Luas BXD - Broombridge to Finglas

That username is already in use. · 24-01-2011 9:33pm #1

BXD will happen eventually, but what about future extentions north?

This may not happen for 20 years at least, and by then, there may be a lot of development in Scribblestown and Dunsink!

But anyway, here it goes:

http://i.imgur.com/XFVub.jpg

Proposed stops:

Broombridge
Dublin Ind. Est.
Tolka Valley
Finglas South
Finglas Village
Finglas North
St. Margaret
North Road
Huntstown

From Broombridge, the line heads north over a new bridge across the Maynooth line into Dublin Ind. Est.

It then traverses Tolka Valley Park and through greenfields in Finglas South.

It then turns right onto Wellmount Road and joins the N2.

It goes north all the way to the N2/North Road junction, turns left at North Road into the industrial estate, and across a new bridge over the M50 to terminate at Huntstown. (where Wetro West might someday pass through)

That's just one of many ideas I have for the future of Dublin Transport.

Discuss.

Telchak · 24-01-2011 11:00pm

Don't think there's the room on the N2 Finglas bypass to stick in a Luas line while retaining the four traffic lanes

Here's my idea, I think it covers more of Finglas and opens up more land for (far) future development.

I've also drawn up a map for a pedestrianisation (apart from Luas) and reallignment of traffic around Finglas Village

That username is already in use. · 24-01-2011 11:48pm

Telchak wrote: »

Don't think there's the room on the N2 Finglas bypass to stick in a Luas line while retaining the four traffic lanes

There is plenty of room up the N2.

Telchak · 24-01-2011 11:53pm

That username is already in use. wrote: »

There is plenty of room up the N2.

At the underpass where there is currently 2 lanes in each direction and no room to expand. To put a Luas through here you would have to narrow it to one traffic lane in each direction

That username is already in use. · 25-01-2011 12:15am

Telchak wrote: »

At the underpass where there is currently 2 lanes in each direction and no room to expand. To put a Luas through here you would have to narrow it to one traffic lane in each direction

Yes, but there is room to cut into at this section. Two Luas lanes can be created here alongside the carriageway.

If not, why not?

Telchak · 25-01-2011 12:25am

That username is already in use. wrote: »

Yes, but there is room to cut into at this section. Two Luas lanes can be created here alongside the carriageway.

If not, why not?

Do you know this part of the road? Under the bridge there is at most a metre to the left of the road. There is then a vertical wall, it's not like cutting into the side of the sloped M50 overpasses. Only inches could be saved on the inside of the carriage, if any. Putting a tram line under here would involve sacrificing one of the lanes which, to me at least, seems unreasonable on an important road.

That username is already in use. · 25-01-2011 1:03am

Telchak wrote: »

Do you know this part of the road? Under the bridge there is at most a metre to the left of the road. There is then a vertical wall, it's not like cutting into the side of the sloped M50 overpasses. Only inches could be saved on the inside of the carriage, if any. Putting a tram line under here would involve sacrificing one of the lanes which, to me at least, seems unreasonable on an important road.

Ah! Now I know what you're on about.

Luas will not go through that underpass.

I propose Luas to run aside that section.

See below:

Amtmann · 25-01-2011 1:20am

Just to clarify, is this a fantasy thread or does the image in post 1 actually show the planned route and stops?

dowlingm · 25-01-2011 2:35am

If there's no room for two LUAS tracks, put down a single track and signal it for a couple of hundred metres. The French do it with the same trams and it's near the end of the line anyway.

DWCommuter · 25-01-2011 12:11pm

Tremelo wrote: »

Just to clarify, is this a fantasy thread or does the image in post 1 actually show the planned route and stops?

Its a FANTASY thread I tell you. FANTASY.

And its....

ALIVE!

popebenny16 · 25-01-2011 3:47pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

Its a FANTASY thread I tell you. FANTASY.

And its....

ALIVE!

fantasy thread it may well be, but tis a bit dead, as neither idea shows any sign of awareness of the local population.

first map: the stops on the Finglas Bypass/N2 (called St Margaret and Finglas Road North) serve nowhere - in fact one stop beside the roundabout adj to Plunkett Road would do the trick.

second map: putting the Luas up the Jamestown Road is just, well, sorry, nuts. It is saturated with bus services, the population is getting on a lot and, frankly the population in that area wont welcome being called Finglas (its a part of Glasnevin, the biggest surburb on Dublins northside).

If you want to indulge in crayonism, and want to get the most bang for yer buck, bring the Luas around St Helena's, up Cardiffsbridge Road, down Mellows Road , up Plunkett and off to the junction with Metro West where the next train will deaprt in 35 years.

Telchak · 25-01-2011 6:09pm

popebenny16 wrote: »

second map: putting the Luas up the Jamestown Road is just, well, sorry, nuts. It is saturated with bus services, the population is getting on a lot and, frankly the population in that area wont welcome being called Finglas (its a part of Glasnevin, the biggest surburb on Dublins northside).

The 19/A is the only frequent route, and that only serves the top half of the road. I see what you're saying about the population though, but the idea was to get to the apartments and newer houses in the Charlestown area (which I'd imagine will be more built up by the time thins thing is seriously thought about).

dowlingm · 27-01-2011 8:49pm

Given the financial situation, eliminating all fantasy projects would reduce this to a heritage forum...

Sponge Bob · 20-04-2011 5:49pm

Less of a fantasy than Metro North and Dart Interconnector are since Leo announced the southern section is still alive today. Take that back DW

Sponge Bob · 20-04-2011 5:53pm

Seeing as this is a crayon thread here is a mockup of the 'special' Rolling stock for the Broadstone - Broombridge - Finglas section :cool:

DWCommuter · 21-04-2011 1:57am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Less of a fantasy than Metro North and Dart Interconnector are since Leo announced the southern section is still alive today. Take that back DW

I can't take it back because I always believed MN and DU were a Government fantasy anyway. The "Southern section" is a long way short of Finglas.:D

Its the Luas Interconnector now!

dubhthach · 22-04-2011 1:15pm

For reference for anyone interested that train that Sponge posted an image of is the Armored train Hurban which was used during the Slovak National Uprising in 1944. It's in Zvolen in Slovakia for any of ye Trainspotters who are planning on a holiday in that neck of the woods.

Aard · 22-04-2011 3:10pm

"Luas Interconnector"...

Straight from the Patsy and Maureen School of Transport Engineering. Who comes up with these things? Either he is very dumb or very clever: I'm sure a lot of Joes will hear it as two birds with one stone.

"Strategy", "planning", "future" -- the most overused and misunderstood words used by anybody in charge of transport here.

Wild Bill · 29-07-2011 11:59pm

Aard wrote: »

"Strategy", "planning", "future" -- the most overused and misunderstood words used by anybody in charge of transport here.

Yep. Just add "sustainable" and you have the full set. :cool:

cgcsb · 03-08-2011 5:01pm

Telchak wrote: »

Don't think there's the room on the N2 Finglas bypass to stick in a Luas line while retaining the four traffic lanes

Here's my idea, I think it covers more of Finglas and opens up more land for (far) future development.

I've also drawn up a map for a pedestrianisation (apart from Luas) and reallignment of traffic around Finglas Village

the software you're using for the drawings is nothing short of amazing. May I ask what it is?

Telchak · 03-08-2011 7:22pm

Just using Photoshop and Illustrator to draw over maps used by the RPA and Ordnance Survey :P

Wild Bill · 03-08-2011 9:04pm

Bootiful maps!

If the Green Line extended from Meakstown (never heard of it before) to Fassaroe (you probably never did unless you are a Brayite) then...how long would it be?!

Very long and stationful for a commuter line I'd guess. :eek:

cgcsb · 03-08-2011 9:08pm

I'd say an hour and 10 mins. But let's face it, who wants to travel from Meakstown to Faserroe, as far as I know they are both, currently, fictional places anyway, it was planned to settle those areas a while ago, but not so sure any more.

Wild Bill · 03-08-2011 9:13pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd say an hour and 10 mins. But let's face it, who wants to travel from Meakstown to Faserroe, as far as I know they are both, currently, fictional places anyway, it was planned to settle those areas a while ago, but not so sure any more.

A bit of Fassaroe is built; the road infrastructure is in place. It used to be the location of Bray's dump and some would say that hasn't changed much

cgcsb · 03-08-2011 9:20pm

the other thing I don't get about Ireland is, we build luas lines to sleepy mountain hamlets, that may or may not exist, but the moment someone suggests that a City, equal in size to Waterford(Swords) and The State's largest(by far) airport as well several other major universities and hospitals, needs a rail link, we have an endless army of nay sayers coming out with their own heir brained solutions to what they think the problem is.

admiralofthefleet · 04-08-2011 2:43pm

wont ever happen, because of the location of finglas. if finglas was located south of the liffey then maybe it would. luas runs into countryside where one person a day in laughanstown uses it yet the people of the norhside's heaviest populated areas only have a bus service

Cathaoirleach · 04-08-2011 4:14pm

Seeing as BXD is the only new bit of rail we're likely to see in this city over the next 20 years, they could at least include Finglas in the BXD project.

Telchak · 04-08-2011 6:15pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Bootiful maps!

If the Green Line extended from Meakstown (never heard of it before) to Fassaroe (you probably never did unless you are a Brayite) then...how long would it be?!

Very long and stationful for a commuter line I'd guess. :eek:

Distance wise it would be about 32km (20 mile). This is twice the length of the current green line, so would I'd guess it would probably take a little over twice as long (considering a slow city centre section)

Wild Bill · 04-08-2011 6:27pm

cgcsb wrote: »

the other thing I don't get about Ireland is, we build luas lines to sleepy mountain hamlets, that may or may not exist, but the moment someone suggests that a City, equal in size to Waterford(Swords) and The State's largest(by far) airport as well several other major universities and hospitals, needs a rail link, we have an endless army of nay sayers coming out with their own heir brained solutions to what they think the problem is.

The extension to Faseroe isn't actually built and probably won't be!

The "sleepy mountain hamlet" the Luas line from Sandyford to Carrickmines passes through links a catchment of over 100,000 people to an industrial estate that employs over 20,000 people - and the City Centre.

I'm not sure Waterford could match that demand potential with a 5km stretch of tramline!

With a population of 1.6 million in the GDA of which 1.3 million is in Dublin alone even the sleepiest hamlet in these here parts is huge (by Irish standards).

Not saying there shouldn't be trams in Waterford or Galway - just don't diss the necessity for them here in order to make the point. :mad:

Wild Bill · 04-08-2011 6:34pm

Telchak wrote: »

Distance wise it would be about 32km (20 mile). This is twice the length of the current green line, so would I'd guess it would probably take a little over twice as long (considering a slow city centre section)

With about 50 stops that would make it a 1hr 45m journey end-to-end at least; though very few would use it to go from Meakestown to Bray!

dowlingm · 04-08-2011 6:58pm

The way it should work is that you run rail to where both bus service is becoming inadequate but there's also scope to develop. This should then be funded out of various pots:

1. development charges
2. national taxation (since construction of the line and associate development brings a windfall for government)
3. local taxation (where the increase in value of property brought by the line is reflected in increased taxes)

The way the State has wanted to do it is by 1 & 2 but that means you need open space to bring in that level of charges. Politically there was no appetite to capture increases in land value except through stamp duty, and that went to national rather than local government.

Citywest should probably have been BRT at best, extending through to the Kildare Line at Hazelhatch. Instead there's 40m trams running to Mansfield's Folly.

In Swords' case the problem is not enough open space (or appetite for height) for (1) and no property taxes for (3) - and option (2)'s bond rates are 10%+

Wild Bill · 04-08-2011 8:56pm

dowlingm wrote: »

Citywest should probably have been BRT at best, extending through to the Kildare Line at Hazelhatch. Instead there's 40m trams running to Mansfield's Folly.

Straying ever further away from Finglas here but; did not Mansfield and development charges pay for the Citywest extension?

And reading the humongous subsidy we are now having to pay for the National Convention Centre it seems Mansfield's privately funded centre (blocked by planning regulations) would have been a much better bet.

Thanks to the trendy planning ideologues we now have no convention centre in Saggart and hence no convention traffic for the Citywest extension and a costly White Elephant in the city centre.

I'd take Mansfield's vision and money over the anal-retent "planners" and their taxpayer funded sinecures any day. :cool:

dowlingm · 05-08-2011 2:13pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Straying ever further away from Finglas here but; did not Mansfield and development charges pay for the Citywest extension?

And reading the humongous subsidy we are now having to pay for the National Convention Centre it seems Mansfield's privately funded centre (blocked by planning regulations) would have been a much better bet.

Thanks to the trendy planning ideologues we now have no convention centre in Saggart and hence no convention traffic for the Citywest extension and a costly White Elephant in the city centre.

I'd take Mansfield's vision and money over the anal-retent "planners" and their taxpayer funded sinecures any day. :cool:

55% was contributed to A1 construction cost, but Citywest won't be covering operating costs over the lifetime of the infrastructure. As for the "trendy" planning "ideologues", Mansfield gave them the finger on a regular basis, building and then seeking retention. The historical picture is not one of someone looking to engage with the process. Citywest only makes sense to drive traffic to his airport at Weston where again he regularly butted heads with the local council.

A place like Citywest would have made sense if the Air Corps had shifted their HQ out of Baldonnel to Shannon and Baldonnel had become Dublin's second airport.

As for an extension to Finglas, are there any significant employment centres which could drive counterpeak traffic?

Wild Bill · 06-08-2011 12:17am

dowlingm wrote: »

As for an extension to Finglas, are there any significant employment centres which could drive counterpeak traffic?

Dunno. But there is one mega-counterpeak at the northern end of the much maligned (on boards.ie) Green Line extension.

It's called the "Sandyford Industrial Estate". Site of some Nama buildings and 20,000 real jobs.

It was created by the Mansfields of this world when Sandyford was a rural village. :cool:

spacetweek · 15-08-2011 11:59am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Thanks to the trendy planning ideologues we now have no convention centre in Saggart and hence no convention traffic for the Citywest extension and a costly White Elephant in the city centre.

I'd take Mansfield's vision and money over the anal-retent "planners" and their taxpayer funded sinecures any day. :cool:

Sorry Wild Bill your posts are usually good but this time there are just too many lazy generalisations.

Mansfield was a lone gunman out in Citywest; the council were right to stop him building a convention centre *without* planning permission. Cowboy building of the highest order. It's that type of reckless disregard for the neighbourhood that created ghost estates across the country. By "trendy planning idealogues" I think you mean "stuff must be built with the permission of the county council." Hardly a shocking idea.

A convention centre out in fields miles from the city centre is hardly a "much better bet" - the Docklands convention centre is in a great location. It's true that you would defo need Baldonnell as a second civil airport first.
Can you explain why the NCC is a white elephant? I was under the impression they were booked up a year or two in advance now.

Wild Bill · 16-08-2011 12:43am

spacetweek wrote: »

Sorry Wild Bill your posts are usually good but this time there are just too many lazy generalisations.

Mansfield was a lone gunman out in Citywest; the council were right to stop him building a convention centre *without* planning permission. Cowboy building of the highest order. It's that type of reckless disregard for the neighbourhood that created ghost estates across the country. By "trendy planning idealogues" I think you mean "stuff must be built with the permission of the county council." Hardly a shocking idea.

My generalisations are not lazy! The Council was wrong to block planning permission in the first place; that's what I mean by "trendy planning ideologues". I do not meaning building stuff without PP!

A convention centre out in fields miles from the city centre is hardly a "much better bet" - the Docklands convention centre is in a great location. It's true that you would defo need Baldonnell as a second civil airport first.

I beg to differ, obviously. A convention centre just of the M50 via the upgraded Naas road and on a Luas line to the City Centre is an excellent location.

A group of demented ideologues, led by the usual suspects in the Irish Times campaigned to block the Citywest venue in favour of a City Centre location. As Mansfield was privately funding his centre they should have let the it go ahead; it could stand or fall on the business it attracted. It's location was better from the pov of both internal and external customers and it would have attracted many more convention - proof being the fact that the Elephant on the quays is booked up for two years.

I despair of the small-minded begrudgery and small thinking that caused the boom to pass with so much less than we could have had.

Can you explain why the NCC is a white elephant? I was under the impression they were booked up a year or two in advance now.

The NCC is losing the State a vast sum every year (because it cost so much to build) according to an article I read at the time of my post, I'll root it out.

teol · 16-08-2011 12:48am

Wild Bill wrote: »

The NCC is losing the State a vast sum every year (because it cost so much to build) according to an article I read at the time of my post, I'll root it out.

STATE PAYMENTS of more than €43 million have been made to the consortium behind the National Convention Centre since its opening in Dublin’s docklands one year ago.

The payments represent a subsidy of more than €500 for each visitor to events held in the centre since last August.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0801/1224301686670.htm

D.L.R. · 16-08-2011 1:52pm

Why oh why can't we use O'Connell St for a two-way tram line. Still haven't heard an actual good reason to build the loop.

?

cgcsb · 16-08-2011 2:05pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

My generalisations are not lazy! The Council was wrong to block planning permission in the first place; that's what I mean by "trendy planning ideologues". I do not meaning building stuff without PP!

I beg to differ, obviously. A convention centre just of the M50 via the upgraded Naas road and on a Luas line to the City Centre is an excellent location.

A group of demented ideologues, led by the usual suspects in the Irish Times campaigned to block the Citywest venue in favour of a City Centre location. As Mansfield was privately funding his centre they should have let the it go ahead; it could stand or fall on the business it attracted. It's location was better from the pov of both internal and external customers and it would have attracted many more convention - proof being the fact that the Elephant on the quays is booked up for two years.

I despair of the small-minded begrudgery and small thinking that caused the boom to pass with so much less than we could have had.

The NCC is losing the State a vast sum every year (because it cost so much to build) according to an article I read at the time of my post, I'll root it out.

the mansfield centre would end up being a NAMA asset so we'd end up paying for it anyway. We got a a central landmark building that's booked solid for 2 years. Result.

spacetweek · 16-08-2011 4:56pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

My generalisations are not lazy! The Council was wrong to block planning permission in the first place; that's what I mean by "trendy planning ideologues". I do not meaning building stuff without PP!

What? Permission was refused, end of story. In *Mansfield's* opinion, it should have been granted. You can't just go "Well I don't agree that it should have been refused, so I'm gonna go ahead and build anyway." This is the type of mockery of the planning system that people like Mansfield demonstrated. I don't admire him as much as you seem to.

proof being the fact that the Elephant on the quays is booked up for two years.

It's a white elephant, and your proof is that it's booked up solid for 2 years? I don't get it.

As for the location, I think Citywest is in a terrible location. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

teol wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...4301686670.htm

I've no subscription - could you reproduce the article for me? Thanks.

Wild Bill · 16-08-2011 8:30pm

cgcsb wrote: »

the mansfield centre would end up being a NAMA asset so we'd end up paying for it anyway.

Only if the cretins in Government decided to pay for it.

Which is a totally different question.

Now we have a tax-bleeding Convention Centre that, even in a recession, isn't capable of meeting demand (and maximising visitor revenue) or making money when booked out.

teol · 16-08-2011 8:37pm

spacetweek wrote: »

I've no subscription - could you reproduce the article for me? Thanks.

The Irish Times seems to block direct linking. However you can copy and paste the text into google and get the link.

Here's the link again if it works this time? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0801/1224301686670.html

Wild Bill · 16-08-2011 8:38pm

spacetweek wrote: »

What? Permission was refused, end of story.
It's a white elephant, and your proof is that it's booked up solid for 2 years? I don't get it.

(1) Permission was refused because of the ideologues, as described above. Not "end of storey". Far from it.
(2) The fact it is booked for 2 years and is still losing a fortune is proof of it's white elephantness!
(3) The clear implication of "booked out 2 years ahead" and yet needing a €500 per skull taxpayer bailout is that if left head-to-head; without subsidy, Citywest would thrive and the City quay venue would go to the elephant graveyard in Nama.

:cool:

markpb · 17-08-2011 11:27am

Wild Bill wrote: »

(1) Permission was refused because of the ideologues, as described above. Not "end of storey". Far from it.

I understand that you disagree with central developments oriented around public transport and would rather see everything built along the M50 but that doesn't mean you need to denigrate other peoples opinions. Calling something "trendy planning ideologues" just because you disagree with it makes you look childish.

Apart from the obvious success of the M50, one of the reasons it had to be upgraded and one of the reasons that upgrading it cost so much is because there was too much development directly adjacent to it. At the same time, the more development that happens on the fringe of the city means that public transport is both more expensive and less attractive, driving more people into their cars.

Building tram and rail lines in and around the city centre and inner suburbs should drive infill development and higher density there making public transport a lot easier to provide.

(2) The fact it is booked for 2 years and is still losing a fortune is proof of it's white elephantness!
(3) The clear implication of "booked out 2 years ahead" and yet needing a €500 per skull taxpayer bailout is that if left head-to-head; without subsidy, Citywest would thrive and the City quay venue would go to the elephant graveyard in Nama.

I think the article was a little misleading. The State contracted Treasury/SDCCD to build and operate the convention centre at a fixed cost per year. It doesn't matter how many or how few people use the centre, the price the state pays won't change. Dividing the number of people by the build/operate cost tells you nothing. It doesn't tell you how much of a profit the centre is returning, it doesn't tell you about the wider benefits that are returned to the economy. It's like dividing apples and oranges.

Wild Bill · 17-08-2011 9:28pm

markpb wrote: »

Calling something "trendy planning ideologues" just because you disagree with it makes you look childish.

I call it as I see it. I'd regard "looking childish" as a reflection more on the observer than the observed in this case.

And I fully support the M50 as an engine of economic growth, urban expansion and intelligent development.

For Dublin bypass traffic we should build the Outer Orbital Motorway when required. (And if it in turn provides nodes of development at it's junctions - great! - if only we'd be so lucky).

Think trains or buses or trams will carry the products of Industrial Estates to markets country wide and world wide?

Not being a trendy ideologue, I think we need to wake up and smell the brutal competitive world we live in. And cut out the notion that cities must be based on the model appropriate to Babylonian and Medieval times.

:cool:

bk · 18-08-2011 10:08am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Think trains or buses or trams will carry the products of Industrial Estates to markets country wide and world wide?

But the most important and valuable part of our economy is graduates working in the IT and financial services, usually in the cities. This people need to get around these cities and to their work places in a fast and easy manner and that means trains, trams, etc.

That isn't to say we don't need roads as well. Just that we aren't Germany, we don't really have heavy industry that requires great roads.

It is ironic that we spent all our focus of the celtic tiger years on road building, when we don't have a massive need for it, instead of what the most important parts of our economy (IT/Financil Services) needed (Broadband infrastructure and Public Transport).

Wild Bill · 19-08-2011 12:04am

bk wrote: »

But the most important and valuable part of our economy is graduates working in the IT and financial services, usually in the cities. This people need to get around these cities and to their work places in a fast and easy manner and that means trains, trams, etc.

Never said we don't need public transport in cities. But Dublin city doesn't stop at the City Council boundaries. The people you speak of work in Sandyford, Clondalkin, Leixlip, Blanchardstown and, yes, Citywest. Places their employers wanted to set up in. They are not based, in the main, within smelling distance of that great urinal, Temple Bar!

That isn't to say we don't need roads as well. Just that we aren't Germany, we don't really have heavy industry that requires great roads.

As someone in the "heavy" end of the business and who currently personally travels 50k/annum on the new motorways I can assure you the impact on productivity of man and machine is humongous. We needed them extremely badly; they were 20 years late.

It is ironic that we spent all our focus of the celtic tiger years on road building, when we don't have a massive need for it, instead of what the most important parts of our economy (IT/Financil Services) needed (Broadband infrastructure and Public Transport).

We did, absolutely, have a massive need for the new roads. We also needed (and could afford) the public transport projects about to be abandoned - but we spent too much time in trainspotting arguments ('scuse pun), begrudgery, objections and endless pointless "debate" - and blew it. Money all gone.

And yes we need fibre; but we need both; and at least we got the roads. The screw-up on the broadband was not caused by the road-building. No "irony".

And I think since 2008 there is a fairly universal re-think in the West about the future being in Financial Services and not in manufacturing. Our agricultural sector is looking a much better bet right now than our Financial services sector - to put it mildly; the world still has to eat even as the financial system shrinks.

bk · 19-08-2011 1:40am

Wild Bill, despite 2008 the financial services sector continues to do very well in Ireland.

The reality we are a small Island on the periphery of Europe with few natural resources and no history of heavy industry and manufacturing. We will never be a power house in this sort of industry.

Our advantage will be English speaking, excellent education system, low tax, business and foreigner friendly government and people.

That isn't to say that we didn't need the road network. Just that we way over engineered and over spent on it and that we should have put more effort into the equally if not more important MN/DU at the same time.

D.L.R. · 19-08-2011 7:32pm

bk wrote: »

That isn't to say that we didn't need the road network. Just that we way over engineered and over spent on it and that we should have put more effort into the equally if not more important MN/DU at the same time.

+1.

If the prev govt understood that, then maybe they wouldn't currently be languishing on the garbage heap of Irish history along with their garbled message.

Regards BXD, I feel a tad sorry for Leo having to serve up this sh!t sandwich that wasn't even of his making.

But its depressingly predictable that Dublin is to get yet another cheap-fix, stop-gap solution, while we wait for the real thing.

Wild Bill · 19-08-2011 11:27pm

bk wrote: »

That isn't to say that we didn't need the road network. Just that we way over engineered and over spent on it and that we should have put more effort into the equally if not more important MN/DU at the same time.

Nonsense - not remotely "way over engineered". That's the kind of mentality led to us having no MN/DU.

It wasn't the spending on motorways (as I've already said several times) that caused the failure to build MN/DU - it was the constant squabbling by folk just like you - who failed to take a holistic and ambitious view of our infrastructure.

Everyone fought for their own little favourites and attacked the others; pro-rail were anti-road; pro-city were anti-suburb, pro-begrudgery were anti-common sense; - add in the NIMBYs and the Greens and trendies and we got a self-indulgent Tower of Babel.

Thankfully, out of that morass, the NRA left us with something of great value. :cool:

Cathaoirleach · 25-08-2011 12:51pm

I can't believe what I'm reading. Our own Lord Mayor advocating buses over trams due to safety concerns to cyclists. :rolleyes:

Dublin’s Lord Mayor, Cllr Andrew Montague of the Labour Party, yesterday called on the Government to reconsider the proposed Luas link because of the “severe” impacts its construction and operation would have on bus services and on cyclists in the city.

“This project is going to cost €500 million, and the money would be better spent on bus parking and bus interchanges, tackling pinch points like the Cat and Cage [in Drumcondra] and expanding the Dublin bikes scheme tenfold to 5,000 bikes covering the whole city.”
Mr Montague expressed concern about the impact on the city centre of construction works scheduled to run for 3½ years, and about the long-term impact on cyclists having to share streets in the central area with tram tracks running parallel.

“Tram tracks are dangerous for cyclists. So, in addition to damaging bus services, Luas BXD is going to make cycling less attractive,” he said, adding that unless rubber strips were inserted alongside tracks to close gaps, it would “damage cycling in the city”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0825/1224302930945.html

Luas BXD - Broombridge to Finglas

Comments