Fruits of the Celtic Tiger

AngryLips

With the economic boom well and truly over I thought it might be a nice exercise to take a look back for a change instead of looking forward and reflect on some of the achievements of the good times for transport and infrastructure in this country. So I'll start the ball rolling by listing some of what we have to show from that period:
- Luas
- Dublin Port Tunnel
- Dublin Airport T2
- M50
- National motorway network
- New Cork Airport
- WRC (Limerick-Galway)
- One of the youngest railway rolling stock in Europe.
- Limerick Tunnel
- Restoration of the Shannon-Erne waterway

Please add to this if anyone notices anything I've missed. Personally, and despite all the controversy, I think T2 has to be my favourite development. Along with all the ancillary works, Dublin Airport finally feels like the gateway to the nation it's meant to be and is both a great first impression and a fantastic reflection of a modern city.

bk

Unfortunately to me, this is a list of failures in vision, future planning, wasted money and pump parish politics of the Celtic Tiger years:

- Luas

* Two Luas lines should have been connected from the start.
* Already at capacity when they were opened.
* Extensions to ghost towns.

- DublinPort Tunnel

Fair enough, no complaints.

- DublinAirport T2

While it is very nice, given that anytime I've gone through it, it is almost completely empty!! I wonder if a cheaper solution could have been found.
But I'll admit it could be good planning for the future.

- M50

Should have been done right from the start.

- National motorway network

* Way over engineered for what we currently need.
* All of the Motorways should be tolled.
* Took too much emphasis. All the emphasis seemed to be on building the motorway network for political reasons over rail projects in Dublin. Their should have been more balance between road building and rail building.

- New CorkAirport
- WRC (Limerick-Galway)

LOL, you have to be kidding, that white elephant should never have been built.

- One of the youngest railway rolling stock in Europe.

You mean wasting money on new carriages and cutting up perfectly serviceable older carriages which had many years of use in them and ironically have a much more comfortable ride then the new trains.

All the while the new "trains" are no faster then the old trains, genius!!

- Limerick Tunnel

Could a cheaper bridge have been built instead to Limerick port?

- Restoration of the Shannon-Erne waterway

Zebra3

"Fruits" wouldn't been the word I'd have picked.

Not too far off though.

teol

Bremore Port is a missed opportunity. The Dublin docks already has great railway infrastructure (Alexandra Road Tramway) and moving port operations to Bremore would have allowed great development potentials.

blackdog2

The problem with T2 is that it makes T1 look like the sh1thole it is, and it is t1 that the majority of passengers use...

D.L.R.

bk wrote: »

Unfortunately to me, this is a list of failures in vision, future planning, wasted money and pump parish politics of the Celtic Tiger years:

- Luas

* Two Luas lines should have been connected from the start.
* Already at capacity when they were opened.
* Extensions to ghost towns.

- DublinPort Tunnel

Fair enough, no complaints.

- DublinAirport T2

While it is very nice, given that anytime I've gone through it, it is almost completely empty!! I wonder if a cheaper solution could have been found.
But I'll admit it could be good planning for the future.

- M50

Should have been done right from the start.

- National motorway network

* Way over engineered for what we currently need.
* All of the Motorways should be tolled.
* Took too much emphasis. All the emphasis seemed to be on building the motorway network for political reasons over rail projects in Dublin. Their should have been more balance between road building and rail building.

- New CorkAirport
- WRC (Limerick-Galway)

LOL, you have to be kidding, that white elephant should never have been built.

- One of the youngest railway rolling stock in Europe.

You mean wasting money on new carriages and cutting up perfectly serviceable older carriages which had many years of use in them and ironically have a much more comfortable ride then the new trains.

All the while the new "trains" are no faster then the old trains, genius!!

- Limerick Tunnel

Could a cheaper bridge have been built instead to Limerick port?

- Restoration of the Shannon-Erne waterway

All of this. Proof positive that FFers and FF softies cannot be trusted with the running of a modern state, in any serious sense.

AugustusMinimus

bk wrote: »

* All of the Motorways should be tolled.

On what basis ?

The whole point of motorways is to try to take traffic off of poorer roads and put it on motorways.

Toll them and people will simply avoid them. Fermoy might as well not have a bypass at all.

dowlingm

There were two viable options and the government bottled both:

1. Boot the Air Corps out of Baldonnel and send them to Shannon. Throw up an aluminium shed and tell Mick O'Leary to f*** off over there if he thinks a shed is a proper gateway to Ireland. Basically only airlines committed to allowing through connections should have been allowed stay in Dublin Airport. The existing DUB terminal could be refitted over time but the pressure of the low costs would be handled by Dublin South. Shannon would have benefited from the additional traffic plus the additional security from the military presence would have helped with the whole "helping the warmongers - break their stuff" thing.

2. Tell the PDs to STFU about "inter terminal competition" and build a single new terminal to replace the old Terminal 1 just as Toronto Pearson Terminal 1 replaced the old T1 & T2. The modular design there allows both gates, concourses and car parks to be replaced in a logical fashion up to a design max of 30-35m (airport max 50-55m including expansions to Terminal 3), and it has a people mover to the remote car park which can also be upgraded to a longer, higher capacity one when demand requires.

L1011

blackdog2 wrote: »

The problem with T2 is that it makes T1 look like the sh1thole it is, and it is t1 that the majority of passengers use...

They're doing work on T1 to sort it out. Not that I use it very often since T2 opened *polishes Aer Lingus GC card :P* so I dunno how much they've done but I have to on Wednesday (EI Regional flight) so I'll see then.

Believe they've got a new security area in already, Pier D is tolerable except being bloody miles away; and the airside shopping/food area is grand; so its really just the two old piers and some landside stuff needing doing.

Pier A does not meet any modern security requirements (incoming and outgoing passengers meeting airside without gate security like Amsterdam has) and from memory B is just a bit run down.

DWCommuter

Motorways = needed.

Luas = unconnected and a fine indicator of how MN is where its at now.

WRC = waste of time.

Youngest railway stock in Europe = no big deal.The network is tiny anyway and this is merely a Barry Kenny bull****ophobia pastime. As mentioned already speeds have not increased, only the comfort around your perception.

Dublin Port Tunnel = Big idea based on massive economic growth, that neglected using the expenditure to alleviate road traffic in the city. UNDERUSED!

M50 = All that is wrong in Ireland.

You left out the rail lines to Midleton and Pace. Both should have been back burned along with the WRC to front load funding for actually building DU.

The Celtic Tiger legacy is riddled with local politics and absolutely no grand plan to implement anything in an effective manner.

We got stuff, but in the broader picture we got very little.

corktina

Zebra3 wrote: »

"Fruits" wouldn't been the word I'd have picked.

Not too far off though.

no fruits is a good word...




of course some of them are Lemons though

Aidan1

- M50

Should have been done right from the start.

- National motorway network

* Way over engineered for what we currently need.

I love this.

The M50 was designed and built as a two lane, non grade separated road because the economic and population projections at the time were for a small and contracting economy. In other words, going by the demographic projections in the 1980s, it was future proofed (the toll bridge was widely regarded as a white elephant when it opened; the media were openly wondering when the owners were going to fold.

On the other hand, much of the Motorway Network was built on a 30 year basis - as in it will meet all likely requirements for 30 years, at minimal additional cost over and above roads of a lesser standard (2+2 etc).

So, to be clear, you are suggesting that the M50 should have been built to a standard higher than it was, in case economic and population growth was far higher than expected, but that the Motorways should have been built to a lower standard, in case economic and population growth is lower than expected?

Difficult to keep some people happy, isn't it.

murphaph

DWCommuter wrote: »

You left out the rail lines to Midleton and Pace. Both should have been back burned along with the WRC to front load funding for actually building DU.

I agree with your entire post except the bit about Midleton. Cork City and County have at least tried to get their acts together in some sort of cohesive plan (CASP). They shame the 4 Dublin authorities and shame even more the likes of Waterford/Kilkenny and Limerick/Limerick/Clare.

Midleton had to wait long enough to get a rail line back and it was a fairly strightforward build. I think it was correct. Cork (along with Dublin) should have seen MUCH more from the Celtic Tiger. Cork should have seen light rail introduced and Dublin should have seen DU and MN built together with an integrated Luas.

It's all very depressing really. I maintain that it is largely the fault of the Irish people however. They don't vote for politicians promising large scale infrastructure for our important cities. Compare to the current state elections in Berlin where a hot topic is "who is going to sort out the problems with the S Bahn?". There are full size bill boards from political parties addressing the issue. Would never happen in Ireland because it's not a vote winner. The people are largely ignorant of how good quality PUBLIC transport can actually improve their lives.

DWCommuter

Aidan1 wrote: »

I love this.

The M50 was designed and built as a two lane, non grade separated road because the economic and population projections at the time were for a small and contracting economy. In other words, going by the demographic projections in the 1980s, it was future proofed (the toll bridge was widely regarded as a white elephant when it opened; the media were openly wondering when the owners were going to fold.

On the other hand, much of the Motorway Network was built on a 30 year basis - as in it will meet all likely requirements for 30 years, at minimal additional cost over and above roads of a lesser standard (2+2 etc).

So, to be clear, you are suggesting that the M50 should have been built to a standard higher than it was, in case economic and population growth was far higher than expected, but that the Motorways should have been built to a lower standard, in case economic and population growth is lower than expected?

Difficult to keep some people happy, isn't it.

With respect Aidan1, the M50 debacle is far from straight forward and no doubt you know that. When first mooted, its route was predominantly countryside. When built, it only spent a very short time as a white elephant as development had already sprung up around the first section. Lights were quickly installed at the Red Cow when it became clear the design couldn't even handle traffic levels at early 90s levels. There were also tailbacks at the toll bridge as early as 1992. While 6 lanes may not have been needed at that stage, it was obvious to users that it was not designed as an urban motorway even though the first section ran through built up areas. I don't believe it was future proofed because it had difficulty before there was any substantial increase in car ownership or employment. In fact this was long before the Celtic Tiger was even a possibility.

DWCommuter

murphaph wrote: »

I agree with your entire post except the bit about Midleton. Cork City and County have at least tried to get their acts together in some sort of cohesive plan (CASP). They shame the 4 Dublin authorities and shame even more the likes of Waterford/Kilkenny and Limerick/Limerick/Clare.

Midleton had to wait long enough to get a rail line back and it was a fairly strightforward build. I think it was correct. Cork (along with Dublin) should have seen MUCH more from the Celtic Tiger. Cork should have seen light rail introduced and Dublin should have seen DU and MN built together with an integrated Luas.

It's all very depressing really. I maintain that it is largely the fault of the Irish people however. They don't vote for politicians promising large scale infrastructure for our important cities. Compare to the current state elections in Berlin where a hot topic is "who is going to sort out the problems with the S Bahn?". There are full size bill boards from political parties addressing the issue. Would never happen in Ireland because it's not a vote winner. The people are largely ignorant of how good quality PUBLIC transport can actually improve their lives.

I agree Cork did their bit and in how things panned out they got what they deserved. However, I'm looking at a bigger picture of priorities and I believe that we needed a clear and coherent plan. Urgent projects first and foremost and above all others. I'd much rather be sitting typing this with DU and MN either built or underway, while we lament the recession putting Pace and Midleton on hold while WOT continue to wave their arms in disgust.

invinciblePRSTV

DWCommuter wrote: »

I agree Cork did their bit and in how things panned out they got what they deserved. However, I'm looking at a bigger picture of priorities and I believe that we needed a clear and coherent plan. Urgent projects first and foremost and above all others. I'd much rather be sitting typing this with DU and MN either built or underway, while we lament the recession putting Pace and Midleton on hold while WOT continue to wave their arms in disgust.

Don't bother saying Midleton should have been scrapped to progress the MN & DU projects when it, beyond pretty much any other road or rail project in the state, was a project based on sound planning and projected to pay for itself in a reasonable period of time.

You want to shift your gaze to the vanity projects which ate up the lions share of the funding, by that I mean the over bloated Motorways programmes. It's your M9s, M11s, N2s, M4s & your M3s which sucked up the resources away from the MN & DU. If the population hadn't engaged in endemic property speculation then perhaps people would have been less supportive of building a radial Motorway network to service Dublin's massive hinterland and more focused on providing decent rail connections within the Dublin urban area.

Leave Midleton alone!

murphaph

DWCommuter wrote: »

I agree Cork did their bit and in how things panned out they got what they deserved. However, I'm looking at a bigger picture of priorities and I believe that we needed a clear and coherent plan. Urgent projects first and foremost and above all others. I'd much rather be sitting typing this with DU and MN either built or underway, while we lament the recession putting Pace and Midleton on hold while WOT continue to wave their arms in disgust.

I think Cork and Dublin could and should have gotten what they need. The priorities all along were not WRC or Pace etc. rather the winning of as many elections by FF as possible before it all collapsed. To this end they massively expanded the public sector and social welfare payments hugely outstripped increases in inflation. They bought elections with current spending, neglecting capital investment and left us with far too little infrastructure.

Yahew

Just an incessant whine this thread - The boom didnt give us good infrastructure except where they gave us too damn much - i.e. motorways.

And a fair bit Dublinocentric. Private capital follows Public capital, after all, so whining about how motorways in the Wesht are serving low volume, low populated regions is to miss the point.

opinion guy

MYOB wrote: »

They're doing work on T1 to sort it out. Not that I use it very often since T2 opened *polishes Aer Lingus GC card :P* so I dunno how much they've done but I have to on Wednesday (EI Regional flight) so I'll see then.

Believe they've got a new security area in already, Pier D is tolerable except being bloody miles away; and the airside shopping/food area is grand; so its really just the two old piers and some landside stuff needing doing.

Pier A does not meet any modern security requirements (incoming and outgoing passengers meeting airside without gate security like Amsterdam has) and from memory B is just a bit run down.

Personally I prefer T1 - better food options, better shops and its quicker to get thru

Yahew

T1 isnt what it was. 6Am used to be a zoo. Now, fairly quiet and the new security system is way better.

L1011

opinion guy wrote: »

Personally I prefer T1 - better food options, better shops and its quicker to get thru

I agree on the food and shops but not the time through. Particularly inbound, you can be in the short term parking structure in about 8 minutes after the doors open if you're travelling with hand baggage towards the front of the plane.

Time to gate is lower to A and B in T1 than E in T2 but the majority of T1 traffic uses D...

T2's airside food court has some massive voids clearly waiting on someone else to come in. Doubt that's going to happen until there's another all-day airline in it, as its only properly busy for the morning trans-atlantic rush.

LXFlyer

MYOB wrote: »

They're doing work on T1 to sort it out. Not that I use it very often since T2 opened *polishes Aer Lingus GC card :P* so I dunno how much they've done but I have to on Wednesday (EI Regional flight) so I'll see then.

Believe they've got a new security area in already, Pier D is tolerable except being bloody miles away; and the airside shopping/food area is grand; so its really just the two old piers and some landside stuff needing doing.

Pier A does not meet any modern security requirements (incoming and outgoing passengers meeting airside without gate security like Amsterdam has) and from memory B is just a bit run down.

The advent of T2 has made moving through T1 a much more pleasant experience - the days of massive queues have diminished.

Incidentally the Pier A situation is not as uncommon as you seem to think.

Both Copenhagen airport and also the new terminal at Barcelona airport allow arriving and departing passengers to mix airside.

opinion guy

lxflyer wrote: »

The advent of T2 has made moving through T1 a much more pleasant experience - the days of massive queues have diminished.

Incidentally the Pier A situation is not as uncommon as you seem to think.

Both Copenhagen airport and also the new terminal at Barcelona airport allow arriving and departing passengers to mix airside.

Most US airports allow that too

D.L.R.

Yahew wrote: »

Just an incessant whine this thread - The boom didnt give us good infrastructure except where they gave us too damn much - i.e. motorways.

Right, in other words it was unbalanced/unprofessional/hamfisted way to allocate national resources and energies.

Yahew wrote: »

And a fair bit Dublinocentric.

Just like the population of Ireland! :pac:

Aidan1

When first mooted, its route was predominantly countryside. When built, it only spent a very short time as a white elephant as development had already sprung up around the first section.

True, and there was a fairly profound lag between the time it was planned (mid 1980s) and the time it was built. When it was planned, it was expected that any economic growth would be weak, but even by 1995 those projections were obsolete - it was 'future proof' in the context of a 1985 basket case economy, not an early Celtic Tiger economy. And on top of that, no account was taken of the propensity of politicians (local and national) to zone land, which in the case of the M50 meant that it quickly became the focus of development in the GDA (the new 'main street').

As to Midleton, it was a cheap project through a heavily populated area, that was relatively well planned and was subject to a series of strategic land use and transport planning initiatives (including SLAPs(!) for Midleton and Carrigtwohill after the thing was built. It was one of the very good projects built in the period - the only pity was that it was effectively sanctioned in 2001, but it took 4-5 more years for work to actually commence.

There are other projects out there that are far more worthy of scorn, like the WRC, M3, M9 (kinda) or several 'local' road schemes in the Midlands and Kerry.

Yahew

D.L.R. wrote: »

Right, in other words it was unbalanced/unprofessional/hamfisted way to allocate national resources and energies.

Naw, the motorways are well over-due. I bet if they were of less capacity that would be an occasion for a whine too.

Just like the population of Ireland! :pac:

As I said, private capital follows public capital, and labour follows capital.

AngryLips

Yahew wrote: »

Just an incessant whine this thread.

I had started this thread thinking it would be a good opportunity to reflect on some of the successes. It seems even when a project produces a positive outcome (M50 for example) we'd rather dwell on the challenges and wrong-turns in between that led to that outcome.

invinciblePRSTV

Yahew wrote: »

Naw, the motorways are well over-due. I bet if they were of less capacity that would be an occasion for a whine too.

The motorway programme was overkill. a small nation doesn't need multiple duplicated blue lines criss-crossing rural Ireland, complete with tiny AADTs, when some smart rational thinking would have built a network more appropriate for the countries needs.

Yahew wrote: »

As I said, private capital follows public capital, and labour follows capital.

In otherwords 'build it and they will come', the motto which underpins pretty much every white elephant project.

L1011

lxflyer wrote: »

Both Copenhagen airport and also the new terminal at Barcelona airport allow arriving and departing passengers to mix airside.

Do they not have at-gate security though? Not used either of them myself.

opinion guy

Ok whilst I think the celtic tiger left us with some great improvements - road infrstructure being the most obvious, I think ALL of this has been overshadowed by the unplanned, chaotic, dysfunctional, inefficient, decrepit, hamstrung health care system that is hitting our headlines on an almost daily basis.

There is no excuse for this imho.

LXFlyer

MYOB wrote: »

Do they not have at-gate security though? Not used either of them myself.

No it's normal security before you enter the airside area - arriving and departing passengers mix freely post security.

BluntGuy

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok whilst I think the celtic tiger left us with some great improvements - road infrstructure being the most obvious, I think ALL of this has been overshadowed by the unplanned, chaotic, dysfunctional, inefficient, decrepit, hamstrung health care system that is hitting our headlines on an almost daily basis.

There is no excuse for this imho.

Well they have "plans". They have loads of "plans". Their army of clipboard carriers and consultants have prepared the world of plans. And some of the plans even make sense... in principle. In practice, with the HSE, you have a deliberate underspend in hospitals, the consultants come in to do their "inspection", it's found not to be "fit for purpose", facility is closed or downgraded. Rinse and repeat. Now of course, this is usually done with the promise of new more appropriate primary care services, which in principle, again, I don't have a problem with. In practice, very few of these primary care units get built and the whole thing is revealed as a shallow cost-cutting measure, that doesn't actually deal with any of the huge redundancy in the system.

There is a lot of parochialism with "save our hospital" campaigns, and sometimes there are legitimate reasons cancer services and whatnot have to be moved to bigger centers. I would never argue with that. But the HSE aren't playing fairly either, and taking their plans at face value is never a good thing. For example, in their "Vision for change" (which is simply a rehash of the Tory government's failed 1980s "Agenda for change" ), they suggest that old mental health institutions are closed down and replaced with community care services. And who could disagree with that in principle, patients being treated in their own communities. It sounds wonderful. It'll be fantastic. In practice, it involves a campaign of misinformation about existing institutions (get the public to think they're places where patients are treated like animals, where it couldn't be further from the truth), the clipboard army arriving to do their "inspections", "reports", steering groups, committees and that other corporate nonsense, a timeline for closure of hospital services, but magically, there is no timeline for delivery of "community care teams".

It's somewhat analogous to how Irish Rail run down rail services to the point they're found totally unfeasible to operate. Now imagine they promised a replacement bus service...

... and it never materialises. That's pretty much how much of our health service is run.

It is a pattern that repeats itself across the public sector. Billions pumped in, little gained. Plans produced, little accomplished. Staff who want to do a good job are frustrated, service users are left with mediocrity and it's all delivered gift-wrapped in a generous layer of red tape.

Zebra3

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If the population hadn't engaged in endemic property speculation then

"The population" didn't engage in the above. A lot ended up paying over the odds for a roof over their heads. A minority got involved in specualtion.

invinciblePRSTV

Zebra3 wrote: »

"The population" didn't engage in the above. A lot ended up paying over the odds for a roof over their heads. A minority got involved in specualtion.

OK then, let me rephrase: A large majority of the Irish adult population repeatedly supported political parties which fostered the culture of property speculation and a lax attitude to planning which led us to where we are.

As for this threads topic, i'm struggling to think of what exactly the Celtic Tiger has endowed upon me for which I'm grateful for. The Ballincollig bypass is a fine bit of road i suppose.....

D.L.R.

Yahew wrote: »

Naw, the motorways are well over-due. I bet if they were of less capacity that would be an occasion for a whine too.

Well, motorway from Dublin to Belfast & Cork were long overdue indeed, but the rest.. nah they weren't overdue. They were UNDERdue in fact.

There's a couple of projects in Dublin that are about a century overdue.

markpb

Despite all the criticism, I love the Green Luas Line. It has capacity problems, it doesn't cross the city centre, the extension to the boonies was a little daft but the core part works and works really well. It shows people in Dublin what good public transport looks like. It shows people that public transport doesn't have to mean CIE and good rail transport doesn't have to mean Irish Rail.

It shows how much rubbish comes out of 59 O'Connell St when they say that there's no demand in a certain area or beyond certain times. It shows that when we build good public transport, people use it and use it lots. They use it at before DB get up in the morning and after DB go home at night and they use it at 7am on Sundays when DB are still in bed having a lie-in.

antoobrien

D.L.R. wrote: »

Well, motorway from Dublin to Belfast & Cork were long overdue indeed, but the rest.. nah they weren't overdue. They were UNDERdue in fact.

Lets see Galway to Dublin pre motorways (i.e. before Lucan to Maynooth) was 4 hours to travel 250km (the motorways have shortened that a bit). Not only is that not underdue it shows the massive transport problems we had (and still have) in this country.

Long transit times (goods and employees) means that businesses are less economically viable - the motorway network is needed to make areas of the country accessible (no I don't mean more accessible) to business. This should help competitiveness, which whether we like it or not is linked to Dublin's cost base. I don't think we can reduce Dublin's cost base dramatically so we should concentrate on stabilising it and developing areas of the country where the cost base is lower in an organised manner. There are two main ways of doing this - broadband and transport access (both of which are lacking throughout large areas of the country).

D.L.R.

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets see Galway to Dublin pre motorways (i.e. before Lucan to Maynooth) was 4 hours to travel 250km (the motorways have shortened that a bit). Not only is that not underdue it shows the massive transport problems we had (and still have) in this country.

Long transit times (goods and employees) means that businesses are less economically viable - the motorway network is needed to make areas of the country accessible (no I don't mean more accessible) to business. This should help competitiveness, which whether we like it or not is linked to Dublin's cost base. I don't think we can reduce Dublin's cost base dramatically so we should concentrate on stabilising it and developing areas of the country where the cost base is lower in an organised manner. There are two main ways of doing this - broadband and transport access (both of which are lacking throughout large areas of the country).

Sledgehammer... nut...

Ok Galway is a fairly important tourist centre, but its still not very big. Decent non motorway road wouldv'e been more appropriate considering the utter wilderness of the route west of Athlone.

Again - bad, hamfisted allocation of resources (which actually ARE finite, despite the celtic tiger culture which suggested otherwise)

AugustusMinimus

D.L.R. wrote: »

Sledgehammer... nut...

Ok Galway is a fairly important tourist centre, but its still not very big. Decent non motorway road wouldv'e been more appropriate considering the utter wilderness of the route west of Athlone.

Again - bad, hamfisted allocation of resources (which actually ARE finite, despite the celtic tiger culture which suggested otherwise)

If you are going to do an offline build, you might aswell do it as motorway. 2+2 wouldn't be that much cheaper and motorway is both safer and more efficient in terms of travel times.

D.L.R.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

If you are going to do an offline build, you might aswell do it as motorway. 2+2 wouldn't be that much cheaper and motorway is both safer and more efficient in terms of travel times.

Skipping more important projects to facilitate less important projects is stupid.

Anyone can chuck cheap money at a project, doesn't mean its the right project.

Just... build the most important sh*t first, then build the less important stuff. Jesus, this is schoolboy stuff.

Sponge Bob

D.L.R. wrote: »

Just... build the most important sh*t first, then build the less important stuff. Jesus, this is schoolboy stuff.

Exactly, the Galway Bypass is one of the 5 most important road projects in the country!

AngryLips

I guess what's most important depends on where you live

Sponge Bob

AngryLips wrote: »

I guess what's most important depends on where you live

No, I live in Galway but I have always said widening Newlands was a more important project than the Galway Bypass.

Yahew

D.L.R. wrote: »

Skipping more important projects to facilitate less important projects is stupid.

Anyone can chuck cheap money at a project, doesn't mean its the right project.

Just... build the most important sh*t first, then build the less important stuff. Jesus, this is schoolboy stuff.

The definition of important stuff isn't schoolboy. Motorways across the country are more important than local initiatives like the LUAS, which should be paid for by Dublin tax.

D.L.R.

Yahew wrote: »

The definition of important stuff isn't schoolboy. Motorways across the country are more important than local initiatives like the LUAS, which should be paid for by Dublin tax.

Yes I'm afraid it is schoolboy when you break it down.

The important stuff is the stuff which benefits most people. If you build in order of importance, based on serving people, not geographic areas, then you can't really go wrong.

"Motorway across the country" is just tar across fields.. unless there's something to back it up, its meaningless.

Yahew

D.L.R. wrote: »

Yes I'm afraid it is schoolboy when you break it down.

The important stuff is the stuff which benefits most people. If you build in order of importance, based on serving people, not geographic areas, then you can't really go wrong.

"Motorway across the country" is just tar across fields.. unless there's something to back it up, its meaningless.

Let me re-iterate what I said before.

Private capital follows public capital, and labour ( i.e people) follow capital. If at the beginning of the Irish State we decided to move the theatres, major universities, governments, Supreme courts, and public subsidised private boondongles ( like the IFSC and Docks) to Wexford, then the argument would run that we would continue to infrastructure in Wexford and it's 1 millions inhabitants rather than the 50K population backwater that were Dublin.

The point of infrastructure isn't to play the insane positive feedback trap of subsidising the already subsidised, and capitalising the already capitalised, but to level the population playing field. To give people who have paid into the national pool some return on their investment. We are talkiong about national government here, which in most countries would be building routes of national importance ( motorways and inter-city trains) not local projects like the LUAS , local public transport in a capital should be the problem for it's own inhabitants. New York funds it's subways.

D.L.R.

Yahew wrote: »

Let me re-iterate what I said before.

Private capital follows public capital, and labour ( i.e people) follow capital. If at the beginning of the Irish State we decided to move the theatres, major universities, governments, Supreme courts, and public subsidised private boondongles ( like the IFSC and Docks) to Wexford, then the argument would run that we would continue to infrastructure in Wexford and it's 1 millions inhabitants rather than the 50K population backwater that were Dublin.

We don't have the power to move populations on those scales, that's why decentralisation failed! Besides, public capital is controlled by govt. Are you saying govt are infallible? Like the pope?

Yahew wrote: »

The point of infrastructure isn't to play the insane positive feedback trap of subsidising the already subsidised, and capitalising the already capitalised, but to level the population playing field.

Dublin is the size it is not by mere accident, but because of its location. Its the single best place for a major Irish city. We should encourage it to flourish, not hinder it in order to grow some provincial backwater.

"Levelling the population field" - what does this meeeeean? Sounds FFesque.

Yahew wrote: »

To give people who have paid into the national pool some return on their investment. We are talkiong about national government here, which in most countries would be building routes of national importance ( motorways and inter-city trains) not local projects like the LUAS , local public transport in a capital should be the problem for it's own inhabitants. New York funds it's subways.

Ireland is a unitary state (unfortunately). If Dublin COULD raise and spend its own taxes there'd be a metro system by now and less pointless motorway.

Irish and Proud

AngryLips wrote: »

With the economic boom well and truly over I thought it might be a nice exercise to take a look back for a change instead of looking forward and reflect on some of the achievements of the good times for transport and infrastructure in this country. So I'll start the ball rolling by listing some of what we have to show from that period:
- Luas
- Dublin Port Tunnel
- Dublin Airport T2
- M50
- National motorway network
- New Cork Airport
- WRC (Limerick-Galway)
- One of the youngest railway rolling stock in Europe.
- Limerick Tunnel
- Restoration of the Shannon-Erne waterway

Please add to this if anyone notices anything I've missed. Personally, and despite all the controversy, I think T2 has to be my favourite development. Along with all the ancillary works, Dublin Airport finally feels like the gateway to the nation it's meant to be and is both a great first impression and a fantastic reflection of a modern city.

While I'm Irish and Proud, I'd not go quite that far - yes, we now have a motorway system worth talking about, yes, our rail services (commute by train) have improved greatly, yes, the DPT is great, yes, T2 is nice, yes, we have some great new venues - but, and a very big but - with the obscene amounts of money made by big business, developers and speculators etc, we could have done so much more if the government of the time made the wealthy contribute a reasonable sum of money - that's one of the big reasons why I did not vote FF in the last election and I don't intend voting FF again - they should be on their knees begging us to tell them what direction they should take now - but of course, that has not happened as far as I can see.

At this stage, we should now be seeing the M17/M18 and M11 being built with the Metro North to commence construction next year. The M20, M4 to Longford and Dart Underground should be following closely thereafter. Also, a lot of very badly needed bypasses should be under construction around the country. While Ireland has done comparatively well in Europe, the truth is that the Western World is a joke (especially when it comes to laziness and NIMBYism) and that Ireland should not be using neighbouring countries as a measure of infrastructural performance. We need to set how our own needs are being met as the standard by which we measure this country.

Regards!

Yahew

D.L.R. wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

Let me re-iterate what I said before.

Private capital follows public capital, and labour ( i.e people) follow capital. If at the beginning of the Irish State we decided to move the theatres, major universities, governments, Supreme courts, and public subsidised private boondongles ( like the IFSC and Docks) to Wexford, then the argument would run that we would continue to infrastructure in Wexford and it's 1 millions inhabitants rather than the 50K population backwater that were Dublin.

We don't have the power to move populations on those scales, that's why decentralisation failed! Besides, public capital is controlled by govt. Are you saying govt are infallible? Like the pope?

Yahew wrote: »

The point of infrastructure isn't to play the insane positive feedback trap of subsidising the already subsidised, and capitalising the already capitalised, but to level the population playing field.

Dublin is the size it is not by mere accident, but because of its location. Its the single best place for a major Irish city. We should encourage it to flourish, not hinder it in order to grow some provincial backwater.

"Levelling the population field" - what does this meeeeean? Sounds FFesque.

Yahew wrote: »

To give people who have paid into the national pool some return on their investment. We are talkiong about national government here, which in most countries would be building routes of national importance ( motorways and inter-city trains) not local projects like the LUAS , local public transport in a capital should be the problem for it's own inhabitants. New York funds it's subways.

Ireland is a unitary state (unfortunately). If Dublin COULD raise and spend its own taxes there'd be a metro system by now and less pointless motorway.

Accusations of FF sympathies without foundation are ad hominems. I have no sympathy for FF, specifically its corrupt Dublin branch. And you miss the point when you talk about mass movement of populations, I am merely pointing out that Dublin would be a backwater were it not for government subsidy.

To complain about provincial backwaters is to spectacularly miss the point since Dublin would be one without subsidy.

In fact the only point you raised which could vaguely be said to be new was the claim for Dublins natural position. In fact there is no proof of that. The port is, even now, due to silting barely fit for purpose, and it could be moved. Dublin is half way up the East of the country, there is no law which makes that position the ideal spot for a capital on an island off Europe. Wexford's position is closer to the relative position of the UK capital

It is as close to the UK and closer to France.

If Dubliners want to withdraw from a unitary state, do by all means. In fact, please do. Your port ( the only, albeit subsidized , natural economic benefit of the city) would be no use as the port of a city state. Exports and imports to Ireland would go elsewhere. Government would move losing the city about 50% of it's economy and population to start with, the port would collapse and the productive citizenry - mostly immigrants and migrants from the country leave - leaving the 3 generation Dubliners, the howyas and the Roysh to run the place.
Good luck with that one.

Dublin can, however, pay for it's metro using it's own taxes or raising it's own bonds within Ireland. Like many cities. Let's do that.

D.L.R.

Yahew wrote: »

Accusations of FF sympathies without foundation are ad hominems. I have no sympathy for FF, specifically its corrupt Dublin branch. And you miss the point when you talk about mass movement of populations, I am merely pointing out that Dublin would be a backwater were it not for government subsidy.

To complain about provincial backwaters is to spectacularly miss the point since Dublin would be one without subsidy.

No it wouldn't, because any such govt would immediately be removed from power. Dublin was big before this state existed, and its choice as capital was a foregone conclusion. Your argument is as laughable as Sinn Fein's idea to make Athlone capital of Ireland.

Dublin's size is not an actual problem, thinking it is a problem is a complete waste of time. The focus should be to serve the people, wherever they may be. London and Paris are similarly dominant... so what?

Yahew wrote: »

In fact the only point you raised which could vaguely be said to be new was the claim for Dublins natural position. In fact there is no proof of that.

Proof of its natural benefits? Um, ok..
Its at the mid point of the most populated coast
Its almost equidistant from every other major Irish city
Its warmer & drier than most of the island
Its close to the large British and European markets
Its located on a coastal plain unlike most of our rugged coastline
You want more?

Yahew wrote: »

The port is, even now, due to silting barely fit for purpose, and it could be moved.

Or dredged.

Yahew wrote: »

Dublin is half way up the East of the country, there is no law which makes that position the ideal spot for a capital on an island off Europe. Wexford's position is closer to the relative position of the UK capital

It is as close to the UK and closer to France.

Its not about law, its about common sense, its the best spot in the country, thats why so many people live there.

Wexford is no closer to London than Dublin is, in practical terms. But it IS farther from the northern half of Ireland. Being closer to France isn't enough.

Yahew wrote: »

If Dubliners want to withdraw from a unitary state, do by all means. In fact, please do. Your port ( the only, albeit subsidized , natural economic benefit of the city) would be no use as the port of a city state. Exports and imports to Ireland would go elsewhere. Government would move losing the city about 50% of it's economy and population to start with, the port would collapse and the productive citizenry - mostly immigrants and migrants from the country leave - leaving the 3 generation Dubliners, the howyas and the Roysh to run the place.
Good luck with that one.

Dublin can, however, pay for it's metro using it's own taxes or raising it's own bonds within Ireland. Like many cities. Let's do that.

Its your port too, if you're an Irishman. Dublin is the capital of your country, its not an alien plantation foisted on an innocent virgin nation, its an integral part of it.

If you don't want to celebrate that, then don't expect me to care about your thoughts on what Ireland should or shouldn't be.

AngryLips

Irish and Proud wrote: »

At this stage, we should now be seeing the M17/M18 and M11 being built with the Metro North to commence construction next year. The M20, M4 to Longford and Dart Underground should be following closely thereafter.

In fairness, these are failures of the economic boom and not achievements so entirely off-topic
:P