LeinsterDub wrote: » So do roads, it's odd that rarely get mentioned
veryangryman wrote: » Said roads can be used by all transport types (other than heavy rail) and are usually cheaper per km to build. Less fking about if your a truck too.
is_that_so wrote: » Easier to maintain, more people use them and they go where people need to go regardless of how few use them. Rail infrastructure maintenance is IT's biggest cost. Parties don't get to throw out all-encompassing brainfarts without a price tag and timeline.
tom1ie wrote: » got a leaflet from john lahart ff promising: (1)metro sw, basic premise saying its unfair green line was to be upgraded, sw has no infrastructure. good idea but I don't know where hes getting the money from? (4) luas from Sandyford to Tallaght...................wheres the money for that coming from?
LeinsterDub wrote: » Money is available from the EIB or negative interest bonds. The issues is these ideas are ridiculous. The Green line upgrade is required because it's reaching maximum capacity and SW metro actually makes this problem worse . Sandyford to Tallaght is fine but it can take a number after about 20 other projects.
tom1ie wrote: » Don't think o Donovan has a clue tbh, iirc she opposes bus connects also.
tom1ie wrote: » The green line absolutely needs to be upgraded to metro standard and giving into the nimbys was a disgrace. id go as far as to say the gl needs to be upgraded right out to cherrywood to accommodate the massive developments out there. However, if money is available from the EIB, we should build metro sw. A spur off the main metro line will half the frequency on that line, but two different areas of the city will be getting serviced. Also if your running trains at 90sec intervals that means that trains will be pushed out to every 3 mins on the main line and the spur, that's hardly a disgrace, especially if you have driverless hfv, that are 90ms long! If the moneys available it should be done.
tom1ie wrote: » (2) large p+r's on radial routes into Dublin (very good idea, ive said it for ages, they just have to make sure quality pt comes out the city side of the p+r)
Zebra3 wrote: » And what do people get onto after parking?
tom1ie wrote: » Hey look it’s not my message it’s John laharts, but it has potential, once there are multiple different bus routes leaving at high frequencies from the p+r. These busses would need to have qbc’s to get those busses where they are going and on to further interchange points. They will be commuter busses that have few stops, designed to stop at transport interchange hubs and final destinations only. In the case of the n4 heavy rail could be brought into the scenario also, if they can get a move on building our bespoke train sets.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Roads are more expensive to maintain. Of course more people use them as they've had a massive investment to courage that use.
is_that_so wrote: » So what exactly are you looking for, bearing in mind that very little of the IR network makes a profit?
Idbatterim wrote: » What way is the public mood blowing on bus connects ?! That will tell you. I was coming towards terenure earlier , there is a massive pinch point caused where there is a gap in the bus corridor. Only a fault short section, and all it would take to address is removing a meter or so from the ridiculously long front gardens on this short stretch! But they are so populist here and unwilling to do anything, that you know what ? I am actually surprised Eamon Ryan and all of these gob****es running for election , haven’t proposed a harrier bus , when it reaches congestion, or a gap in the qbc, it just lifts off vertically , then flies forward until landing back then when it hits the next stretch of qbc ...
MrAbyss wrote: » I am amazed how many people I meet are voting for the Greens. If we had a proper Green party here and not this bunch I would be positive for public transport but I am not.
Dats me wrote: » Greens support BusConnects - and public mood seems more positive now from what I can see. What do you guys think based on conversations at work etc?
tom1ie wrote: » I will be voting green. I know people were not happy with eamon Ryan’s input into metrolink etc, however he was looking to get more metro for more parts of the city. If the money can be got, I can’t argue against this. Fact is I don’t trust fffg to deliver any promises they make, not just on pt, but everything else. The rest of the parties, maybe with the exception of the social democrats, have no interest in solving the traffic chaos, they just want to promise houses for everyone.
Dats me wrote: » Same for me, Greens are very flawed here but everyone seems to forget that it was Leo Varadkar who killed Metro North and DART Underground in middle of 2013 when we were actually starting to get a bit of money. Can't see them actually spending €3bn+ (realistically way more) on Metro for example. And FG will probably be better than FF who just want roads.
prunudo wrote: » Bar being petty because it's an FG project is there any reason FF would want to disrupt Metrolink. I always thought they were pro infrastructure.
Zebra3 wrote: » When the money spent goes into the hands of their supporters, they are.So long as the spending doesn’t upset rural voters.
CrabRevolution wrote: » That's a large part of it. There's a feeling among a lot of Rural Ireland™ that any money spent on Dublin is effectively theft from the rest of the country. They'd rather the money not be spent than spend it on any Dublin infrastructure. The government got away with the Luas, Port Tunnel etc. during the celtic tiger because the rest of the country was getting bypasses, motorways, and some new rail lines too.
Idbatterim wrote: » I love this comedy! How much is pouring out of Dublin to rural Ireland. I dont care what rural ireland think, I know for a FACT that dublins transport is near third world, has "rural ireland" ever taken a flight to the continent? what did they think of the transport in a dublin sized city V the big schmoke? :rolleyes:
