opus wrote: » New exhibition hall planned for the Cork Showgrounds in Curraheen Interesting.
opus wrote: » As someone who runs along there a fair bit, this is great news.Plans unveiled for the major upgrade of the Blackrock and Mahon greenway
Deleted User wrote: » So LUAS cancelled, except in the possible far future
cgcsb wrote: » putting in tram tracks there after a walking/cycling route is installed won't pass planning due to the loss of public amenity. Cork's Luas is probably the shortest lived proposed public scheme ever announced. Apr-Jun 2019.
TheChizler wrote: » Proposals for major work in 12+ years shouldn't stop relatively minor work from happening now.
Captainsatnav wrote: » This is such a waste of time, effort and money. What really is the point of all these half @ssed studies, reports and Sunday Business Post 'Special Supplements' that go nowhere. Denmark - similar population to Ireland. It's second city, Aarhus, feasibility studies for light rail began Dec 2010. By Dec 2017 it had 2 lines fully operational interchanging with mainline rail throughout. But because, you know, this being Ireland - add on whatever excuse you're having yourself.
cgcsb wrote: » The greenway = cancellation of luas.
TheChizler wrote: » And why do you say that? They're basically resurfacing, making it more accessable, and adding lights, stuff which is currently overdue. Why continue to put it off when there isn't a chance of seeing a Luas in the next 10 years?
snotboogie wrote: » Zero provisions for future light rail in the proposal, absolutely zero. It’s either a total failure of joined up thinking or a clear acknowledgment that the Luas will never happen.
TheChizler wrote: » Why would they? Any prospect of light rail is so far away that what they do now will be old and need redoing by then anyway. Would you rather they didn't do anything to it between now and a hard plan that may never materialise?
Captainsatnav wrote: » Denmark - similar population to IrelandIt's second city, Aarhus, feasibility studies for light rail began Dec 2010. By Dec 2017 it had 2 lines fully operational interchanging with mainline rail throughout. But because, you know, this being Ireland - add on whatever excuse you're having yourself.
cgcsb wrote: » Let's imagine as planned? Planning starts for the luas line in 10 years. The route will destroy the amenity of the Greenway and will thus not go ahead
munstermagic11 wrote: » But not the same income tax level. If you want to go ahead and create a party that’ll propose a 55% income tax, go ahead. You’d get my vote, because I don’t believe public services can realistically improve to Scandinavian levels without it. If anything is becoming typically “Irish”, it’s wishful public spending without a plan to actually make it happen.
munstermagic11 wrote: » Captainsatnav wrote: » Denmark - similar population to IrelandIt's second city, Aarhus, feasibility studies for light rail began Dec 2010. By Dec 2017 it had 2 lines fully operational interchanging with mainline rail throughout. But because, you know, this being Ireland - add on whatever excuse you're having yourself. But not the same income tax level. If you want to go ahead and create a party that’ll propose a 55% income tax, go ahead. You’d get my vote, because I don’t believe public services can realistically improve to Scandinavian levels without it. If anything is becoming typically “Irish”, it’s wishful public spending without a plan to actually make it happen.
questionmark? wrote: » When you go over the higher rate band our rate is not that far behind when you include Income Tax, USC (aka tax) and PRSI (aka tax). Anyway the biggest issue IMHO is the Irish ability to get horrendous value for money on public projects and the extreme slowness to make changes as well as the embarrassing nimby/parish pump politics that goes on.
Deleted User wrote: » The Irish can get value for money, the private sector proves that and all the Irish working on major jobs in the middle east, America, Australia etc., the skills are there, it's the civil service and all the red tape that's the problem Where I work, we go + - 30% and then get to + - 10%, normally comes in on budget and if it doesn't we have to seriously justify why the budget got blown
Deleted User wrote: » There is also no punishment mechanism for companies to then keep coming back to the well, during the build. Where are the KPIs in the SLA? What are the penalties? Also why can companies not be disqualified from tendering for other projects based on past performance?
fash wrote: » Once the scope and terms of the contract is set- then assuming that there are no additional requirements and that there are no new employer interferences which had not been explained in advance, then there is no scope for changes to the contract. If there are such things, then they can only be recovered insofar as they are proved to result in additional cost. Why should a construction company be punished for that?
Deleted User wrote: » Why should a company be punished for under quoting a tender then repeatedly going over that projection, way above understandable contingency? Seriously? We have repeated live examples of certain companies doing exactly this and nothing done to them.
fash wrote: » I give you a price to build a three storey building. As I start, you change any want a 5 storey building. You also tell me that (unlike the promises you made prior to signing the contract) that I am only allowed to work at night between the hours of 1am and 5am and I am not allowed to use any power tools. Why am I not allowed to charge you the provable (and literally no further) extra costs associated with that? Why must I be punished for your alteration of the terms of the agreement?
Deleted User wrote: » Why are you throwing in changes? Did I mention changes? Did someone else?