lines terminates at a Metro stop rather than continuing into the city centre. Passengers transfer from one to the other without any problem, so why can the same not apply here?

L1011 · 13-03-2008 1:03pm

spacetweek wrote: »

The existing QBC on the N4 was never integrated into bus routes for Lucan and doesn't count. A new, improved QBC is currently under construction as part of the Lucan N4 Upgrade. This will provide a rapid frequent bus service by 2009.

The existing QBC is a constant buslane, except for a few junctions (Kylemore Road and Esker outbound, etc). The new, improved QBC will be a constant buslane.

How does that magically change the bus routing, etc? The routing changes could have been done on the existing QBC.

KC61 · 13-03-2008 2:11pm

MYOB wrote: »

The existing QBC is a constant buslane, except for a few junctions (Kylemore Road and Esker outbound, etc). The new, improved QBC will be a constant buslane.

How does that magically change the bus routing, etc? The routing changes could have been done on the existing QBC.

I think that Spacetweek means is that the various pinchpoints where the buses get snarled up in traffic will be removed.

However, this will not help the problem that no additional (or larger) buses can be added onto any routes along the Lucan QBC by Dublin Bus due to the current EU investigation into subsidies instigated at the behest of the private bus operators.

jdivision · 13-03-2008 2:54pm

It's based on lead story in Sunday Business Post last week
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=31133-qqqx=1.asp

L1011 · 13-03-2008 3:37pm

KC61 wrote: »

I think that Spacetweek means is that the various pinchpoints where the buses get snarled up in traffic will be removed.

Along the section thats being tripled, there is:

1: Ballydowd Interchange
2: Esker turnoff

That I can think of as actual 'pinchpoints' where the buses have to join/leave the main traffic flow when using the QBC. I don't see how the former is being changed at all, the latter should be sorted though.

Kylemore Road is one of the worst ones but is inside the M50 ring so not being touched at the moment.

Metrobest · 13-03-2008 11:42pm

KC61 wrote: »

I'm not sure that you have followed the plans correctly.

I am not aware of any plan to physically join the two routes. The green line is to be extended to O'Connell Street, crossing the red line and terminating at Sean McDermott Street, returning via Marlborough Street and a new bridge over the Liffey.

The real issue is nothing to do with the businesses. It is the impact on the bus network, most of which will be seriously disrupted in the city centre.

At the end of the day, if you can buy a through ticket from, say Dundrum, to O'Connell Street Metro stop, then I do not see any point whatsoever in causing massive disruption in the city centre when the Metro will travel exactly the same route. It makes no sense at all.

In Barcelona, one of the tram lines terminates at a Metro stop rather than continuing into the city centre. Passengers transfer from one to the other without any problem, so why can the same not apply here?

Actually, both of the tram lines terminate at different ends of the Diagonal Avenue, yet do not connect in the most central part. IT IS HIGHLY INCONVENIENT because to get from one line to the other requires a very circuitous change of I think 2 metro lines, so there are a lot of problems similar to Dublin.

Also similar arguments that running the tram down the central part of Diagonal would cause massive disruption, etc.

Tired arguments. We need to link the tram lines together. In Dub and BCN

KC61 · 13-03-2008 11:58pm

Metrobest wrote: »

Actually, both of the tram lines terminate at different ends of the Diagonal Avenue, yet do not connect in the most central part. IT IS HIGHLY INCONVENIENT because to get from one line to the other requires a very circuitous change of I think 2 metro lines, so there are a lot of problems similar to Dublin.

Also similar arguments that running the tram down the central part of Diagonal would cause massive disruption, etc.

Tired arguments. We need to link the tram lines together. In Dub and BCN

Why?

I really do not believe that there are that many people that need to travel from green to red lines? There would be far more disrupted by its construction on the vast number of buses through Dublin city centre. With a direct metro connection at St. Stephen's Green and O'Connell Street, would that make life THAT difficult? Is it really worth causing massive disruption to far more people to build something that by and large is duplicated by the metro?

Re BCN, I have to say that I had no problems switching around from tram to metro and the heavy rail - an excellent system in my experience. And do that many people wish to use both tram lines? I don't readily agree.

John_C · 14-03-2008 1:30am

Someone going from the Sandyford Luas to Heuston or beyond to Tallaght would get the DART at St. Stephen's Green, not the Luas. The link up would be to serve people going to differnet parts of the City Centre and I don't think demand for that is high enoug to justify both a Luas and a Metro between the two stops.

spacetweek · 14-03-2008 7:26pm

Originally Posted by breakingnews.ie
The Government's Transport 21 strategy is in for a major shake-up.

Amid fears of crippling congestion in the capital for the next five years, plans to join the two Luas lines are being postponed.

A number of projects were expected to be under construction together, including the Metro from the City Centre to the Airport and new and extended Luas lines.

Dublin City Council is now looking to produce massive changes to existing traffic plans.

The Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey has hinted at possible restrictions on the number of cars allowed into the city centre during construction.

Getting a lot of hysteria on here guys. The article is simply referring to the fact that the Luas BX was originally supposed to start this year (2008) but is now postponed until the start of Metro North (2009). That's it. The rest is bumped-up, speculative nonsense.

Cancelling BX isn't an option, as that would make D impossible (imagine the farce if we built D without BX, and had three Luas lines in the city centre which didn't connect).

We need BX, and we need Metro.

MYOB wrote: »

Along the section thats being tripled, there is:

1: Ballydowd Interchange
2: Esker turnoff

That I can think of as actual 'pinchpoints' where the buses have to join/leave the main traffic flow when using the QBC. I don't see how the former is being changed at all, the latter should be sorted though.

I'll expand on my earlier comment about the existing N4 QBC. There are a few pinchpoints, but the main drawback was poor access to bus stops - there were no shelters, no paths leading to them, and they weren't located near convenient access points. The new QBC will locate the full size bus stops on the offramps where they can be accessed from the major north-south axes: Leixlip Interchange, Newcastle Road, Woodies, Fonthill Road. By having the bus take the exit each time and then immediately rejoin, it never needs to deal with weaving traffic on the mainline.

trellheim · 14-03-2008 8:01pm

Cancelling BX isn't an option, as that would make D impossible (imagine the farce if we built D without BX, and had three Luas lines in the city centre which didn't connect).

Have you been following the DB/RPA/DCC handbagging at all ?

BX will happen if DB get shafted by RPA , DOT are standing at the sidelines going " Will no-one think of the children ? "

a lot of this has gone underground [ pardon the pun ] in recent times to avoid dirty linen washing

Propellerhead · 18-03-2008 7:39pm

spacetweek wrote: »

Getting a lot of hysteria on here guys. The article is simply referring to the fact that the Luas BX was originally supposed to start this year (2008) but is now postponed until the start of Metro North (2009). That's it. The rest is bumped-up, speculative nonsense.

Cancelling BX isn't an option, as that would make D impossible (imagine the farce if we built D without BX, and had three Luas lines in the city centre which didn't connect).

We need BX, and we need Metro.

It would make a lot of teenage economists happy here if we had either the absurdity of Line D adrift somewhere south of Broadstone or worse not existing at all.

Cast your mind back to all the idiocy surrounding the cancellation of the original Luas project in 1998, where all those opposed to the on street section between the Green and Abbey Street were absolutely adamant that the underground link between the two bits was part of "phase 1".

loyatemu · 19-03-2008 10:27am

I wonder what would be the relative cost of upgrading the green line to metro (metro is just a longer Luas anyway) and then linking them by extending the tunnel to ranelagh? This was the plan in DTOs "Platform for Change" proposal (I think).

It would be very expensive but would more or less eliminate the need for Luas BX and D

paulm17781 · 19-03-2008 3:12pm

loyatemu wrote: »

I wonder what would be the relative cost of upgrading the green line to metro (metro is just a longer Luas anyway) and then linking them by extending the tunnel to ranelagh? This was the plan in DTOs "Platform for Change" proposal (I think).

It would be very expensive but would more or less eliminate the need for Luas BX and D

The Luas extension to Cherrywood is not suitable for metro. Line B being upgraded is never going to happen.

It is another example of badly implemented and insufficient planning of our public transport. To upgrade it now, the Line B extension would have to be restarted and possibly re-planned.

trellheim · 19-03-2008 3:42pm

Awesome.

So. The original Green Line was built to Metro Spec, but the bits at either end aren't.

Hurray for our expensive tramline !

spacetweek · 21-03-2008 2:25am

loyatemu wrote: »

I wonder what would be the relative cost of upgrading the green line to metro (metro is just a longer Luas anyway) and then linking them by extending the tunnel to ranelagh? This was the plan in DTOs "Platform for Change" proposal (I think).

It would be very expensive but would more or less eliminate the need for Luas BX and D

No, it would not eliminate that. Luas BX is essential for getting around the city centre in accessible, short hops and D is for opening up the north west of the city. The Metro will not greatly aid people in getting around the city centre (nor is that its purpose) and is designed to serve different parts of the city from Luas D.

paulm17781 wrote: »

The Luas extension to Cherrywood is not suitable for metro. Line B being upgraded is never going to happen.

It is another example of badly implemented and insufficient planning of our public transport. To upgrade it now, the Line B extension would have to be restarted and possibly re-planned.

Absolute rubbish. An upgraded B1 (Sandyford-Cherrywood) would not be completely grade-separated, but it doesn't need to be. For example, in Porto, Portugal, they have an at-grade Metro. This standard is reasonable in a low density city where train frequencies won't ever need to be super high.

In any case, nearly all the level crossings on B1 will be the entrances to housing estates at Ballyogan. These aren't through routes and will have little traffic.

paulm17781 · 21-03-2008 3:02am

spacetweek wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. An upgraded B1 (Sandyford-Cherrywood) would not be completely grade-separated, but it doesn't need to be. For example, in Porto, Portugal, they have an at-grade Metro. This standard is reasonable in a low density city where train frequencies won't ever need to be super high.

It's the curves my friend. It won't fit the trains. That and the crossings.

spacetweek · 23-03-2008 11:54pm

paulm17781 wrote: »

It's the curves my friend. It won't fit the trains. That and the crossings.

Not being smart but can you explain please? What is stopping Metro trains taking those curves?

Bards · 07-04-2008 9:46am

New T21 website launched this morning, but still showing the New Suir Bridge in Waterford under construction on the N52 Tullamore bypass page - Muppets

dodgyme · 07-04-2008 9:54am

Bards wrote: »

New T21 website launched this morning, but still showing the New Suir Bridge in Waterford under construction on the N52 Tullamore bypass page - Muppets

they are such muppets that it probably is

Chris_533976 · 07-04-2008 11:07am

Tullamore - Lads this is an awfully big bridge for a small ditch
Waterford - Lads theres something big missing here

Zoney · 07-04-2008 11:27am

spacetweek wrote: »

Not being smart but can you explain please? What is stopping Metro trains taking those curves?

Well, nothing at all if the Metro trains do indeed just turn out to be more Luas carriages that happen to run underground for parts of the route.

If they are more than mere trams (as Luas is, it's at the lower end even of the "light rail" scale), they'll be too long and wide to handle the curves and clearances on the existing Luas lines.

L1011 · 07-04-2008 1:08pm

Bards wrote: »

New T21 website launched this morning, but still showing the New Suir Bridge in Waterford under construction on the N52 Tullamore bypass page - Muppets

Making it worse is the amount of broken links on the front page though!

rekrow · 07-04-2008 8:08pm

Maybe now that there is a new Taoiseach elect the Suir bridge is going to be relocated to canal at tullamore!

DWCommuter · 07-04-2008 10:32pm

And don't forget that T21 now has a new TV ad!! The propaganda gets better, while the projects are still badly thought out and even delayed in places.

T21 = big black hole into which billions of tax payers money will be thrown with little benefit.

Here's a test. Take it for granted that all Dublin projects are built/implemented and then a ban on cars entering the city or a congestion charge is introduced. Will there be total and absolute chaos? (I know my answer.)

Skyhater · 07-04-2008 11:05pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

....Here's a test. Take it for granted that all Dublin projects are built/implemented and then a ban on cars entering the city or a congestion charge is introduced. Will there be total and absolute chaos? (I know my answer.)

Is the answer "yes"?, Do i win the prize??

Maybe they could give us a Double Decker Luas system

(Note to the RPA...this is a joke)

DWCommuter · 07-04-2008 11:07pm

Skyhater wrote: »

Is the answer "yes"?, Do i win the prize??

Maybe they could give us a Double Decker Luas system
(Note to the RPA...this is a joke)

Your prize is in the post.:D

rekrow · 07-04-2008 11:10pm

Still can't figure out why they have those T21 ads. Especially for the trains, what other choice have you for rail travel. IE had an open day in Galway recently to see the new trains they'll be bringing on line for the Galway route soon. A pure waste of time, most rail users on the line would see them as the walked past the platform for the Cork train in Heuston for the last year! Also why do they waste money on those massive signs 30 ft at least stating that something is being delivered as part of T21? I didn't think it was being funded by outer mongolians. It was one thing when the roads were being funded by the EEC/EC/EU, but carrying on now for internal propaganda is such a waste.

I personally can't see a ban on cars in Dublin for at least 3-4 years. Too much of a political hot potato, and the next election will be won in the commuter belt. Not to metion local elections next year.

Propellerhead · 08-04-2008 12:41pm

Those new posters advertising Transport21 with smiley kids convey an interesting message.

T21 won't be finished until they are grown ups commuting themselves, either that or they are the future workforce waiting to be grown up enough to construct the projects :cool:

spacetweek · 09-04-2008 12:14am

Must be silly season; just read the last few days' posts and everyone is shooting their mouths off.

What makes everyone think T21 won't be delivered? Not delivering on transport is now politically untenable.

The government has said they'll borrow to finance it if money runs low - In the 80s the gov got burned when they borrowed irresponsibly but that was 20 odd years ago now - and it's perfectly obvious that the issue isn't money anyway; it's an organisational problem. Projects are proceeding slowly due to our legal system and lengthly due process, not financing. The NRA have upped their game in the last few years and are now delivering ahead of schedule (allowing for the 2006/2010 slippage). The RPA/IE can achieve the same given the chance.

rekrow wrote: »

I personally can't see a ban on cars in Dublin for at least 3-4 years. Too much of a political hot potato, and the next election will be won in the commuter belt. Not to metion local elections next year.

What? What makes you say that. A congestion charge/ban on cars can't be implemented until T21 is complete. There's no question of doing it in the next 3-4 years, nor was there ever.

rekrow · 10-04-2008 1:22pm

Well Spacetweek I was "shooting my mouth off" in response to a question posed by DWCommuter about whether there would be chaos if there was a congestion was brought in. The point I was making is that something like a congestion charge would be a political hot potato, like rates and bin charges. The other point I was making was what is the point behind erecting huge signs for t21 projects. Waste of time and money as far as I am concerned. Wondering if there was a reason behind them.

Regarding your post, why do you say congestion charge "can't" be brought in until t21 is delivered? Do you mean won't? Regarding delivery of projects on time. There doesn't seem to be any clear calculation as to the time frames for projects. A couple of examples if I may.

1. The Ennis bypass. The ennis bypass was "opened" by the minister for transport on the 26th of January, yet the N85 portion wasn't completed until 20 Dec 2007. Also the junctions along the N18 were not open til late in the summer maybe even autumn.

Quote from the official project website states that "The Project involves the design and construction of approximately 14km of new national primary route to form a bypass to the east of the town of Ennis together with the 7km N85 Western Relief Road to the west and south of Ennis."

While it is good that projects can be delivered on a phased basis, the end date for the completion of works for this project exceeded the target date of April 2007. It is very easy to deliver a project ahead of schedule when you only complete 80% of it.

2. Same thing happened with the N6 between Kinnegad and Kilbeggan. MoT down opening the road going on about how it was delivered ahead of schedule when half the road wasn't finished.

We all know there are legal, planning and environmental difficulties, these are clearly identified and now are being factored into projects. There is no need for a big clap on the back session every time there a project delivered on time and on budget. As far as I'm concerned that's just doing the job. It is still going on. If you look at the road from Oranmore to Ballinasloe, the contractors newsletter states a target completion date of 4th of Jan 2010. What does the NRA site say? Q2 2010. That's anything from 3 to 6 months of a difference depending on which side of the glass half full/half empty debate you take. Or in percentage terms 9 to 18% on a 33 month project.

I realise that roads don't magically appear overnight. I realise that there is significant investment in infrastucture. My understanding is this thread is about discussing the changes to the delivery of T21. The MoT, DoT, NRA, RPA and other agencies are being paid by my income tax, vrt, road tax and taxes on tolls. The whole launch of T21 was we've made mistakes in the past and we know how to plan and implement now. Suddenly it seems that they didn't factor in the impact of running several disruptive projects in parallel. Pretty big mistake I think. Might be better to stick to opinions on the topic rather than opinions of what others are posting that aren't exactly constructive. I'm finished "mouthing off" now.

Zoney · 10-04-2008 1:46pm

Wasn't there some project on the N21 where they put up a sign saying how it was finished ahead of time etc? Someone spray-painted "well done lads" on it. Sums it up nicely.

A pity that not only are they continuing with the large signs for projects like there were for EU projects, then NDP, but now the Transport 21 ones etc. often have multiple signs for the govt. to pat themselves on the back.

Sections of the public and media are guilty too - with either a curious case of amnesia or ambivalence about say the interurbans being finished by 2010 (possibly) rather than 2006 as planned.

Government's Transport 21 plans facing major shake-up

Comments