Our East Link bridge - still gouging for charges

Ally Dick

No surprise here. They are not lifting the toll on the East Link even though the 30 years is up. I'm sure the city council will be using the money on their normal junkets

Harry Palmr

Duberlin forum please.............:rolleyes:

darkpagandeath

I bet it goes to IW...

Corpus Twisty

For whom the bell-ends Toll..

newacc2015

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

faceman

It's a tax to prevent northsiders entering the southside. Unfortunately they forgot to toll the other bridges too.

suicide_circus

We need to be paying more taxes, not less.

Fox_In_Socks

Never been across it-is it worth the charge? What are the views like?

padd b1975

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

My sentiments exactly.
There's only populist arguments for its abolition.

Suggestions for alternative methods of raising the 4 million it takes in most welcome.

Moved from After Hours. Please read Dublin City charter before posting.

TallGlass

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

Sure we might aswell start charging just to enter certain area, hell with even shopping centers. The poor DCC with no money from Tax, LPT and anything else they can get there hands on.

Guy:Incognito

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

plus it then opens up the areas either side of the bridge to much higher traffic flow as people use the new "free" crossing.

newacc2015

TallGlass wrote: »

Sure we might aswell start charging just to enter certain area, hell with even shopping centers. The poor DCC with no money from Tax, LPT and anything else they can get there hands on.

So you are saying you dont think DCC need any more revenue? You are satisfied that all the roads/footpaths in Dublin are in mint condition? That our parks/leisure centres could not possibly be any better? That we have plenty of social housing? IMO like 99.9% of Dubliners would agree any more funds to improve the city would be better.

BTW a large chunk of LPT goes to other CoCos and no of the reasons why the Dublin local authorities cut it in their budgets. This revenue stream from the tolls will entirely benefit Dubliners until LPT which benefits other councils. €4 million a year isnt a huge sum of money from the tolls. But it is worth almost 10% of the amount of LPT collected p.a. (estimated at €50.6 for 2016).

Tabnabs

It's operated in conjunction with Dublin Port, a private company owned entirely by the state, so don't heap too many social democractic values on it. Dublin Port is hugely profitable and arguably takes poor care of the bridge as recent malfunctions have shown.

Other countries take a more enlightened approach to these mattters. Even a socialist paradise like Norway charges for bridges and tunnels until they are repaid and then removes the barriers. It's a much easier sell if people can see what their fees are actually going on rather than another stealth tax. Imagine Irish bureaucrats and politicians taking that approach!

It was built for the people and has now bern paid for by the people who have benefited (and then some). Time to show some leadership and responsibility and open it up to free movement.

Tabnabs

Guy:Incognito wrote:

plus it then opens up the areas either side of the bridge to much higher traffic flow as people use the new "free" crossing.

Rediculous argument. Why not toll every bridge along the Liffey then, including the other opening or swing bridges?!

Larry the Logster

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I bet it goes to IW...

You mean Dennis O'Brian?

Larry the Logster

faceman wrote: »

It's a tax to prevent northsiders entering the southside. Unfortunately they forgot to toll the other bridges too.

Hadn't realised that there wasn't a toll for going the other direction. Nice one.

LollipopJimmy

Tabnabs wrote: »

Rediculous argument. Why not toll every bridge along the Liffey then, including the other opening or swing bridges?!

In fact I would see this as a positive, it would relieve the pressure on the other routes which are being used to avoid the toll

Guy:Incognito

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

In fact I would see this as a positive, it would relieve the pressure on the other routes which are being used to avoid the toll

Presumably if you live in the area you;ll still think it's a good idea?

LollipopJimmy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Presumably if you live in the area you;ll still think it's a good idea?

What's that got to do with it? Keep charging a toll because traffic volumes might upset the locals? Sure then we should never build any roads

Guy:Incognito

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

What's that got to do with it? Keep charging a toll because traffic volumes might upset the locals? Sure then we should never build any roads

Roads are constantly altered to suit locals. Be it making them pay parking, restricting access, blocking off altogether etc,

uck51js9zml2yt

Larry the Logster wrote: »

Hadn't realised that there wasn't a toll for going the other direction. Nice one.

He was referring to the other bridges not the northbound lane on the east link.

power pants

suicide_circus wrote: »

We need to be paying more taxes, not less.

speak for yourself. We need more people having some self respect and getting a job than deciding being on the dole like their generations of family before them as a career

Terrontress

As a driver, it is such a normal bridge. While it may open to give boats access, that doesn't benefit the driver. In fact, the bridge opening can delay car journeys. It just seems like a very arbitrary piece of infrastructure to toll. At least the Port Tunnel appears to be an impressive feat of engineering.

Why toll the East Link and not any other city bridge?

TallGlass

newacc2015 wrote: »

So you are saying you dont think DCC need any more revenue? You are satisfied that all the roads/footpaths in Dublin are in mint condition? That our parks/leisure centres could not possibly be any better? That we have plenty of social housing? IMO like 99.9% of Dubliners would agree any more funds to improve the city would be better.

BTW a large chunk of LPT goes to other CoCos and no of the reasons why the Dublin local authorities cut it in their budgets. This revenue stream from the tolls will entirely benefit Dubliners until LPT which benefits other councils. €4 million a year isnt a huge sum of money from the tolls. But it is worth almost 10% of the amount of LPT collected p.a. (estimated at €50.6 for 2016).

Sure thing, let increase taxes and add a few more. Lets not try balance the funds a little better.

BTW its not my problem if DCC can't get there finances in order, this the exact reasons I pay tax, so they can hire someone that can show them how to balance there money.

Sorry, like many excuses I have heard over the years, this one is wearing thin, we only get 50 million but need 75 million so we give them 75 million and its still too short for them.

And for the record, I think the roads in DCC are in fairly good condition for most of them, lines kept painted, traffic lights are nearly all new they do a good job, resurfacing where needed, repairs etc.. Now FCC that's a different story, lights all old and shabby.

newacc2015

TallGlass wrote: »

Sure thing, let increase taxes and add a few more. Lets not try balance the funds a little better.

BTW its not my problem if DCC can't get there finances in order, this the exact reasons I pay tax, so they can hire someone that can show them how to balance there money.

Sorry, like many excuses I have heard over the years, this one is wearing thin, we only get 50 million but need 75 million so we give them 75 million and its still too short for them.

And for the record, I think the roads in DCC are in fairly good condition for most of them, lines kept painted, traffic lights are nearly all new they do a good job, resurfacing where needed, repairs etc.. Now FCC that's a different story, lights all old and shabby.

Have you ever read DCC budget? In 2015 they had to spend millions on housing homeless in emergency accommodation alone. Do you think the more fiscally responsible thing to manage their budget is to a put a family of young children on the street? DCC have always been pretty good with their money. There was no really extravagant spending in the boom on their part. There is really nothing more they can do to balance their budget.

Can you suggest were to raise this potential loss of €4 million a year? That €4 million of the next 20 years could potentially provide funding for well over a hundred new family homes in DCC. But a free toll bridge must be more beneficial for you

Atlantic Dawn

newacc2015 wrote: »

Why should they stop charging? There will be maintainance costs for the bridge etc. Plus it is a solid revenue stream for DCC. We have a massive social housing shortage in the city, roads in bits and underfunded libraries. Yet you think we should ignore the potential revenue for these services so a small amount of people can enjoy a free bridge?

The 22k cars a day that use it even if they were the max fuel efficient cars out there would contribute nearly €4 million a year in motor tax. Removing the toll would increase traffic and put cars outside the main areas of the city.

Victor

Ally Dick wrote: »

Our East Link bridge

It's not your bridge. It's the city council's bridge.

Would you say "That's out Guinness brewery, give us free Guinness!" and expect to be taken seriously?

Atlantic Dawn

Victor wrote: »

It's not your bridge. It's the city council's bridge.

Would you say "That's out Guinness brewery, give us free Guinness!" and expect to be taken seriously?

It was originally built by NTR.

Victor

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It was originally built by NTR.

And?

newacc2015

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The 22k cars a day that use it even if they were the max fuel efficient cars out there would contribute nearly €4 million a year in motor tax. Removing the toll would increase traffic and put cars outside the main areas of the city.

Under that logic why do we have any tolls as all cars pay motor tax? Where does motor tax go to? The general taxation and to DCC indirectly. DCC will get this €4 million themselves and not have to share it other local authority.

Where will DCC get another €4 million easily?

LollipopJimmy

newacc2015 wrote: »

Under that logic why do we have any tolls as all cars pay motor tax? Where does motor tax go to? The general taxation and to DCC indirectly. DCC will get this €4 million themselves and not have to share it other local authority.

Where will DCC get another €4 million easily?

DCC haven't been getting the money from the tolls on the bridge though. It's only in DCC''s control since yesterday

Victor

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

DCC haven't been getting the money from the tolls on the bridge though. It's only in DCC''s control since yesterday

They've been getting rates and a cut of the tolls.

garrettod

Absolute rip off !


Firstly, this article gives a brief summary of the previous split, from revenue earned by the Bridge each year:

The income had been split between the City Council who got 17%, the Dublin Port Company (25%) and the Dutch operating company DIF (58%). Now the council gets 100%.

Secondly, it's very clear that the greedy city councillors just couldn't resist the potential €4m revenue per year from the bridge - offering absolute nonsense excuses to help justify keeping the tolls in place, such as:

- the demolition of the toll booth plaza which would cost €850,000
- concerns from councillors about increased traffic levels in Sandymount and East Wall if there was no toll on the East Link

The bridge cannot handle the current levels of traffic during peak hours, hence the regular traffic jams (particularly traveling South to North, Monday to Friday late afternoon), but there is absolutely no mention of introducing a larger bridge, more lanes, electronic tolling etc.

Instead, the councillors in their wisdom are stating that they want to make improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians, despite the fact that (a) neither pay anything for use or upkeep of the bridge and (b) there is limited space on the bridge, so anything given for further use by cyclists or pedestrians, will be at the detriment of the motorists who are the ones being charged !

It's no coincidence that the use of the Samuel Beckett Bridge is restricted, so as to prevent traffic coming from the northside via the port etc. using it (i.e. if you drive up the Quays, you cannot turn left onto the bridge, to go to the South of the city).


I think decisions and votes taken by the councillors are a matter of public record, so it might prove interesting to try and get a copy of the vote to see how the councillors voted - not least, so the motorists will know who to vote for and who to vote against, come the next local elections.

Victor

Oh, just a point, many of the bridges users don't live in the city, so they don't have a vote.

This is the AA trying to say "won't someone think of the poor motorist", all the while taking hefty sums from many of those motorists.

garrettod wrote: »

The bridge cannot handle the current levels of traffic during peak hours, hence the regular traffic jams (particularly traveling South to North, Monday to Friday late afternoon), but there is absolutely no mention of introducing a larger bridge, more lanes, electronic tolling etc.

Removing the toll means more cars. More cars, more congestion. So you want to add more cars?

Instead, the councillors in their wisdom are stating that they want to make improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians, despite the fact that (a) neither pay anything for use or upkeep of the bridge and (b) there is limited space on the bridge, so anything given for further use by cyclists or pedestrians,

Providing spaces for pedestrians and cyclists is reasonable (the current situation is exceptionally tight). Pedestrians and cyclists don't cause potholes or crack bridges.

will be at the detriment of the motorists who are the ones being charged !

More people on foot or cycling means fewer cars blocking your way.

Fncking gobsh!te.

GLaDOS

Mod

Folks can we keep things civil please

Victor

Me being uncivil isn't the only problem.

TallGlass

Victor wrote: »

Me being uncivil isn't the only problem.

Do you drive a car as a matter of interest ?

Victor

TallGlass wrote: »

Do you drive a car as a matter of interest ?

Is it my uncivil tone that makes you think this?

Mode of transport doesn't determine whether someone has a point or not. To think otherwise is rather bigoted.

markpb

TallGlass wrote: »

Do you drive a car as a matter of interest ?

I do (a not so efficient 2l diesel for which I pay €800 a year in motor tax) and I agree 100% with Victors post. The post he replied to was filled with the usual woe-is-me rubbish that motorists in Ireland (and elsewhere) come out with constantly.

It's a toll road, not an attack on your civil liberties. If you feel so strongly, run for election to the council, find another way to raise €4m or cut the same amount from the costs and then you can make the bridge free.

On principle I think having the most outer route rolled a bit silly and probably does encourage motorists (myself included) to drive closer to the city centre that would otherwise be necessary. However, I don't cry into my cornflakes about it nor do I oppose any improvement to the pedestrian or cycling facilities. Most motorists in Dublin have no idea how poor those really are.

TallGlass

Victor wrote: »

Is it my uncivil tone that makes you think this?

Mode of transport doesn't determine whether someone has a point or not. To think otherwise is rather bigoted.

What uncivil tone?

Do you drive? I didn't ask about your point, I asked you a question. Which to me plays an important part, in seeing the points of others myself included, I have no problem, with tolls or taxes for that matter, I do however have a problem with this toll bridge, to me is it the most pointless toll I have ever come across, the bridge and road are in bad condition for something that is tolled and you can avoid the bridge if you go via town, which is sending traffic into town, at a time when I thought they want to remove traffic from town. Even if your not a motorist, I don't even think they have done anything for cyclists along the road.

Again, I will point out I am not an accountant for DCC so I cannot tell them where to get 4 million, but going by that point if they are short, your telling me your suggestion is to hit motorists with tolls as DCC please, because they have a short fall and cannot house people

ted1

Victor wrote: »

Oh, just a point, many of the bridges users don't live in the city, so they don't have a vote.

This is the AA trying to say "won't someone think of the poor motorist", all the while taking hefty sums from many of those motorists.

Removing the toll means more cars. More cars, more congestion. So you want to add more cars?

Providing spaces for pedestrians and cyclists is reasonable (the current situation is exceptionally tight). Pedestrians and cyclists don't cause potholes or crack bridges.

More people on foot or cycling means fewer cars blocking your way.

Fncking gobsh!te.

I travel regularly from the south side to Dollymount and try to avoid using the bridge. It means added distance for me and I'm also adding to traffic in town.
It's pure nonsense.

TallGlass

markpb wrote: »

I do (a not so efficient 2l diesel for which I pay €800 a year in motor tax) and I agree 100% with Victors post. The post he replied to was filled with the usual woe-is-me rubbish that motorists in Ireland (and elsewhere) come out with constantly.

Good for you paying your car tax, I do too. I'm honestly happy for you if as a motorist in Ireland you think you are getting great value for money with all the taxes, tolls and levies we pay for the so called 'privilege' of owning a car.

I drive a car, a motorcycle and am a cyclist. I keep away from public transport because its a shambles. Out of my three modes of transport, my car is the most reliable and I wouldn't stretch to call it a privilege. Now forgive me if I am talking 'rubbish' to you but I pay a lot and am perfectly entitled to call people out on the 'rubbish' they are talking and am fed up to death of people on here going on like motorists have endless pockets, we don't and it's not my problem if a council has not got 4 million, but hitting the easy target the motorist for when you need a bit of cash, would you ever **** off. Also FYI, I can't use public transport because Dublin Bus are not even capable of operating a 24hr system, but I suppose that's my fault also, because they haven't got enough cash either. I guess you and Victor suggest we have another toll for that also?

Gumbo

TallGlass wrote: »

Good for you paying your car tax, I do too. I'm honestly happy for you if as a motorist in Ireland you think you are getting great value for money with all the taxes, tolls and levies we pay for the so called 'privilege' of owning a car.

I drive a car, a motorcycle and am a cyclist. I keep away from public transport because its a shambles. Out of my three modes of transport, my car is the most reliable and I wouldn't stretch to call it a privilege. Now forgive me if I am talking 'rubbish' to you but I pay a lot and am perfectly entitled to call people out on the 'rubbish' they are talking and am fed up to death of people on here going on like motorists have endless pockets, we don't and it's not my problem if a council has not got 4 million, but hitting the easy target the motorist for when you need a bit of cash, would you ever **** off. Also FYI, I can't use public transport because Dublin Bus are not even capable of operating a 24hr system, but I suppose that's my fault also, because they haven't got enough cash either. I guess you and Victor suggest we have another toll for that also?

But they didn't hit an easy target, the charge was there last week and it will still be there next. Nothing has changed. If it bothers you, go the other route.

garrettod

Victor wrote: »

Oh, just a point, many of the bridges users don't live in the city, so they don't have a vote.

What do you base this on ?

Victor wrote: »

This is the AA trying to say "won't someone think of the poor motorist", all the while taking hefty sums from many of those motorists.

Fine, then think in terms of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".... at least the AA try to stand up for motorists which I appreciate for a start (and have no relationship with the AA btw).

Victor wrote: »

Removing the toll means more cars. More cars, more congestion. So you want to add more cars?

Eh, it also means there is no taffic congestion at the toll barriers. Dare I suggest you have a look at the success on the M50, after they got rid of the toll bridges there (even if they did replace them with another form of toll).

Removing the tolls would be one part of correcting what is wrong with the current arrangements, not the only change.

Victor wrote: »

Providing spaces for pedestrians and cyclists is reasonable (the current situation is exceptionally tight). Pedestrians and cyclists don't cause potholes or crack bridges.

If they want to use the bridge to cross the Liffey, they should have to pay. The rate does not have to be the same, to reflect the point you make about their impact on the bridge, but they use the service so should have to pay.

Victor wrote: »

More people on foot or cycling means fewer cars blocking your way.

Not if they are taking up more of the bridge, when there is limited space available in the first place it doesnt.

Victor wrote: »

Fncking gobsh!te.

Nice. :rolleyes:

Muahahaha

The toll should be removed simply because that was what the plan was when it was implemented 30 years ago. People accepted it because when it was paid for (which it has been multiple times over) we were led to believe it would be given back to the citizens. Now we have a 180 degree u turn and are expected to continue paying for something that is long since paid for.

markpb

Muahahaha wrote:

The toll should be removed simply because that was what the plan was when it was implemented 30 years ago. People accepted it because when it was paid for (which it has been multiple times over) we were led to believe it would be given back to the citizens.

If Dublin Corporation at the time had simply built the bridge and tolled it, making no reference to the purpose of the toll or when it might end, would that have changed things then or now?

People didn't "accept" the toll: they use the bridge because they can justify paying for it. There's no moral argument here, just people getting annoyed because a decision was changed 30 years later (hardly the only thing that changed in 30 years).

Victor

Muahahaha wrote: »

The toll should be removed simply because that was what the plan was when it was implemented 30 years ago.

I've not heard any of this, but are you saying we can't deal with the mistakes of the past?

January

Victor has been banned for one day.

garrettod

January wrote: »

Victor has been banned for one day.

I'm surprised Boards have Victor as a moderator as I would not have thought Victor's actions reflect the image Boards wants to portray.

January

garrettod wrote: »

I'm surprised Boards have Victor as a moderator as I would not have thought Victor's actions reflect the image Boards wants to portray.

Victor is a moderator on other forums on boards, in this forum he is just a regular poster like yourself.