[ireland.com] Ahern backs plan to move Dublin Port, says McDowell

Navan Junction · 20-10-2006 11:40AM #1

20-10-06, 12:16

The Taoiseach has endorsed a plan by the Progressive Democrats to move Dublin port north to a location near Balbriggan, Tánaiste Michael McDowell said today.

The plan would see port activity move to Breamore north of Balbriggan, Co Dublin, and the current port area would be transformed into what the PDs say will be a "new Manhattan-style" heart for Dublin.

Speaking in Dublin this morning, Mr McDowell said the plan would free up more than 600 acres of valuable real estate for phased redevelopment. The plan includes housing, office accommodation, shops, waterfront promenades and green spaces, Mr McDowell said.

Speaking at a conference in Dublin Castle, "A New Heart for Dublin", Mr McDowell added: "By moving industrial port activity gradually from the already over-stretched Dublin Port to a site north of Balbriggan, this proposal also aims to deliver an increasingly truck-free city.

"I am happy to report that in my discussions with the Taoiseach about the regeneration of Dublin Port and Senator [Tom] Morrissey's visionary plan, he has indicated his support for what we are working to achieve today," Mr McDowell said.

The idea was first mooted by the PDs in December last year when Mr McDowell and Senator Morrissey, the party's transport spokesman, unveiled a discussion document entitled A New Heart for Dublin.

A party spokeswoman told ireland.com today that the Taoiseach's support for the project was crucial because it "takes it beyond just a PD issue".

She added that the delayed Dublin Port Tunnel - built at a cost of at least €775 million - would form "an integral part of the whole project".

It emerged this week that "significant hurdles" in connection with testing of safety systems are preventing the setting of a date for the opening of the tunnel.

Tunnel developers Dublin City Council and the National Roads Authority both said they could no longer stand over assurances that the tunnel would open in November.

© The Irish Times/ireland.com

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/1020/breaking35.htm

Bluetonic · 20-10-2006 01:29PM

Can't wait until Tom Morrissey comes knocking on the door.

Would be surprised if he gets more than 500 first preferences in the next election.

Idbatterim · 20-10-2006 01:31PM

The idea makes so much sense, i would love to see it going ahead. It would want to be a hell of lot better than alot of the IFSC and whats being put up now however!

Metrobest · 20-10-2006 02:40PM

It is a project with extraordinary levels of vision. It just proves yet again that the PDs are the only party in Ireland able to think outside the box.

If this project goes ahead, combined with metro and interconnector, it will truly cement the image of Ireland as progressive and modern country - and that's how we need to market ourselves if we want the good times to continue. We can't rely on US companies investing in suburban industrial estates to sutain the economy over the longer term. We need a district of skyscrapers and commerce that will lure large companies to headquarters in Dublin, especially in financial services.

Idbatterim · 20-10-2006 03:35PM

yeah i agree, the pds are the only ones who come out with plans of some grandeur or vision. the rest of the parties still dont ook ahead.

steve-o · 20-10-2006 04:43PM

Not everyone thinks that the PDs are wonderful...
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74910

dowlingm · 20-10-2006 04:44PM

If this is true then the metro extension planning from Lissenhall to the mainline and Balbriggan Port should be starting now, not when the traffic nightmare hits as usual, but with turnback at Swords as 10min frequency would be fine during construction and maybe even after. Given the open country the extension should be much cheaper on a per-km basis.

Lennoxschips · 20-10-2006 06:22PM

It is a project with extraordinary levels of vision.

Vision would have been thinking about this in 1999 instead of building the Port Tunnel.

Build a 750 million euro "port" tunnel, and then move the port. Genius!

Muppets...

Lennoxschips · 20-10-2006 06:31PM

of course, it would explain why the tunnel diameter wasn't big enough for the large trucks. it was never meant to be big enough. they've been lying to the electorate about the true purpose of this 750 million pound tunnel since its inception

meanwhile, the interconnector could have been built

D'Peoples Voice · 22-10-2006 01:06PM

Lennoxschips wrote:

of course, it would explain why the tunnel diameter wasn't big enough for the large trucks. it was never meant to be big enough. they've been lying to the electorate about the true purpose of this 750 million pound tunnel since its inception

meanwhile, the interconnector could have been built

Several things to note about this piece on indymedia. The authors quite rightly state what their background is, yes, biased against the Government. They are anti-M3 campaigners.
They conveniently forget that it is Dublin City Council and NOT the Government who plan Dublin city, that why they are responsible for drawing up 10 year Local Area Plans. It is Dublin City Council who wanted to build the Port Tunnel. It is Dublin City Council who could have rezoned the land at Dublin port.
I have so little faith in the ministers of the day, that I'd strongly doubt they could be this foresighted. Please give me an example in transport where a minister was foresighted. Many of them are solicitors/auctioneers/publicans, and nurses, hardly visionaries.
As Balbriggan is in Fingal, it would be my belief that perhaps Dublin city council didn't wish to see Dublin port leave their county and go to Fingal (although I admit they were all the one county council in 1990). But no I have absolutely nothing to back that up with, I'm just thinking of the National stadium & Conference centres etc, facilities people didn't want to leave Dublin city county to go to Fingal or South Dublin.
The whole thing about Haliburton, the only reason they threw that name in is because they will be involved in the M3, and they are trying to discredit their involvement. That's fair enough, people are entitled to their opinions.
However, it is my view that this yes, Dublin City council should have adopted the plan suggested by ESB into their 10 year plan, but then again people forget that our curent house crisis was caused by the relevant county councils not starting planning/rezoning in the 1980s to house the baby boomers. As someone said, they probably assumed many of them would emigrate, and therefore such planning was not needed. At least the Bacon reports highlighted this shortcoming in planning by Dublin city council et al. Time will show we have been badly treated by planning in Dublin City Council, and I'm not talking baout George Redmond.

Slice · 22-10-2006 01:36PM

Considering that the PDs have been in Government for the last two terms and that this idea of theirs has been bandied about for nearly as long it begs the question why was the port tunnel approved and built under their Government at all? The port tunnel was proposed as a means of servicing Dublin Port. I agree completely with Lennoxschips;

Vision would have been thinking about this in 1999 instead of building the Port Tunnel.

D'Peoples Voice: They conveniently forget that it is Dublin City Council and NOT the Government who plan Dublin city

I think you're conveniently forgetting a thing or two in making the above statement, D'Peoples Voice. A project of this magnitude is always driven by Government and in this case implemented by Dublin City Council. Nobody's pretending that the recently announced Metro is anything less than apart of the Government's grand vision for Dublin, not the local authority's.

thebman · 22-10-2006 09:28PM

Metrobest wrote:

If this project goes ahead, combined with metro and interconnector, it will truly cement the image of Ireland as progressive and modern country - and that's how we need to market ourselves if we want the good times to continue. We can't rely on US companies investing in suburban industrial estates to sutain the economy over the longer term. We need a district of skyscrapers and commerce that will lure large companies to headquarters in Dublin, especially in financial services.

A communications infastructure might be nice.

Broadband in Ireland is some of the worst in Europe and we've been overtaken by Czech Republic in the EU table.

FFS this is unforgivable. Our government can't plan for accomadating infastructure we needed 5 years ago, let alone the future. Not that any alternative present at the moment would be any better. Muppets the lot of them!

To put our current BB in perspective. Where people can get it in this country (< 70% of people), it is generally 1Mb to 2Mb when Britain is currently at 18Mb for the same price with better bandwidth limitations (unlimited in Ireland generally means 5-10GB a month) and Britain is considered behind. We are so far behind, it'd be quicker to walk to the information as driving isn't an option given the traffic on the roads and public transport is a joke.

D'Peoples Voice · 23-10-2006 12:27PM

Slice wrote:

I think you're conveniently forgetting a thing or two in making the above statement, D'Peoples Voice. A project of this magnitude is always driven by Government and in this case implemented by Dublin City Council. Nobody's pretending that the recently announced Metro is anything less than apart of the Government's grand vision for Dublin, not the local authority's.

I can't believe I'm reading this, the metro is part of the Government's vision for Dublin:mad: , bullsh1t. Find me one person who believes that the idea came from our Minsiters and not from the Dublin Transportation Office(circa 2001), of which our local authorities and transport companies are partners in.
As far as I'm concerned, ministers are spokesmen, no more, although I'd probably say Charlie McGreevy came up with one or two ideas of his own, but in the main, I believe they use the civil service as a crutch to give them policies.:(

Slice · 24-10-2006 08:03AM

D'Peoples Voice: I can't believe I'm reading this, the metro is part of the Government's vision for Dublin , bullsh1t. Find me one person who believes that the idea came from our Minsiters and not from the Dublin Transportation Office(circa 2001)

I think you'll find that the details of A Platform For Change and Transport21 are very different. Also Platform For Change was proposed dependent on the entire plan being implemented... which it's not.

Heinrich · 24-10-2006 08:18AM

Judging from the current mess brought about by our incompetent and arrogant politicians this one will be an even bigger debacle.

Port tunnel, gridlock, lousy hospitals, gangland shootings, Aer Lingus, brown envelopes, Manchester benefit dinners, whip arounds for sad divorcee ministers, overcrowded prisons, the list is long.

Even if the opposition were not much better let's vote them in so that we can direct our moaning at another target. Then we could see the mighty FF/PD/asslick inds in opposition with the same degree of incompetence...

...just a thought.

westtip · 24-10-2006 10:17AM

This idea to move the port tunnel is kneejerk politicking. It is a massive idea -in which case why hasn't it formed part of government policy for the past ten years - Why is there not a whisper of the idea in Transport 21 and the implications on Transport policy. Because now is the silly season for floating out big ideas which quite simply will not happen - An election on the horizon perhaps.

Slice · 24-10-2006 10:32AM

This is really McDowell's baby and I'm sure it has something to do with the proposed incinerator in his constituency also planned for the docklands area.

Metrobest · 24-10-2006 02:19PM

brim4brim wrote:

A communications infastructure might be nice.

Broadband in Ireland is some of the worst in Europe and we've been overtaken by Czech Republic in the EU table.

FFS this is unforgivable. Our government can't plan for accomadating infastructure we needed 5 years ago, let alone the future. Not that any alternative present at the moment would be any better. Muppets the lot of them!

To put our current BB in perspective. Where people can get it in this country (< 70% of people), it is generally 1Mb to 2Mb when Britain is currently at 18Mb for the same price with better bandwidth limitations (unlimited in Ireland generally means 5-10GB a month) and Britain is considered behind. We are so far behind, it'd be quicker to walk to the information as driving isn't an option given the traffic on the roads and public transport is a joke.

The Czech Republic.. jeez, next thing they'll be building a metro line there. Oh wait, they already built one. Decades ago.

But luckily, examine what's in the Docklands and it's mainly private development. The government just has to zone the area as strategic development. Impose minimum and maxium height restrictions. International property conglomerates will be battling like crazy to get a piece of the pie. They benefit, we benefit. Win Win.

The area has motorway, rail and tram infrastructure, it has cultral facilties and is close to the Bay. Set amidst the river and Port, it is the perfect location for skyscapers.

It's an opportunity for Ireland to say to the world that we are modern, progressive, dynamic nation, not stuck in the past.

mickoneill30 · 24-10-2006 02:56PM

I think it's a great idea. There's no reason why the port has to be in the middle of the city. The tunnell would still be of great use to get people into the centre of the city quickly. Obviously they'd have to get rid of those massive tolls.

Victor · 24-10-2006 11:37PM

Metrobest wrote:

The area has motorway, rail and tram infrastructure, it has cultral facilties and is close to the Bay. Set amidst the river and Port, it is the perfect location for skyscapers.

Except the power stations, oil storage, sewage works and lousy filled ground.

Lennoxschips · 25-10-2006 01:45PM

It's an opportunity for Ireland to say to the world that we are modern, progressive, dynamic nation, not stuck in the past.

that sounds like a brochure

i don't think i've ever judged a country by the number of skyscrapers it has

Navan Junction · 27-10-2006 06:41AM

Madam, - Arising from the proposal to transfer Dublin Port to Bremore and redevelop the existing port area for residential and commercial use two interesting questions come to mind:

1. Will the Port Tunnel be finished in time to be moved to Bremore?

2. Will the buildings to be constructed in the present port area be built on stilts, in view of the rising tide levels expected from global warming - or will it be necessary to construct a levee in the bay? - Yours, etc,

KENNETH R. WILSON,

Mather Road North,

Mount Merrion,

Co Dublin.

D'Peoples Voice · 27-10-2006 12:24PM

Navan Junction wrote:

1. Will the Port Tunnel be finished in time to be moved to Bremore?.

they're not moving the Port Tunnel, just the Port.:D

Metrobest · 27-10-2006 03:16PM

Victor wrote:

Except the power stations, oil storage, sewage works and lousy filled ground.

Nothing money won't fix.

Metrobest · 27-10-2006 03:30PM

Lennoxschips wrote:

i don't think i've ever judged a country by the number of skyscrapers it has

Lennoxschips, of course you do. The architecture of the city contributes massively to how that city is perceived. You don't go to Prague and think: "this would be a great city for financial services." Skyscrapers cater to the growth industries and that's what will keep the economy ticking over when the inevitable lull occurs.

We need to create a "wow" factor. That when you approach Dublin city you feel like you're entering a city and not just a big town. We're always being told that Dublin is an exciting cosmopolitan city and everyone wants to visit it, but the reality is that Dublin is to Europe what Kilkenny is to Dublin: a convient location for a boozy weekend. Pleasant, but not spectacular.

That's something the Port project could really change.

Navan Junction · 27-10-2006 03:55PM

Metrobest wrote:

We need to create a "wow" factor.

We have a "wow" factor - The traffic & political promises

Capt'n Midnight · 28-10-2006 12:36AM

Victor wrote:

Except the power stations, oil storage, sewage works and lousy filled ground.

How much would it cost to clean up any toxic waste ?

Agree that doing this AFTER the port tunnel makes that project a complete waste. the tunnel is overkill as a metro which would take far more passengers than if used for cars.

As for our infrasturcture, telecommuting should be an option. The amount spent on roads instantly clogged by single user cars is ridiculous compared to the amount on public transport. Buy several hundred buses, to give the city the breathing space to lay rails. We've had commuter rail since 1834 and even with the luas's we still only have a small fraction of the rail network that was in use in the city 100 years ago. As for wow factor , I've always liked the way the DART is above the city, stilts are easier, cheaper and faster than tunnels.

which reminds me about the London Docklands Light Rail, they built it instead of a tube extension, but it was too small, so they had to extend the tube anyway. I would not be suprised if the docks were redeveloped that they tried to get away with a Lusa, ripped up all the point depot and related train tracks and produced more gridlock there.

How much would this project cost ?
How much would a tunnel to Wales cost - do away with the port and use rail links (though TBH a tunnel from NI to scotland would be cheaper and the Sakhalin tunnels with a rail link along the Amur would a better invenstmet )

fly_agaric · 28-10-2006 02:07PM

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

They conveniently forget that it is Dublin City Council and NOT the Government who plan Dublin city

Yep. Dublin City Council - the real power when it comes to running Dublin! Except they can't even put up a few signs and then the transport minister of the day decides he doesn't like the design and they are taken down!:D

[ireland.com] Ahern backs plan to move Dublin Port, says McDowell

Comments