Who can blame them... nearly a quarter of a century and all we have are various mock-ups
I've often wondered why the NTA aren't much more proactive with press releases and pushing a positive narrative around imaging and the project as a whole.
Although, its also probably just lazy journalism, it comes from the same media outlets that often still use photos of the S61 for coast guard related articles.
I was looking at this story in the IT and wondering where they'd got this obviously out of date image from (it's got a driver for a start).
I guess it's from the Metro North docs; couldn't they have used a picture of the currently planned scheme?
Exactly. We arent going to remove people from their cars by widening roads for both buses and cars.
That approach makes the space generally less appealing to pedsetrians and can impact negativley on the feel of any impacted village.
Keep the roads as they are and remove access for cars if we have to, but dont give us (pedsetrians and people that want to inhabit their village) the worst of both worlds with more buses AND more cars.
I suppose the D6w nimby brigade are a good example of what metro link will be coming up against in the charlemount area.
Mod: This is not the Bus Connects thread.
To be fair to them most of their posts are against road widening and they do have a point. Better solutions including more serious anti car measures are what's needed, they point to the Amsterdam example.
I can think of several points on the proposed cbcs where the design prioritises road traffic over sustainable modes. All the bus connects corridors include multiple turning lanes for cars which goes against DMURS and the principles of sustainable development.
If you look at what's proposed for the junction of Christchurch and Patrick St you'd think it came from some 1970s road engineers manual. A dangerously narrow footpath with high footfall and 7 lanes of high speed traffic in our city centre on front of one of our most important historical sites.
The D6/D6W NIMBY Association are all set to go JR and Europe over bus connects in Terenure. Essentially over some parking spaces (although I'm never actually been sure what the are against and if they would like to see any improvements at all).
communities not corridors on Twitter: "At public #BusConnects meeting, residents are voicing commitment to go to Judicial review, to go to Europe - such is the strength of feeling regarding proposed #temoleoguersthfarnhamscheme" / Twitter
in some cases where it is considered that a financial interest is all that is at issue, then the court allows the project/issue to proceed and the matter be dealt with by financial awards to the injured party. [For example, a project is opposed because it spoils the view, or prevents access.]
Not sure if this can be used for infrastructure matters.
Good god!
They could only appeal the High Court decision on a claim they they erred in a point of law in making the decision, which would be difficult to achieve. It's not a case of saying you don't like the decision one court made so let's try another court to see if they make a different decision.
Imagine the laughing stock Ireland would be, if it went all the way to the ECJ.
They need to introduce some minimum charges to the objectors if they are unsuccessful. Like a graded scale, 1,000 for small scale projects, 10k for medium, 100k+ for large. They should make specific people, not just vague anonymous groups, liable for these costs.
They could also set up a means tested government fund, where lower income workers can apply for a waiver (after the ruling). This would be fair to all.
It can indeed. Higher bars for entry each time though, but yes, it could theoretically go all the way up to the ECJ.
So is it possible to appeal a JR?
For example, ABP grant permission- JR initiated by Dartmouth square residents- JR delays things by 6 months?- JR grants permission to build- Dartmouth square residents appeal to high court then the Supreme Court then the European court? (Just thinking of worst case scenario)
Hmm. I guess the plan for intel a few years back? That was over a CPO of a farmers land, with the Government saying it was vital for the future plans of the plant. The courts decided against the Gov/Intel, as they didn't actually have a plan for the land, just a "sometime in the future, we may build a fab here" plan.
Once they actually developed a plan, then the CPO succeeded, despite another JR.
For roads/rail though, no, not that I know of.
When it comes to infrastructure, has a JR ever gone in favour of the appealant. If they're generally awarded costs regardless of the decision then all it does is, cost tax payers money and delay, already delayed important projects.
Just on this, if the case has any hint of merit (i.e. it's not vexatious), then the party taking it is usually award a fair chunk of the costs. This is down to the belief that if only people with money have access to justice, then it's not justice at all.
In other words, there's basically no barrier to taking a JR. The residents of Dartmouth Square will almost certainly bring one (and could afford to bring one, even without the above on costs), Albert College Park is a maybe in my eyes, and the Tara Street residents are an outside bet (the fact that DCC won't support means that they've a lost a lot of steam).
Just found the following, regarding Gov Decision Gate 2 and 3 | 4th May 2023: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-05-04/31/
Here is part of Eamon Ryan's reply:
" ... TII is currently preparing the Project Design, Planning and Procurement Strategy for MetroLink. It is currently anticipated that these documents will be submitted to the Department of Transport this year for consideration at Decision Gate 2 of the Public Spending Code. Subject to approval at Decision Gate 2 and funding, TII will then prepare a Final Business Case for consideration by Cabinet at Decision Gate 3.
TII is also in the process of appointing a Client Partner to support the efficient and effective delivery of the project. It is currently anticipated that the Client Partner will be appointed in the coming months to provide the adequate number of resources and support across all phases of the project to ensure the successful delivery of MetroLink. This appointment will be a significant development in the process of progressing MetroLink through the Decision Gate process and toward delivery, subject to approval and funding. ... "
-------------
From the updated Preliminary Business case document, page 2-3, table E-2: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/MetroLink-Preliminary-Business-Case-Updated.pdf
Milestone: Pre-Tender Approval: Decision Gate 2 | Original Anticipated Timeline: Q2 2023 | Revised Anticipated Timeline: Q2 2023
Milestone: Railway Order granted | Original Anticipated Timeline: Q4 2023 | Revised Anticipated Timeline: Q1 2024
JR is expensive as I think it needs both a solicitor and a barrister, and the losing part also needs to pay the legal fees; not sure if this is applicable for a JR for ML, but I think that few people may be up for initiating this process, if there is ground to start it in the first place.
Someone initiating a JR doesn't mean it there will be court case - it has to be shown that ABP or the NTA have screwed up and not followed statutory procedure in submitting and processing the application.
Indeed.....Not looking promising.
Well as far as I know if it gets a yes on 21/12/23 it can then be objected to a judicial review within 3 months of the decision which brings you to the 21/3/24.
So someone initiates a JR on the 21/3/24 and then we are into an unknown timescale territory I think.
How long after the decision is it due to be operational?
I assume a decade away....embarrasing.
But hey, we have BusConnects....oh wait, thats stalled also because there are no drivers.
So lodged on 30/9/22 and no decision until 21/12/23- just shy of 1 year and 3 months later.
It’s just too slow for a piece of infrastructure that’s incredibly important to the country.
I looked at the ABP site to see what the story is, looks like there was an update
Decision
Case is due to be decided by 21/12/2023
That makes it difficult for the general public, to understand a new potential timeline / delay in the process. Guess that even if they were asked to make an update, it is probably never going to happen. Ah sure, it's grand.
Dates are not updated anymore as they never set a new date.
I was following another unrelated ABP case recently, it passed its decision due date by 3-4 months with no update on the website before finally being decided, so I would be pleasantly surprised if there was an update given here.
No Oral Hearing scheduled at the moment, just looked in the ABP website: https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/lists/cases?list=H&year=2021
The URL there shows "year=2021" but the page shows the weekly list for 2023 anyway.
The ML case 314724 still shows 22/05/2023 as decision date, hopefully they'll update it: https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/314724
Both metrowest and metronorth were very flawed projects ‘though. I don’t even know why MW had “metro” in its name - it was a tram system - requiring huge capital investment to send trams through very low average density outer suburbs along a meandering route - a daft prioritization of PT spending given the massive bottlenecks in and around the actual center of the city. And MN was a technical throwback - basically stick Luas in a tunnel with similar frequencies and using very long sets to carry more passengers - instead of using higher frequencies possible with modern systems like ML. And neither pan offered any kind of integration - reflecting the RPA’s hatred/rivalry for IE and Dublin Bus.
