Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Programme for govenment has a Luas on the cover

  • 11-05-2016 4:39pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭ LeinsterDub


    And that's about as good as it gets . They've committed to finish Luas BXD which is nice of them and DUL


    Transport: The Plan will focus on the development of a cost-effective policy platform
    for reducing emissions and increasing energy efficiency across all transport modes. It
    will examine the role of technology, sustainable land use patterns, modal shift, travel
    demand, alternative fuel options and the impact of proposed measures on other
    national policy objectives
    Which is to say we commit to noting

    A) Public Transport Investment
    We will invest €3.6billion across the lifetime of the next Capital Plan to enable a number of major public transport projects to proceed, and to fund additional capacity to meet existing and future commuter needs. These will include the new Metro North and the completion of LUAS Cross City.
    In line with these commitments, we will instigate a full review of public transport policy to ensure services are sustainable into the future and are meeting the needs of a modern economy.
    Kinda hard to pull the plug on BXD at this stage lads

    E) Better Public Transport
    A decent public transport system is essential to the everyday lives of so many citizens in
    Ireland and is essential in reducing social isolation.
    We will invest €3.6billion across the lifetime of the next Capital Plan to enable a number of
    major public transport projects to proceed, and to fund additional capacity to meet existing
    and future commuter needs. These will include the new Metro North and the completion of
    LUAS Cross City.
    That same 3.6 bl , the same BXD then lads?

    We will support the extension of existing public bike schemes and will also drive the rollout
    of additional schemes in other urban areas. Public bike schemes have the advantage of
    linking up existing infrastructure while also being environmentally friendly.

    Ah sure who needs actually linked up infrastructure and aren't DCC proposing a 50% to fund the DB extension?
    http://www.merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/Programme_for_Partnership_Government.pdf


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,781 ✭✭✭ Carawaystick


    Fine Gael Govt doing nothing for Public transport shocker


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭ LeinsterDub


    Fine Gael Govt doing nothing for Public transport shocker

    All governments we've had have done little to nothing for public transport


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭ D.L.R.


    All governments we've had have done little to nothing for public transport

    Exactly. Fine Gael don't spend money, and Fianna Fail waste it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭ LeinsterDub


    Deedsie wrote: »
    Ah come on now, they both waste plenty of money? Fianna Fáil do waste more but they seem more "ambitious" in their approach.

    Yup those 2 disconnected luas lines showed such ambition


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,754 ✭✭✭✭ emmet02


    IBEC pointing out the absolute dearth of long-term investment and planning in the programme for Government

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0518/789143-ibec/
    It said the extra €4bn of capital spending in the programme is only about a third of the amount Ibec believes is needed, urging the Government to seek a relaxation of EU fiscal rules to allow more spending on infrastructure - taking advantage of record low borrowing costs.

    All seems remarkably prudent to me. Unfortunately, the issue that Infrastructure isn't 'Sexy' never, ever goes away.

    As we enter a phase (my guess) of further disparate groupings in Government, and more fractured coalitions and minority Governments, this problem is only going to get worse too.

    That is unless the future "Minister for Infrastructure"'s constituency is the entire length and breadth of a site penned for major required investment.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,519 ✭✭✭✭ Idbatterim


    I posted this in the metro north thread yesterday, this is such a sham, that with the ridiculous growth, I cant see how despite their best attempts, we arent going to simply end back up at original metro north capacity scheme, albeit with maybe one less city centre station and surface running instead of tunnel in ballymun (simply to save face and make the headline cost, slightly cheaper)!

    For anyone who thinks the current outcome is bad, I urge you to read the Irish times article from below and see the sham they attempted to foist on Dublin. They couldnt worm their way out of that and thats a major victory. Once the strong growth continues and there are no more crisis, those snakes wiggling their way out of the new scheme, is going to be pretty difficult!

    build the original scheme and order less rolling stock, what will the ballymun surface option and one city centre station save? and its an inferior scheme. Even if €500,000,000 (a huge amount of which would flow back to the government). Is it worth having Dublin gridlocked for €100,000,000 a year??!!!!! which this can kicking down the road has done?

    I mean the government can lie and did, but the new plans will have to be based on facts and figures!

    They bang on about new housing new housing new housing, proper mainly rail based infrastructure here will allow higher density!!!

    Im going to write to Shane Ross and ask him for his opinion on depriving the city of decent public transport, for an inferior scheme, to "save" peanuts and build a system which will no doubt be near capacity at day 1. Ask him how does he appraise the value for that? Penny smart and pound foolish!

    the thing is, the more you think about it, it makes no sense with any rational thinking. It simply is down to politics and they dont have any courage / vision...

    I think I worked out earlier that making the platforms 60m instead of 90m, would save 4% of the total cost of the scheme, but cuts capacity by one third!!! again how much of that 4% doesnt go back to the government directly in terms of vat, corporation tax and extra income taxes and then further again through the circular flow of income?

    ok a quick search came up as the new scheme being €452,000,000 cheaper. (Link below)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coalition-considers-revised-metro-north-scheme-1.2362243

    The proposed stations would therefore be smaller than originally envisaged, which the NTA report last year said would save €79 million. The rolling stock of vehicles could also be reduced by one-third, saving €46 million. Fewer stations are envisaged, saving €131 million. For example, the plan put forward by the NTA last year cut stations at O’Connell Bridge and Parnell Square in favour of one at Upper O’Connell Street.

    ok so lets take their figures! go with original scheme, order less rolling stock, original scheme €406,000,000 more! so we are being delayed 5 years minimum for a far worse VALUE scheme to "save" shade of €100,000,000 a year!

    Jesus this is a sham if ever I have seen one, cut the only things they can , even if they dont make an IOTA of sense, just to make it look like the savings are worthwhile!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,519 ✭✭✭✭ Idbatterim


    I have just got his email address etc, I am going to ask him, seeing as it was based on a convenient lie last time round, there is nothing wrong with the original scheme and developing the new one will cost time and money going back over old ground.

    Have the balls to call it as it is, forget a new scheme, just say what the ex minister for transport should have (although I will admit things are looking even more rosy economically now than when the decisions was made in late ish 2015). "The original scheme is the right one, if we have to wait another year or two for its approval, so be it." What its the point of this charade of designing a new one, when it wont get going for years anyway and is worse value and I reckon below capacity now given current growth figures.

    I mean you can only go on the figures at the time, which is what Paschal or his advisors did. Funny how you can reach your own convenient conclusions from them though or just sourcer the number up Paschal's are outdated now, so we can just go back to plan 1...


Advertisement