LeinsterDub wrote: » Odd that risk doesn't seem to affect road building.
Uriel. wrote: » I'm not sure on how road capital expenditure compares with 5, 10 years ago etc. FG got heavily criticised about its the messaging around the last election "keep the recovery going" with the ire particularly strong in rural Ireland and non-Dublin. Roads and broadband amongst other things are aimed at this constituency
LeinsterDub wrote: » The European investment bank are literally begging us to borrow. Which is not to mention the actual billions being spend on roads and road conditions every year
LeinsterDub wrote: » 3/4 of a billion committed to new roads in the last month. 1 million eCars is apparently our climate change strategy. Roads are still being used to buy votes as you suggested
Pete_Cavan wrote: » This is the same nonsense that the Greens are constantly engaging in, applying a particular logic to a situationwhere it is not applicable at all. Look at where those new roads are located. It's not like they are roads which are going to pile more commuters onto Dublin's already gridlockeed roads instead of providing a public transport alternative. Any public transport is those areas will be road based and the existing roads are totally substandard, the new roads are justified. It is also irrelevant to Metrolink. Wasn't there recently warnings given to keeping this thread about Metrolink and not dragging every other bit of government spending into it?
LeinsterDub wrote: » It's not irrelevant as we don't have a magic money tree.
cson wrote: » Some thoughts; We need to create incentives that reduce single occupancy cars from the M50, and high congestion roads in general. An easy start would be having specific car pooling lanes on the M50. Variable tolling is the next step after that. Before that happens though, you need a credible public transport alternative, which is where Metrolink et al come in. The biggest issue is housing density though; so long as we continue to build outwards rather than upwards the car will remain king.
salmocab wrote: » Variable tolls drives people off the m50 onto rat running estates. We need to be careful of unintended consequences.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Rat running generally isn't an option unless going a junction or two and even then it usually isn't through estates. We should be discouraging short journeys on the M50 of a junction or two anyway.
salmocab wrote: » We should but unless there are alternatives it will push cars onto other already jammed local roads. Knocklyon to tallaght or ballymount would be prime for jamming up other already busy roads. Until we get PT sorted the m50 is going to stay as it is.
cgcsb wrote: » Well at the minute there is no public transport alternative so it's premature to use punishing tolls.
marno21 wrote: » ^^ Or put unexpected corporation tax windfalls into an infrastructure fund, instead of their current use of being used for unsustainable HSE cost overruns.
Lord Glentoran wrote: » I recall a conversation in the early nineties with someone who lived off Leeson Street and drove to work in Christchurch. “Well”, she said, “It’s all very well for London to have a proposed congestion charge, it can’t happen here until public transport is improved” So, nearly thirty years later, if not now, when? Charge drivers and be damned. Use the money to fund improvements such as Metro, more Luas lines, and the long fingered M3 Parkway to Navan line. Simple. Enough messing about.
magicbastarder wrote: » you'd probably also find that anyone living inside the congestion zone would be given a waiver for the congestion charge anyway. so reduced traffic might make them *more* likely to drive.
Sam Russell wrote: » Actually, I could never understand why the 'Apple €13 billion' was not turned into a Gov Bond carrying no or low interest, repayable on the final decision, and used for infrastructure, and in particular, Metrolink. Currently, huge professional fees were paid out to set up an escrow account and the fund is now subject to negative interest charges. We could build three Metrolink lines with that money.
Query 7: It would appear that NTA have not afforded all residents equal opportunity to participate in this process to date and could NTA explain the reason for this. Response 7: This allegation is simply incorrect.
CatInABox wrote: » Checked the Gadra website there, they're still as hilarious as ever. Seems the NTA are getting tired of their **** too, judging by some of the responses to questions put to them. Hilariously, Gadra want the entire project put back into public consultation over the intervention shaft at Albert College Park, as if people in Swords would give two ****s about a shaft there. Anyway, the one bit of interesting news is that the next consultation will start on the 24th January, and will run for four weeks. My guess is that if Gadra weren't incessantly banging the drum over this shaft, then there'd be no need for another consultation. The NTA are just going the extra mile to make sure that every aspect of this has been consulted on.
magicbastarder wrote: » my understanding is that the RA where i am want the whole station planned for the church on ballymun road, moved south to the park. so it would be hard for them to make a fuss about the shaft.
