O'Malley urges Government to pay M50 toll for trial period

Navan Junction

Michael O'Regan, Parliamentary Reporter
02/08/2006


Progressive Democrats TD Fiona O'Malley has urged the Government to cover the cost of the M50 toll bridge for a week to find out if tolling queues were causing gridlock.


Ms O'Malley, who represents Dún Laoghaire, said radical solutions must be sought to the predicament faced by many thousands of motorists caught daily in traffic backlogs on the motorway. "We all blame the toll for delays. If - and I stress if - the Government is contemplating buying out the West-Link toll plaza at an estimated cost of around €1 billion, it would be a good idea to try buying it out for a week. This experiment would facilitate a wise and informed decision by Government."

Ms O'Malley said there had to be a solution to the apparently ever-increasing traffic jams.

"National Toll Roads has consistently claimed that the M50 toll is not to blame. Others have disagreed.

"If the Government was to cover the costs for seven days, we would know once and for all if this is the case.

"It is galling to think that the cause of the congestion is queuing-up to pay the toll. If this is the reason it certainly needs to be eliminated."

Ms O'Malley said her suggestion was "a practical, value-for-money way" of finding out what was happening.


© The Irish Times

road_high

Funny how they start doing and saying things in the build-up to an election..
They've had 10 years to sort this out and they didn't take their chence.

HelterSkelter

Hmmm, if the M50 is free for a week everyone will be using it, the queues will be worse and it will make it looks as if NTR were correct in saying that the toll bridge is not causing the queues.

spockety

Plus, whatever about the toll itself causing delays, even if they lift the barriers for a week, you're not going to be able to whizz through at 120. The only sure way for the experiment to work is to dismantle the toll plaza altogether, so you don't have to slow down to get through it.

1huge1

mfitzy wrote:

Funny how they start doing and saying things in the build-up to an election..
They've had 10 years to sort this out and they didn't take their chence.

ya i couldnt agree more
only now as the election is nearing are my complaints of trying to get broadband in my area being heard, yes i know this is not the place for politics but to be fair i think ff have done a good job

i would say traffic jams would decrease like 30% in that week, ive only ever used the M50 a handful of times so thats only a guess,

Navan Junction

1huge1 wrote:

to be fair i think ff have done a good job

:eek:

Diaspora

It is a lot more sensible than paying €1bn for a right to collect €60m that expires in 14 years is nuts given that the contract limits price increases to inflation.

The fact that the government have enriched both themselves and a private company by exceeding this limit is indicative of the 4 years after election mode. Do not be fooled backbench PDs are great at contradicting government policy and Tom Morrisey should get a pulitzer for this.

westtip

Navan Junction wrote:

Michael O'Regan, Parliamentary Reporter
02/08/2006


Progressive Democrats TD Fiona O'Malley has urged the Government to cover the cost of the M50 toll bridge for a week to find out if tolling queues were causing gridlock.


© The Irish Times

Oh right on Ms O'Malley, why - so she can save her ass at the next election. Please pass me the sick bucket Ms O'Malley. Her mouth shut would be better employed than treating us all with this kind of self righteous contempt - like has she contributed to this whole M50 debate up until now or is she just so dim not to realise that people will see straight through this pre-election stunt. Clearly from the headlines in the Sindo this weekend, the FF researchers have thrown up an alarm bell about the ten things about Dublin that P**s people off most. Number one on the list, the Toll bridge and the corrupt contract that underpins the whole arrangement. Lets keep off the toll bridge debate, think we are all tired of this one.

Schuhart

westtip wrote:

or is she just so dim not to realise that people will see straight through this pre-election stunt.

I'd go with her being too dim, much like her party leader seemed to think the health services could be reformed by pontificating and grandstanding.

darkman2

I dont know about anyone else but I dont care if its an election stunt: If Bertie gets rid of the toll bridge he has my vote:D

BrianD

I would like to hear Ms. O'Malley call for the removal of the physical barriers and the introduction of e-tolls the entire length of the M50. Those who travel the entire length of the M50 i.e. bypass the city would be treated more favourably.

Charles Darwin

1huge1 wrote:

i think ff have done a good job

An invite to our tent at Galway for you, sir!

Diaspora

There definitely are votes in sorting the westlink plague which not only results in tolls but also costs millions of hours to voters a week.

PD policy is to give a weeks respite and then return to the status quo the week will presumably be the first week of June 2007. A latin american tactic

FF policy is to continue their Pee Flynn contract within the spirit it was entered into and give €1bn of taxpayers money for an asset that is worth €50m a year for 14 years linked to inflation i.e. an investment value of 1-1.05^-14/.05 or about €120,404,375 when operating costs are accounted for.

Smart policy is to CPO the bridge at current use value as part of the upgrade works as it is clear that the €800m upgrade will not be effective with the Westlink in place. But it would not be equitable to the National taxbase to pay €1bn to get the Dublin commuter out of a mess created by Pee Flynn and George Redmond.

westtip

BrianD wrote:

I would like to hear Ms. O'Malley call for the removal of the physical barriers and the introduction of e-tolls the entire length of the M50. Those who travel the entire length of the M50 i.e. bypass the city would be treated more favourably.

Those who travel the entire lenght of the M50 are already tolled??? err think about it

westtip

darkman2 wrote:

I dont know about anyone else but I dont care if its an election stunt: If Bertie gets rid of the toll bridge he has my vote:D

He will be spending your money to do it mate. Let's not forget that when governments say "we will spend this to do that - EG We will pay a billion to get rid of a corrupt contract and monstrosity we put in place"

What they actually should be saying is "You will spend a billion of your money to get you out of the S**t we created for you."

Looking at this way do they still get your vote?? ~don't ever lose sight of the fact - its your money they are spending, most of the time politicians (of all creeds and colours) talk about spending public money as if they were drawing down from their own personal account. They are in a priveliged position to spend money on our behalves, and we are in the priveliged position to scrutinise the way they do it and to remove them if we think they are doing or have done a bad or wasteful job.

So now ask yourself have they been wasteful? Is the M50 toll bridge a great success story of PPP to be held up as a text book example of how to manage such a situation? Does buying back the contract at huge cost to the taxpayer (ie you and me mate) get them off the hook as the good guys Or should they buy back the contract stand up on the hustings and say we got it wrong, we made huge errors of judgement, we bought it back because we saw it as the only option to get rid of the huge problem we had created and continued to uphold (remember who gave NTR a contract extension) - We are sorry - Now please judge us on the way we managed the whole affair.

Now - where is the vote going??

layke

I would have thought after the e-voting machine fiasco and the port tunnell people would have copped on and would be voting these these cowboys out of office.

They have proven to me they cannot manage a country so don't defend.

BrianD

westtip wrote:

Those who travel the entire lenght of the M50 are already tolled??? err think about it

What I mean is that traffic that uses it as a 'Dublin Bypass' would be treated more favourably in terms of toll pricing than those who use it as a rat run coming on at one exit and leaving at the next.

Drax

BrianD wrote:

...than those who use it as a rat run coming on at one exit and leaving at the next.

The M50 is supposedly an 'orbital' motorway, how can you describe it as a rat-run? Thats its job. To take traffic away from the city centre. Well in theory it is. People are well entitled to come off one exit and onto another. I wonder what percentage of traffic volumes actually drive the entire length of M50?

Anyway, I agree with westtip. Those f*ckers in government, had their chance to end the contract and what happened - an extension was given. Probably some brown envelopes passed around... These bástards probably dont have the faintest idea of what it is like day in and day out to sit in that traffic and feel the blood boiling in your veins. If they travel the M50, they get a garda escort which more or less shoves everyone out of their way. Its all an election stunt. I love the way it was reported that "Bertie has personally taken control of the toll bridge buyout". Sure he has.

Sarky Aside: A few weeks ago I came up to the toll bridge. I waved my easy-pass tag at the barrier but it refused to go up. I then went up to the camera scanner thing and waved it some more. As expected, car drivers started getting annoyed and honking. Some woman in a hi-viz vest came over and started trying to lift the barrier for me but the look she gave me... as if to say you bástard, look at you holding up the traffic. Well its not my fault your damn easy-crap doesnt work. Oh dear your revenue will be down 1.80.
F*ckers.

[The whole M50 topic really gets my goat] :mad:

sliabh

Drax wrote:

The M50 is supposedly an 'orbital' motorway, how can you describe it as a rat-run? Thats its job. To take traffic away from the city centre.

It's job is to allow traffic to avoid the city centre by going around the city - which it is why it is orbital and not radial. The central and northern parts of the M50 have been undermined by having too many on/off ramps so people use it for short distance trips (hence rat-run). This generates a lot of extra traffic for the road. The better designed and implemented southern section has fewer on/off ramps and so it is closer to the original purpose and has lower traffic volumes.

Drax wrote:

Those f*ckers in government, had their chance to end the contract and what happened - an extension was given. Probably some brown envelopes passed around...

The contract generates hundreds of millions in revenue for the state. Far more of the toll money goes to the government than to NTR. This cash was to be used to pay for the M50 upgrade. Instead this source of income is to be given away, and another few hundred million with it.

Diaspora

sliabh wrote:

The contract generates hundreds of millions in revenue for the state. Far more of the toll money goes to the government than to NTR. This cash was to be used to pay for the M50 upgrade. Instead this source of income is to be given away, and another few hundred million with it.

The operational revenue generated is €8.9m p.a. assuming a usage of 70,000 vehicles per day with 35c per vehicle payable to the government i.e 100 years income would not cover the M50 upgrade if construction inflation is deducted from CPI inflation which limits the increases under the contract.

Zynks

darkman2 wrote:

I don't know about anyone else but I don't care if its an election stunt: If Bertie gets rid of the toll bridge he has my vote:D

and so continue to survive the populist, inefficient and corrupt governments....

Why not look at it in another way: It has been widely agreed for a long time that the toll must go, and if it is finally done, it is several years too late, showing the current government doesn't give a f@#k about the people, just about their votes.

I want a government that cares about the quality of life of people, providing decent infrastructure, education and health services.

FF has completely failed on the three accounts in spite of record levels of tax income.

If they couldn't put their act together with so much money, what hope do we have now that the economy is likely to settle down to more European-like growth rates?

sliabh

Diaspora wrote:

The operational revenue generated is €8.9m p.a. assuming a usage of 70,000 vehicles per day with 35c per vehicle payable to the government i.e 100 years income would not cover the M50 upgrade if construction inflation is deducted from CPI inflation which limits the increases under the contract.

The last estimate I saw url]http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0809/2248677970HM1TOLLBRIDGE.html[/url was that NTR, Fingal County Council and the Government were to share €936m over the next 15 years. That is an average of over €60m per year.

Diaspora

I am not having a go at you it is merely the figures that look extremely suspect.

We know that c70,000 vehicles use the bridge a day or 25,550,000 vehicle movements a year. For the state and local authorities to take in €60m a year they would have to receive an average of €2.35 per vehicle which exceeds the total toll payable by the majority of users.

road_high

Zynks wrote:

and so continue to survive the populist, inefficient and corrupt governments....

Why not look at it in another way: It has been widely agreed for a long time that the toll must go, and if it is finally done, it is several years too late, showing the current government doesn't give a f@#k about the people, just about their votes.

I want a government that cares about the quality of life of people, providing decent infrastructure, education and health services.

FF has completely failed on the three accounts in spite of record levels of tax income.

If they couldn't put their act together with so much money, what hope do we have now that the economy is likely to settle down to more European-like growth rates?

Well said, my sentiments exactly on this government.They've had ten years to build up our infrastructure but they were too busy trying to stay in power to be bothered doing a proper job on it.
Oh and yes, its YOU and I, the TAXPAYER who will pay again to remove the toll bridge, not Bertie and his clowns.
And if Ms O'Malley gave a toss about the toll bridge and the delays to commuters etc, then why wasn't she 'urging the Governemnt' to pay the toll back in 2002 straight after the last election?
Such rubbish i've never heard..

sliabh

Diaspora wrote:

I am not having a go at you it is merely the figures that look extremely suspect.

No worries there!

A lot of the difference is probably to do with inflation, and future traffic increases/fare increases being factored in. Without seeing the report I can't e sure if they adjusted future income back to 2005 values.

But you also have to take into account larger vehicles paying larger tolls. Looking at NTR's website, they give West Link revenues for 2005 of €62.5m [http://www.ntr.ie/companies/roads/ntr-roads/default.asp ]

darkman2

westtip wrote:

He will be spending your money to do it mate. Let's not forget that when governments say "we will spend this to do that - EG We will pay a billion to get rid of a corrupt contract and monstrosity we put in place"

What they actually should be saying is "You will spend a billion of your money to get you out of the S**t we created for you."

Looking at this way do they still get your vote?? ~don't ever lose sight of the fact - its your money they are spending, most of the time politicians (of all creeds and colours) talk about spending public money as if they were drawing down from their own personal account. They are in a priveliged position to spend money on our behalves, and we are in the priveliged position to scrutinise the way they do it and to remove them if we think they are doing or have done a bad or wasteful job.

So now ask yourself have they been wasteful? Is the M50 toll bridge a great success story of PPP to be held up as a text book example of how to manage such a situation? Does buying back the contract at huge cost to the taxpayer (ie you and me mate) get them off the hook as the good guys Or should they buy back the contract stand up on the hustings and say we got it wrong, we made huge errors of judgement, we bought it back because we saw it as the only option to get rid of the huge problem we had created and continued to uphold (remember who gave NTR a contract extension) - We are sorry - Now please judge us on the way we managed the whole affair.

Now - where is the vote going??

Yes I know all of that very well. Unfortunately though the Greens/FG/Lab coailition is a joke for me. Its not an alternative. They would be even worse then the current lot IMO. How wll they agree on anything. I want to see corruption and wasting of public money sorted out fast but Im not going too put the countries finances at risk (you can do that if you wish by voting for the alternative) by giving my vote to the bunch of miserable whingers on the opposition bench who are equally if not more imcompetent that the current government. TBH I especially dont want the Greens in government.:eek: Thats what would really swing it for me making sure the tree huggers stay out!

road_high

darkman2 wrote:

Yes I know all of that very well. Unfortunately though the Greens/FG/Lab coailition is a joke for me. Its not an alternative. They would be even worse then the current lot IMO. How wll they agree on anything. I want to see corruption and wasting of public money sorted out fast but Im not going too put the countries finances at risk (you can do that if you wish by voting for the alternative) by giving my vote to the bunch of miserable whingers on the opposition bench who are equally if not more imcompetent that the current government. TBH I especially dont want the Greens in government.:eek: Thats what would really swing it for me making sure the tree huggers stay out!

Same here regards to the greens.While they give usefel contributions to energy policy and stuff, I personally wudn't like them in power.
They could wreak havoc on the Roads Programme and throw good money after bad into state dinosaur CIE.
FG and Labour though, I would be in support of- give them a chance, if they are worse than the old shower we can always vote them out at next election.
If theyre a success, vote them back.Simple really.

jkgvfg

The simplest way to keep the greens out is to make sure FG/Labour (or FG on their own even) have enough seats to form the government without them.

The one week no-tolls thing will not work while the roadworks have the speed limit down to 60Kph, while the urn at the turn still rules and while the N4 and N7 exit ramps are already over capacity. It is purely designed to get press coverage for an otherwise quiet politician in a volatile constituency.

Diaspora

darkman2 wrote:

Yes I know all of that very well. Unfortunately though the Greens/FG/Lab coailition is a joke for me. Its not an alternative. They would be even worse then the current lot IMO. How wll they agree on anything. I want to see corruption and wasting of public money sorted out fast but Im not going too put the countries finances at risk (you can do that if you wish by voting for the alternative) by giving my vote to the bunch of miserable whingers on the opposition bench who are equally if not more imcompetent that the current government. TBH I especially dont want the Greens in government.:eek: Thats what would really swing it for me making sure the tree huggers stay out!

That is some tirade

Base line when the Rainbow left office growth was at 8% inflation less than 2% and employment was growing rapidly as well as the national debt shrinking.

Fast forward 9 years and inflation is 4% growth 5% and many projects being taken on that are over-priced and often of questionable merit on a cost benefit analysis.

PPARS E-Voting and now €1bn to buy out a contract with a value of roughly €120m; €880m would buy enough alpaca hats for the entire population to hug trees all the year around. At that price you could have a tree higging kit in your county colours that was hand made

westtip

Judging by what has been said in most posts it is pretty clear the M50 toll bridge - I use the term Cashlink bridge, is one hell of a raw nerve and will be a major election issue in the Dublin/Leinster constituencies. I live in the West and get riled about the whole thing,just thinking about what a disgrace it is. I am amazed those sitting in the queues everyday don't take some more direct action. The statement by O'Malley was such brazen electioneering stunt she should be just laughed at and sent packing on polling day.

There is no point arguing about how the cashlink bridge can pay for the M50 upgrades, because the current operation of the cashlink bridge will just continue to slow the traffic down - now matter how improved the motorway becomes - actually it could be argued the more vehicles you get onto the M50 efficiently with better junctions at Red Cow, the N4 interchange, and three lanes will actually make the situation worse at the Cashlink bridge.

What always amazes me on the Cashlink bridge is how you wait so long to cross the bridge and then traffic usually flows pretty well after it, but NTR continue to insist "its not our fault guvnor". Listen to 57 live every day - AA roadwatch will constantly report "and traffic is tailing back to Blanchardstown from the toll plaza and in the other direction tailbacks from the toll plazas extend as far as Tallaght." Why don't the AA report it as it is and say "The blockage on the motorway caused by the toll plaza is causing severe delays again today" - probably because they have been told to use language which does not tell the truth. AA roadwatch should report on the toll bridge delays as it were a major accident every day - because only a major accident could cause these kind of delays.

The simple truth is - the M50 should be free flow and free to use. It is a critical piece of national infrastructure and the private sector should never have been allowed to get its grubby little hands on it in the form of the Cashlink bridge. It should be built and paid for by the State, and maintained by the State. The State levies many taxes on motoring: VRT, Annual Road Tax, Fuel Excise. The driver is already paying for these roads. If they wanted an extra motorway levy to build an efficient motorway system a second Motorway tax disc could have been introduced in the Swiss style, where you pay a flat fee every year for an extra motorway tax disc, if you get caught on a motroway without it you get hit with a huge fine - and this includes visitors to the country. It is well managed and it works. Before anyone argues - well only those who use the M50 should pay for it or you should pay for how much you use it - it doesn't work as an argument. It is like saying if you walk a lot on the new boardwalk down the Quays in Dublin you should pay more for using it as you are wearing out the floorboards more. We all use the M50 and the Motorway system even if you don't drive a car - simply because we all buy goods from shops everyday which are delivered using the motorway system, improve the supply chain by having good roads/motorways and we will all benefit.

The situation at the Cashlink Toll bridge is intolerable, unacceptable and what is probably the greatest crime, was avoidable and could have been changed five or ten years ago. The fact NTR got a contract extension on the toll bridge has oft been overlooked - but it did happen and now the state is strangled by this contract, extending the NTR contract was probably a greater crime than the original contract. Those responsible for it continuing should be held to account. As for those likely to replace them. They can be judged on what they do in the future. That's my tirade over on this subject.

darkman2

Diaspora wrote:

That is some tirade

Base line when the Rainbow left office growth was at 8% inflation less than 2% and employment was growing rapidly as well as the national debt shrinking.

Fast forward 9 years and inflation is 4% growth 5% and many projects being taken on that are over-priced and often of questionable merit on a cost benefit analysis.

PPARS E-Voting and now €1bn to buy out a contract with a value of roughly €120m; €880m would buy enough alpaca hats for the entire population to hug trees all the year around. At that price you could have a tree higging kit in your county colours that was hand made

They did double the national debt too in fairness. Also the Greens were not part of that rainbow so I mean you would be letting a party that, for example, objected to just about every single road project in the country currently under construction into government (not to mention the tirade on the M50 and N7 upgrades, the M3 and even the M1). They object everything from high rise to cleaning up our own waste. Ive grave concerns about that party getting into government, not just for the roads programme but also tax policy and, of course, as has been mentioned CIE. (which should be torn up and part privitised IMHO).

Diaspora

The national Debt did not double in a 30 month period between 1995 and 1997 in fact it declined in both GDP and real terms.

In relation to your tirade against the Green Party you may actually wish to examine their actual policy

lostinsuperfunk

Hmmm, I wonder would €1bn be enough to pay for another bridge and two new interchanges at either end of the existing bridge to connect it to the M50?

At the interchanges you could have signs such as:

<- New Westlink Bridge (free)
-> Old Westlink Bridge (toll)

Then let the punters decide!

darkman2

Diaspora wrote:

The national Debt did not double in a 30 month period between 1995 and 1997 in fact it declined in both GDP and real terms.

In relation to your tirade against the Green Party you may actually wish to examine their actual policy

I know their 'actual policy' and im completely against it. Look at their policies in other areas for goodness sake - defence for example.

sliabh

lostinsuperfunk wrote:

Hmmm, I wonder would €1bn be enough to pay for another bridge and two new interchanges at either end of the existing bridge to connect it to the M50?

At the interchanges you could have signs such as:

<- New Westlink Bridge (free)
-> Old Westlink Bridge (toll)

Then let the punters decide!

It would breach the terms of the contract between the Government and NTR. Short term NTR would sue, and win.

Long term the government would have serious difficulty getting any other company to enter into a contract with them if they had a reputation for going over/around the terms when it was politically expedient.

lostinsuperfunk

It would breach the terms of the contract between the Government and NTR. Short term NTR would sue, and win.

I'm not familiar with the contract but surely no government is stupid enough to hand exclusive rights for bridging the Liffey to a private company? Surely?!

Long term the government would have serious difficulty getting any other company to enter into a contract with them if they had a reputation for going over/around the terms when it was politically expedient.

I can see the problem with this alright.

What a mess. Incompetent government meets exploitative (yet incompetent) private enterprise.

Diaspora

darkman2 wrote:

I know their 'actual policy' and im completely against it. Look at their policies in other areas for goodness sake - defence for example.

CPO is more effective in terms of both cost and legibility i.e. Polish Builders getting confused by which route to take and slowing to 40mph and there is a window to include it in the works order for the M50 upgrade

westtip

lostinsuperfunk wrote:

I'm not familiar with the contract but surely no government is stupid enough to hand exclusive rights for bridging the Liffey to a private company? Surely?!.

Fraid so - I think this was debated a while back on these boards - I think there is a restrictive clause in the contract which prevents another river crossing within a certain distance of the Cashlink bridge. What a result for NTR eh?

mysterious

Diaspora wrote:

The operational revenue generated is €8.9m p.a. assuming a usage of 70,000 vehicles per day with 35c per vehicle payable to the government i.e 100 years income would not cover the M50 upgrade if construction inflation is deducted from CPI inflation which limits the increases under the contract.

Its close to 100,000 on most sections. it averages 90,000 I would guess.

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

What I mean is that traffic that uses it as a 'Dublin Bypass' would be treated more favourably in terms of toll pricing than those who use it as a rat run coming on at one exit and leaving at the next.

I don't think that idea will make any difference to the traffic levels (at peak times) on the M50. People who need to use the road will use it regardless. All it will do is put more money in the Government and NTR's pockets.

daymobrew

westtip wrote:

Fraid so - I think this was debated a while back on these boards - I think there is a restrictive clause in the contract which prevents another river crossing within a certain distance of the Cashlink bridge. What a result for NTR eh?

The NRA website has some details of the NTR agreement and of the split of revenue to NTR and the State based on traffic levels.

The Background to the 2004 and 2005 Car Toll Fare Increases section is interesting, where the State did not take all the money it was due, to buffer drivers from a large toll increase when VAT was added to the tolls.

In defence of Dublin County Council and the Dept of Environment, the cost of the M50 between N3 and N4, including the bridge, was not available back in the mid 1980s. Dem were the days when I was getting £1.15/hour in Superquinn.

Barrier Free Tolling wrote:

It is envisaged that users without electronic tags would be able to make payments after their passage by means of telephone/internet/post.

Diaspora

mysterious wrote:

Its close to 100,000 on most sections. it averages 90,000 I would guess.

The 3 bridges owned by NTR have a total average daily usage of 130,700 it is not realistic to assume that much over 50% is at one point so you would think but the figures above although not reconciled do provide an indication

westtip

lostinsuperfunk wrote:

I'm not familiar with the contract but surely no government is stupid enough to hand exclusive rights for bridging the Liffey to a private company? Surely?!

I can see the problem with this alright.

What a mess. Incompetent government meets exploitative (yet incompetent) private enterprise.

Just coming back to you again on this one - actually Dublin city Council is of course to blame (the contract was signed by Redmond - the manager sent down for corrupt payments) a quote from the NRA website reads:

"In November 1999 the NRA, as the tolling authority for national roads, concluded a draft agreement with NTR to provide for the construction of the Second West-Link Toll Bridge. The Authority was obliged to enter into exclusive negotiations with NTR for the Second West-Link Bridge as under the 1987 West-Link Agreement concluded between NTR and Dublin County Council, NTR have the exclusive right to toll traffic travelling on the M50 between the N4 (Galway Road interchange) and the N3 (Navan Road interchange) until the expiry of the concession in 2020. The Second West-Link Bridge agreement provided for NTR to be fully recouped the cost of providing the Second Bridge through an increase in the car toll rate (approximately 20 cent)."

the link to this part of the NRA website is:

http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/

Whatever way you look at it, it is a bloody mess we have inherited from A Dublin City Manager who is now serving time for corruption charges and a politician Pee Flynn who some people might think should be sharing a cell with his mate. The Westlink contract of 1987, is one of those sores or cancers we have inherited from those times. I would just love it if something came out in the tibunals which could discredit the whole westlink contract and allow the government to legally tear it up, unfortunately I can't see it happening twenty years after the agreement was made in smoke filled rooms away from the glaze of true public scrutiny. We are paying for the sins of our past masters.

Remember Dublin City Council are the same shower who poured concrete over the finest Viking discovery on Wood Quay so they could park their fat arses in the new city hall on the river - in so doing they lost potentially the greatest tourist attraction (and money spinner at that) the city, if not the country could have had, if you want to see what we could have had in Dublin take a look at this: http://www.jorvik-viking-centre.co.uk/index2.htm

The web site for Yorvik centre in the city of York, England. It just makes you wonder about the calibre of people we have in local and national government.

road_high

What a pack of f**kin ejets that goverment were in 1987 to hand over a glorified license to print money to NTR just tobuild a pretty unremarkable two-lane dc bridge overe the Liffey.

Just thinking of that P Flynn is stomach churning, hope his stupid daughter gets destroyed in the next election.Can't wait to see her fall from grace at the Mayo count centre.I really despise that family, what a shower of crooks.

westtip

mfitzy wrote:

What a pack of f**kin ejets that goverment were in 1987 to hand over a glorified license to print money to NTR just tobuild a pretty unremarkable two-lane dc bridge overe the Liffey.

Just thinking of that P Flynn is stomach churning, hope his stupid daughter gets destroyed in the next election.Can't wait to see her fall from grace at the Mayo count centre.I really despise that family, what a shower of crooks.

Couldn't agree more mate, and to boot the Flynns will enjoy huge TD pensions, funded by us poor suckers for the rest of their lives. They must be laughing at the public all the way to the bank. The sheer arrogance of the way Redmond and Flynn behaved is quite unbelievable.

Diaspora

And free parking for life on Leinster Lawn thats current existence is directly in breach of a planning condition.

I fear we have not seen the last of Bev

MrPudding

westtip wrote:

What always amazes me on the Cashlink bridge is how you wait so long to cross the bridge and then traffic usually flows pretty well after it, but NTR continue to insist "its not our fault guvnor". Listen to 57 live every day - AA roadwatch will constantly report "and traffic is tailing back to Blanchardstown from the toll plaza and in the other direction tailbacks from the toll plazas extend as far as Tallaght."

There is an explaination to NTRs comments and I actually think it makes a lot of sense. Now, I am not a fan of the toll. I think it was a stupid thing to hand over to a private company but hey.

Anyway, here is what NTR say. They say that the toll bridge only adds 2 minutes to the *average* journey on the M50. The average journey. Now this actually does make sense. It seems that the traffic flow modelling has shown that were the bridge not there there would obviously be no bottleneck at that particualr point. But, given the sh1t design of the M50 junctions the bottleneck would move there.

In effect whilst you sit for more that 2 minutes at the toll bridge if it wasn't there the average driver on the M50 would only see their journey time decrease by 2 minutes as they would now be spending time queuing a junctions.

That said, you would not have to pay to queue at the junctions so I would guess that most people would prefer that.

MrP

darkman2

NTR is not handing over their 3km stretch for the upgrade:mad: Its in phase 3 after the toll is removed. So when phase 2 is completed for a while on that 3km stretch it will be 2 lanes. Sooner were rid of these arseholes the better.

daymobrew

mfitzy wrote:

What a pack of f**kin ejets that goverment were in 1987 to hand over a glorified license to print money to NTR just tobuild a pretty unremarkable two-lane dc bridge overe the Liffey.

No one predicted the current traffic levels. The current levels weren't expected for another decade so it is unfair to say that Dublin County Council and the Government handed over a cash cow - neither had the money to build the bridge nor saw it being particularly profitable. NTR took a risk with their money and it has paid off rather handsomely.
I loathe the delays too but I think that statements should be factual and not clouded by people's dislike of the current situation.

Diaspora

I disagree as a percentage of national infrastructural expenditure over the period 1987-1990 the price paid by NTR to acquire the right to toll the bridge was very small.

During this period it could be argued that any of the local authorities in Ireland hadn't the money to complete any of the projects that were completed given the fiscal backdrop but the 75% contribution by the EU made them happen.

aliveandkicking

westtip wrote:

Just coming back to you again on this one - actually Dublin city Council is of course to blame (the contract was signed by Redmond - the manager sent down for corrupt payments) a quote from the NRA website reads:

"In November 1999 the NRA, as the tolling authority for national roads, concluded a draft agreement with NTR to provide for the construction of the Second West-Link Toll Bridge. The Authority was obliged to enter into exclusive negotiations with NTR for the Second West-Link Bridge as under the 1987 West-Link Agreement concluded between NTR and Dublin County Council, NTR have the exclusive right to toll traffic travelling on the M50 between the N4 (Galway Road interchange) and the N3 (Navan Road interchange) until the expiry of the concession in 2020. The Second West-Link Bridge agreement provided for NTR to be fully recouped the cost of providing the Second Bridge through an increase in the car toll rate (approximately 20 cent)."

the link to this part of the NRA website is:

http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/

Whatever way you look at it, it is a bloody mess we have inherited from A Dublin City Manager who is now serving time for corruption charges and a politician Pee Flynn who some people might think should be sharing a cell with his mate. The Westlink contract of 1987, is one of those sores or cancers we have inherited from those times. I would just love it if something came out in the tibunals which could discredit the whole westlink contract and allow the government to legally tear it up, unfortunately I can't see it happening twenty years after the agreement was made in smoke filled rooms away from the glaze of true public scrutiny. We are paying for the sins of our past masters.

Remember Dublin City Council are the same shower who poured concrete over the finest Viking discovery on Wood Quay so they could park their fat arses in the new city hall on the river - in so doing they lost potentially the greatest tourist attraction (and money spinner at that) the city, if not the country could have had, if you want to see what we could have had in Dublin take a look at this: http://www.jorvik-viking-centre.co.uk/index2.htm

The web site for Yorvik centre in the city of York, England. It just makes you wonder about the calibre of people we have in local and national government.

westtip while I agree with the sentiments of your post, I have to point out that Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council (formerly corporation) are/were two separate entities so the Wood Quay development (in which the underground car park is tiny) had nothing to do with Dublin County Council nor had the West Link toll contract have anything to do with Dublin City Council.