DART+ (DART Expansion)

liam24

murphaph wrote: »

Dublin would still thrive Liam and I'm not pushing for Dublin to leave, just keep maybe a few quid for infrastructure every other capital its size in Europe takes for granted. The reason it would thrive is because it has 2 million people in the metropolitan area.

If you include Kildare, Meath and Wicklow, it has 1.8 million people. And including those counties in its metropolitan area is absurd.

liam24

D.L.R. wrote: »

what a load of crap

Dublin is richer because everything is centralized to it, and because the government by building the IFSC and funding the Docklands has encouraged a disproportionate amount of foreign investment in the city. And that was funded by the Irish taxpayer, not the Dublin taxpayer. Every country in the world encourages and permits its capital to be richer, because it's better for the overall economy. Then inevitably people in places like London and Dublin, who can only be described as MORONS, suggest that the capital is subsidizing the rest of the country, which is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

strassenwo!f

Grandeeod wrote: »

Unfortunately recent Governments have been known to actually use social media to gauge opinion and source excuses from said social media. I'm not sure if it was me or someone else (or my exhausted alter ego) that suggested the likes of you and your opinion could and would contribute to a reinvention of the wheel scenario. You have succeeded! Now is the time to prepare your ideas/plans for the forthcoming waste of time and money that will be the latest round of talking ****e regarding a version of DU.

There are some people on this thread that have been around the DU project for many many many years. To see it dumped on the basis of absolute political BS is annoying to them.

I think this is unfair.

In its entirety, the official literature related to this project mentions that the route goes via St. Stephen's Green where it will meet up with the LUAS. But the LUAS is stuck at St. Stephen's Green precisely because Mary O'Rourke chickened out of building it through the city centre.

When the LUAS is actually built through the city centre, as is now happening, we will be able to see what the best options are: St. Stephen's Green, College Creen, maybe somewhere else?

The DART Underground plan is a very good one, but it would have been a great pity to have to build it via St. Stephen's Green because that was effectively the only option, and not a particularly central one.

The LUAS link-up may provide central options for the DART Underground route, when it happens. The current situation doesn't because, at the moment, the green line is stuck outside the heart of the city, thanks to Mary O'Rourke.

Once that link-up happens, when there is nowhere along that critical St. Stephen's Green - Parnell Street corridor which is not enjoying all the direct benefits of the LUAS, the DART Underground project should be revisited, revised, and built.

Schadenfreudia

Grandeeod wrote: »

There are some people on this thread that have been around the DU project for many many many years. To see it dumped on the basis of absolute political BS is annoying to them.

Agree 100%.

I am now resigning from this thread and taking it off my watch-list - it is way too depressing to read folk waffling about a project that has been buried in the year it should have started operating if Dublin was really a modern European city. :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

liam24 wrote: »

Dublin is richer because everything is centralized to it, and because the government by building the IFSC and funding the Docklands has encouraged a disproportionate amount of foreign investment in the city. And that was funded by the Irish taxpayer, not the Dublin taxpayer.

Hold on a sec. Most Irish taxpayers live in areas which receive more in spending than they contribute. Dublin taxpayers are NET contributors to the state.

The government did not build the IFSC, private enterprise did. I don't know what you're on about in relation to Docklands either. Dublin Port is self-funding.
Dublin Airport is self-funding (actually it would thrive even better if the government allowed it to expand from its own resources, and stopped forcing it to subsidise Cork)

All that Dublin people want is for the complete BS in relation to satisfying infrastructure needs in this country to stop. You'd think Dubliners had no vote, the way politics in this country operates. DU was canned for one reason and one reason only - it would annoy rural voters.

Every country in the world encourages and permits its capital to be richer, because it's better for the overall economy.

It's not a question of 'permitting it to be richer' in the case of Dublin anyway, when the government sucks far more money out of the city than it spends.
Cities are richer because they have economies of scale and are attractive places for people to live and work and set up businesses. This has been demonstrated over human history for thousands of years. It appears that only Irish politicians and the Khmer Rouge think that this is not only wrong, but possible to prevent.

Then inevitably people in places like London and Dublin, who can only be described as MORONS, suggest that the capital is subsidizing the rest of the country, which is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

When an unpalatable truth cannot be contradicted, resort to abusive words and CAPS. Well done.

strassenwo!f

Grandeeod wrote: »

Unfortunately recent Governments have been known to actually use social media to gauge opinion and source excuses from said social media. I'm not sure if it was me or someone else (or my exhausted alter ego) that suggested the likes of you and your opinion could and would contribute to a reinvention of the wheel scenario. You have succeeded! Now is the time to prepare your ideas/plans for the forthcoming waste of time and money that will be the latest round of talking ****e regarding a version of DU.

There are some people on this thread that have been around the DU project for many many many years. To see it dumped on the basis of absolute political BS is annoying to them.

And the stuff here about social media is total rubbish.

Social media only seriously became a big part of our environment in the later stages of the last govvernment

murphaph

Grandeeod is right on the money. The mentality showing here among some posters highlights how the government can take a largely solid plan and discredit it enough to make it sound like it was a potty idea to begin with. These type of people must share the blame in DU's cancellation.

Banjoxed

What's the difference between Dublin and London?

One has rail links to its airports, the other uses buses. #Cheapo

liam24

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hold on a sec. Most Irish taxpayers live in areas which receive more in spending than they contribute. Dublin taxpayers are NET contributors to the state.

The government did not build the IFSC, private enterprise did. I don't know what you're on about in relation to Docklands either. Dublin Port is self-funding.
Dublin Airport is self-funding (actually it would thrive even better if the government allowed it to expand from its own resources, and stopped forcing it to subsidise Cork)

All that Dublin people want is for the complete BS in relation to satisfying infrastructure needs in this country to stop. You'd think Dubliners had no vote, the way politics in this country operates. DU was canned for one reason and one reason only - it would annoy rural voters.

You must be the only person left in Ireland who is unaware of Irish government involvement in terms of funding and tax arrangements for the IFSC and the DDDA. There was a concerted effort to turn Dublin into a financial and business centre, and it was backed by the Irish government - which is funded by the Irish taxpayer. Do you think the DDDA ran itself on volunteers and charitable contributions?

Are people suggesting that the tax revenue generated from these initiatives should be kept in Dublin because of the geographical accident of where they were located? And this would be on top of the jobs and money for the local economy which are already generated by them. The citizens of Ballydehob have about as much to do the IFSC as the citizens of Ballymun. It looks to me like the citizens of Dublin have won the lottery, and now they're suggesting that the profits generated by the lottery company should be theirs too.

Sam Russell

Banjoxed wrote: »

What's the difference between Dublin and London?

One has rail links to its airports, the other uses buses. #Cheapo

London has not had links to Heathrow that long, and no link to Luton.

They first extended the Picadilly line and then introduced the Paddington one. The Picadilly line was slow and stopped everywhere.

Gatwick has always had a link.

If we put Luas out to Swords with a people carrier at the Airport, we will be a joke for certain.

The Dart link via Clongriffin would work, but an express service via Clongriffin, non-stop to Connolly would be better again. If they aimed to get a 15 min or so time to Connolly would be great. When DU is built, it would be Dockland, Pearse, SSG, Christchurch, Heuston in 30 mins or better.

liam24

Banjoxed wrote: »

What's the difference between Dublin and London?

One has rail links to its airports, the other uses buses. #Cheapo

It's worth pointing out that none of the rail links into London actually goes to the dead centre of the city, which would really be Charing Cross station. Paddington, Victoria and especially Liverpool Street are all somewhat peripheral. One of the key problems with the thinking on Dublin transport is that there's an assumption everything must go to O'Connell Street and College Green. You could solve most of the capacity problems and run a good frequent two-line DART service along the phoenix park tunnel if you stopped commuter and intercity trains at peripheral stations.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

And the stuff here about social media is total rubbish.

Social media only seriously became a big part of our environment in the later stages of the last govvernment

Rubbish? I don't think so.

The last Government and the current Government = recent Governments. Anyway I have no wish to give anymore time to you or your opinions. You should be happy that you will have a state backed process to which you can contribute, because DU is heading for a Fingal transport study scenario.

D.L.R.

liam24 wrote: »

Dublin is richer because everything is centralized to it, and because the government by building the IFSC and funding the Docklands has encouraged a disproportionate amount of foreign investment in the city. And that was funded by the Irish taxpayer, not the Dublin taxpayer. Every country in the world encourages and permits its capital to be richer, because it's better for the overall economy. Then inevitably people in places like London and Dublin, who can only be described as MORONS, suggest that the capital is subsidizing the rest of the country, which is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

There's no permission, just economic imperative. If the govt didn't build these things in Dublin, they would themselves suffer.

"Permission".. jesus f*****christ.....

Banjoxed

Sam Russell wrote: »

London has not had links to Heathrow that long, and no link to Luton.

They first extended the Picadilly line and then introduced the Paddington one. The Picadilly line was slow and stopped everywhere.

Gatwick has always had a link.

If we put Luas out to Swords with a people carrier at the Airport, we will be a joke for certain.

The Dart link via Clongriffin would work, but an express service via Clongriffin, non-stop to Connolly would be better again. If they aimed to get a 15 min or so time to Connolly would be great. When DU is built, it would be Dockland, Pearse, SSG, Christchurch, Heuston in 30 mins or better.

The Piccadilly line has served Heathrow since 1977, thirty eight years ago. Even before the Heathrow Express it was still the quickest way to get there from central London by public transport.

Luton Airport Parkway is a mile away from Luton Airport just outside the grounds and linked to it by bus.

Solve the capacity issues at Connolly and build a branch from Clongriffin serving both the Airport and Swords.

Problem solved. Increased traffic on the railways will then continue to prove the need for DART Underground to unlock capacity on all the lines converging on the city centre.

Of course, that will require the abandonment of the remnants of the mentality below (thanks to Monument for pointing this article out ages ago)

http://dublinobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Against-Dart-Sindo.jpg

liam24

D.L.R. wrote: »

There's no permission, just economic imperative. If the govt didn't build these things in Dublin, they would themselves suffer.

"Permission".. jesus f*****christ.....

They could have done all of this in Cork instead of Dublin. It's not as if there was any great precedent for international finance in Dublin anyway. Dublin was chosen to receive the gift of the IFSC and the Docklands from the Irish government. Be grateful, and do not be silly enough to suggest that the taxes produced by the purposeful promotion of Dublin in this way should be kept by Dublin. It's an absurdity which betrays ignorance.

murphaph

Anyway...starving Dublin of infrastructure is going to cost the whole country dear. Mark my words. The kind of jobs we want to see created are filled by people who want more from life than commuting in gridlock 4 hours a day. Those jobs will be created in cities that don't require such commutes because they have invested in infrastructure. Would rural Bavaria have such nice roads if Munich wasn't able to attract the skilled people to it's high value industries? Nope.

Lenton Lane

Banjoxed wrote: »

The Piccadilly line has served Heathrow since 1977, thirty eight years ago. Even before the Heathrow Express it was still the quickest way to get there from central London by public transport.

Luton Airport Parkway is a mile away from Luton Airport just outside the grounds and linked to it by bus.

Solve the capacity issues at Connolly and build a branch from Clongriffin serving both the Airport and Swords.

Problem solved. Increased traffic on the railways will then continue to prove the need for DART Underground to unlock capacity on all the lines converging on the city centre.

Of course, that will require the abandonment of the remnants of the mentality below (thanks to Monument for pointing this article out ages ago)

http://dublinobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Against-Dart-Sindo.jpg

It just goes to show the Indo have always been a bunch of stupid twonks when it comes to rail. Remember that when you next read a Dan White or Paul Melia article on rail.

D.L.R.

liam24 wrote: »

They could have done all of this in Cork instead of Dublin. It's not as if there was any great precedent for international finance in Dublin anyway. Dublin was chosen to receive the gift of the IFSC and the Docklands from the Irish government. Be grateful, and do not be silly enough to suggest that the taxes produced by the purposeful promotion of Dublin in this way should be kept by Dublin. It's an absurdity which betrays ignorance.

Sam Russell

Banjoxed wrote: »

The Piccadilly line has served Heathrow since 1977, thirty eight years ago. Even before the Heathrow Express it was still the quickest way to get there from central London by public transport.

It takes 40 minutes to go from Heathrow to Waterloo using the Heathrow Express and 55 mins using the Piccadilly line. So the express saves 15 minutes. These times are from TFL. Google gives 45 mins and 59 mins respectively. Car is given as 45 mins. It is 17.7 miles - average speed 23.5 mph.

http://dublinobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Against-Dart-Sindo.jpg

Brilliant quote. Sindo BS as usual. Some things never change - even the spelling mistakes.

alias no.9

liam24 wrote: »

They could have done all of this in Cork instead of Dublin. It's not as if there was any great precedent for international finance in Dublin anyway. Dublin was chosen to receive the gift of the IFSC and the Docklands from the Irish government. Be grateful, and do not be silly enough to suggest that the taxes produced by the purposeful promotion of Dublin in this way should be kept by Dublin. It's an absurdity which betrays ignorance.

The government could have chosen Cork instead of Dublin for the IFSC but there's no guarantee any of the financial institutions would have chosen Ireland over other countries in that circumstance. If even some of them had gone elsewhere, a critical mass may never have been achieved.
The political decision to have it in Dublin was probably parochial, CJ's parish, but Cork born Dermot Desmond was one of the main Financial Services movers behind it yet he wanted it in Dublin too.

monument

liam24 wrote: »

Dublin is richer because everything is centralized to it,

Bit of a chicken and egg question there!

liam24 wrote: »

and because the government by building the IFSC and funding the Docklands has encouraged a disproportionate amount of foreign investment in the city.

Irish governments kickstarted the Docklands, but it did not come close to building or funding it -- that was mainly done by private funding and private builders.

With large amounts of funding and tax breaks over the years and far less return, governments have also tried to kickstart business area/parks across the country, including Shannon which is still getting bailouts from Dublin.

liam24 wrote: »

And that was funded by the Irish taxpayer, not the Dublin taxpayer.

No, it was likely funded by the Dublin taxpayer.

More tax is raised in Dublin than is spend in Dublin, so Dublin does not rely on other counties' tax take.

liam24 wrote: »

Every country in the world encourages and permits its capital to be richer, because it's better for the overall economy.

No, they often don't "permit" as they don't have a choice as it's not something governments have anywhere near control full of... But also no because the issue with Dublin vs the rest is far more acute than most other capitals vs the rest (and there's more than one example where other cities take in more than the capital).

Dublin's acute lack of any counterbalance is as much down to successive governments not being able to focus their investment in other cities as much as it is about wild and incorrect claims about too much investment in Dublin. A national motorway network was and still is given more priority than Dublin's public transport network -- leaving Dublin 20 years or more behind cities of comparable size.

Irish governments have been too rural focused and that is the main factor which has allowed sprawl of Dublin and stopped any sustainable counterbalance from growing.

liam24 wrote: »

Then inevitably people in places like London and Dublin, who can only be described as MORONS, suggest that the capital is subsidizing the rest of the country, which is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

In Dublin's case, the figures show that the capital is subsidizing the rest. If you want to counter that it might be best with coming up with an argument rather than just childish name calling towards those you disagree with.

You sound brainwashed by the unsupported "Dublin gets everything" nonsense spouted by rural TDs and councillors.

Sam Russell

In the 70s, because of political pressure, the IDA had to build Advanced Factories in every parish in the country to attract foreign investments into rural Ireland. Grants of up to 70% (90% in Gaeltact areas) were given for capital required.

Even with these inducements, many of these Advanced Factories (concrete shells) are still empty and unused but costing huge rents due to stupid rent structures that mean that it is a fraction of the cost to build new purpose built factories adjacent to these crumbling structures.

The other day, I had to travel from Heusten Station to O'Connell Bridge at 9 am. It took over 30 mins down the quays, and I watched a woman walk past me and disappear into the distance - it is something when it is much quicker to walk than drive! The delay appeared to be the number of buses on the bridge and in D'Ollier St trying to get to their designated bus stop but blocked by the sheer number of other buses and so blocking the whole area.

Dublin Underground makes sense - we cannot rely on buses.

McAlban

Banjoxed wrote: »

Of course, that will require the abandonment of the remnants of the mentality below (thanks to Monument for pointing this article out ages ago)

http://dublinobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Against-Dart-Sindo.jpg

He should have stuck to Surveying Mountains...

He seems to have been the Colm McCarthy of his day (6 Months before I was born) I'd love to see the usage figures and cost figures to show how wrong he was.

jd

Lenton Lane wrote: »

It just goes to show the Indo have always been a bunch of stupid twonks when it comes to rail. Remember that when you next read a Dan White or Paul Melia article on rail.

In fairness to Paul Melia he was on Newstalk today and said it was he view that cancelling/deferring DU was a mistake and will be regretted in years to come.
https://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/24/21828/27th_September_2015_-_The_Sunday_Show_Part_1/

liam24

alias no.9 wrote: »

The government could have chosen Cork instead of Dublin for the IFSC but there's no guarantee any of the financial institutions would have chosen Ireland over other countries in that circumstance. If even some of them had gone elsewhere, a critical mass may never have been achieved.
The political decision to have it in Dublin was probably parochial, CJ's parish, but Cork born Dermot Desmond was one of the main Financial Services movers behind it yet he wanted it in Dublin too.

As I said, Dublin only had the reputation for being a backwater and a bit of a ****hole with a lot of social problems back in the 1980. Why would international investors give a rat's arse about whether they're getting free money in Cork or in Dublin? A tax haven is a tax haven. Do people care about what part of the Caymans their bank is on?

By the way - I agree with it being in Dublin. But I don't agree with the analysis that because Dublin's got a higher income, then it should not have to redistribute its taxes.

liam24

monument wrote: »

Dublin's acute lack of any counterbalance is as much down to successive governments not being able to focus their investment in other cities as much as it is about wild and incorrect claims about too much investment in Dublin. A national motorway network was and still is given more priority than Dublin's public transport network -- leaving Dublin 20 years or more behind cities of comparable size.

Thank you - you're really supporting my point. Given this point, it's even more morally indefensible to suggest that Dublin keep all its taxes and let the rest of the country rot. I'm simply addressing the one or two silly people on here who want to set up a "Dublin political party" and even to turn Dublin into an independent city state and let the rest of the country go its own way. Dublin has what it has precisely because it's the capital of a country with 4.6 million people.

monument wrote: »

You sound brainwashed by the unsupported "Dublin gets everything" nonsense spouted by rural TDs and councillors.

No, I agree with investment in Dublin's transport. I even agree, as someone from Limerick, that having MN and DU in Dublin is more important than a Limerick-Cork motorway. But I agree with it because it's good for the country as a whole, as well as being good for Dublin. It's not only good for interconnectivity of the Republic with Belfast and the airport, it's good to have a world class city where people want to live and invest as an engine of the Irish economy. It's a model that works and I support it.

However, there's also a ridiculous myth among Dubliners, prevalent here it seems, that provincial areas get everything and Dublin gets nothing. Not only is that not true, but assigning funds to MN and DU would mean Dublin getting a hugely disproportionate share of funding for years and years to come. It's worth recognizing that fact as well.

murphaph

liam24 wrote: »

Dublin has what it has precisely because it's the capital of a country with 4.6 million people.

Ah similar to Copenhagen so.... Oh, wait.

The Dublin political party idea is a sign of how desperate things are for the and region. The infrastructure that Dublin needs and is currently in the gift of or rural dominated Dail simply won't be gifted. If Dublin couldn't get DU during the boom under the current political system then it will never get it under the current political system, so Dubs need to start voting for political change, is an elected mayor with executive powers. It's common elsewhere.

I am for the record totally in favour of Dublin continuing to generate wealth for use in other areas of the country, but I was never in favour of what actually happens in Ireland in that politicians spread the butter so thinly in every parish that it has no noticeable effect in the end, except to get them reelected.

monument

Liam -- thanks for the reply, it makes your position clearer and more understandable.

I'd agree with murphaph's reply above but would say that we have a lot more in common than I first thought.

plodder

liam24 wrote: »

As I said, Dublin only had the reputation for being a backwater and a bit of a ****hole with a lot of social problems back in the 1980. Why would international investors give a rat's arse about whether they're getting free money in Cork or in Dublin? A tax haven is a tax haven. Do people care about what part of the Caymans their bank is on?

By the way - I agree with it being in Dublin. But I don't agree with the analysis that because Dublin's got a higher income, then it should not have to redistribute its taxes.

I don't think it's realistic to suggest that the IFSC could have been anywhere other than Dublin. Dublin competes with Manchester, Stockholm and other similar sized cities. It doesn't compete with Cork, no more than it competes with the mega-cities like London or Paris.

The park where I work has a lot of MNCs with a lot of foreign staff, most of whom use public transport. I do wonder how long many of them stick it. Dublin needs decent public transport to keep these jobs, irrespective of what the rest of the country wants or needs.

murphaph

I know 2 non-Irish people personally in Berlin (one who worked for the halloed Google) who used to live in Dublin but left due to the crappiness of our infrastructure. The sample size wouldn't be that big, so 2 people leaving for that reason seems a lot to me. I suspect we lose lots of talent to nicer to get around cities and as word gets around it'll become harder and harder to fill positions.