Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

National Children's Hospital Planning Issue

  • 06-11-2012 10:11pm
    #1
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭


    I'm not a city planner or anything like that, but won't the St. James's Hospital site face more or less the same problems that the planners had with the Mater Hospital site. They are both located in the middle of a built up city.

    I know that whole bi/tri location system is probably the best way to go but surely we should think bigger (and much further down the line).

    Why not build the hospital out on a huge greenfield site on the Naas Road somewhere, (where planning won't be such a big issue) leaving plenty of room to build a teaching hospital and a maternity hospital at some stage in the future (whenever we have the cash). Plus, surely a greenfield site build must be cheaper than trying to build it in a tight space in the middle of a city.

    The city centre locations aren't good locations. Being near to the Coombe isn't great either as it is a pretty old hospital and will probably need to be rebuilt at some stage in the not too distant future.

    Think big, build it properly from the start leaving plenty of room for future development.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'm not a city planner or anything like that, but won't the St. James's Hospital site face more or less the same problems that the planners had with the Mater Hospital site. They are both located in the middle of a built up city.

    I know that whole bi/tri location system is probably the best way to go but surely we should think bigger (and much further down the line).

    Why not build the hospital out on a huge greenfield site on the Naas Road somewhere, (where planning won't be such a big issue) leaving plenty of room to build a teaching hospital and a maternity hospital at some stage in the future (whenever we have the cash). Plus, surely a greenfield site build must be cheaper than trying to build it in a tight space in the middle of a city.

    The city centre locations aren't good locations. Being near to the Coombe isn't great either as it is a pretty old hospital and will probably need to be rebuilt at some stage in the not too distant future.

    Think big, build it properly from the start leaving plenty of room for future development.



    Foresight, Irish politicians have none.


  • #3
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    One word. Cost.

    St James' makes perfect sense - close to M50, excellent LUAS links.

    Thread in Irish Economy by the way.


  • #4
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,437 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'm not a city planner or anything like that, but won't the St. James's Hospital site face more or less the same problems that the planners had with the Mater Hospital site. They are both located in the middle of a built up city.

    I know that whole bi/tri location system is probably the best way to go but surely we should think bigger (and much further down the line).

    Why not build the hospital out on a huge greenfield site on the Naas Road somewhere, (where planning won't be such a big issue) leaving plenty of room to build a teaching hospital and a maternity hospital at some stage in the future (whenever we have the cash). Plus, surely a greenfield site build must be cheaper than trying to build it in a tight space in the middle of a city.

    The city centre locations aren't good locations. Being near to the Coombe isn't great either as it is a pretty old hospital and will probably need to be rebuilt at some stage in the not too distant future.

    Think big, build it properly from the start leaving plenty of room for future development.

    I'm so sick to ****in death of this stupid effin hospital.
    PICK A SITE! BUILD THE FECKIN THING!
    Just stop all the non stop yapping about it!!!


  • #5
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Vested interests and corruption

    they care very little for the sick children and their parents


  • #6
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    I'm so sick to ****in death of this stupid effin hospital.
    PICK A SITE! BUILD THE FECKIN THING!
    Just stop all the non stop yapping about it!!!


    You might be sick of hearing about it but if it's not a good location, it could be half a billion quid that we don't get good value out of.

    Kind of like saying "stop yapping about it, and just buy the fcuking E-voting machines already".


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    MadsL wrote: »
    One word. Cost.

    St James' makes perfect sense - close to M50, excellent LUAS links.

    Thread in Irish Economy by the way.

    A very lonely looking thread!


  • #8
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    Vested interests and corruption

    Corruption? Tell me more, and go to the Gardai.
    they care very little for the sick children and their parents

    Who is 'they' that are not "thinking of the children"?


  • #9
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'm not a city planner or anything like that, but won't the St. James's Hospital site face more or less the same problems that the planners had with the Mater Hospital site. They are both located in the middle of a built up city.

    I know that whole bi/tri location system is probably the best way to go but surely we should think bigger (and much further down the line).

    Why not build the hospital out on a huge greenfield site on the Naas Road somewhere, (where planning won't be such a big issue) leaving plenty of room to build a teaching hospital and a maternity hospital at some stage in the future (whenever we have the cash). Plus, surely a greenfield site build must be cheaper than trying to build it in a tight space in the middle of a city.

    The city centre locations aren't good locations. Being near to the Coombe isn't great either as it is a pretty old hospital and will probably need to be rebuilt at some stage in the not too distant future.

    Think big, build it properly from the start leaving plenty of room for future development.

    No, It doesn't have the same problems. The area around James is more industrial, with the brewery nearby. This is unlike around the Mater which is part of a special conservation area because of its Georgian Architecture.

    Building it out on a road away from public transport disenfranchises a lot of people, and makes people more dependent on the car. Building on a greenfield site and moving the other specialities there for co-tri location would be enormously expensive and take decades to achieve.


  • #10
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    A very lonely looking thread!

    The very long and heated one on the Mater site was closed. No option but to start a new one. Can't see much sensible discussion happening here.


  • #11
    jessiejam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 778 ✭✭✭jessiejam


    They should build it in Cork. Plenty land down here and sure theres a bus comes every few hours:o


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    emo72
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭emo72


    still think its a bad location. it is a nightmare to get to with a car ."oh, but public transport is fantastic for it". emergency cases dont travel by bus/luas. "Surely call an ambulance then!". theres hardly any left. greenfield option was obvious.


  • #13
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    No, It doesn't have the same problems. The area around James is more industrial, with the brewery nearby. This is unlike around the Mater which is part of a special conservation area because of its Georgian Architecture.

    Building it out on a road away from public transport disenfranchises a lot of people, and makes people more dependent on the car. Building on a greenfield site and moving the other specialities there for co-tri location would be enormously expensive and take decades to achieve.

    Fair enough, the two sites aren't identical but I can still see some problems when it comes to planning. It wasn't only the Georgian Architecture that the planners had problems with. People are taking for granted that because St. James's has now been picked, that planning is a "shoe-in".


  • #14
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    emo72 wrote: »
    still think its a bad location. it is a nightmare to get to with a car ."oh, but public transport is fantastic for it". emergency cases dont travel by bus/luas. "Surely call an ambulance then!". theres hardly any left. greenfield option was obvious.

    Emergency cases won't be dropped by car to the national childrens hospital. Its a treatment centre for those that are ill for a long time or those that are so ill they have been referred by another hospital, for specialist treatment.

    It won't be a place to get your childs knee bandaged when he falls off his bike as some people think.


  • #15
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Fair enough, the two sites aren't identical but I can still see some problems when it comes to planning. It wasn't only the Georgian Architecture that the planners had problems with. People are taking for granted that because St. James's has now been picked, that planning is a "shoe-in".

    No they're not. Reilly even described the planning risks of the James site as moderate. Planners don't live in a political vacuume though, I cannot see them refusing the hospital again. If they did then the government would be forced to reform the planning laws to reduce the power of the board.

    Thats the last thing they would want.


  • #16
    Skid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,873 ✭✭✭Skid


    MadsL wrote: »

    St James' makes perfect sense - close to M50, excellent LUAS links.

    It is an exaggeration to say St.James Hospital is close to the M50. It is closer than the Mater, but access is still difficult for most of the Population.


  • #17
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    No they're not. Reilly even described the planning risks of the James site as moderate. Planners don't live in a political vacuume though, I cannot see them refusing the hospital again. If they did then the government would be forced to reform the planning laws to reduce the power of the board.

    Thats the last thing they would want.

    Planning laws are planning laws and they have to be obeyed. Even if the planners find problems but ignore them, thus breaking their own rules and grant planning permission, then any individual can challenge the planning decision in court. If planning has been granted unfairly, then that could be many more millions down the drain.


  • #18
    Teyla Emmagan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,641 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    They have a huge site up there, good transport links, co-location potential blah, room for parking, and it will do a lot for the regeneration of the area. A nice low rise building with plenty of room for expansion in the future, not like that monstrosity they had planned for the Mater site which they wouldn't have been able to get an extra toothpick into. Makes sense to me.


  • #19
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Teyla Emmagan wrote: »
    They have a huge site up there, good transport links, co-location potential blah, room for parking, and it will do a lot for the regeneration of the area. A nice low rise building with plenty of room for expansion in the future, not like that monstrosity they had planned for the Mater site which they wouldn't have been able to get an extra toothpick into. Makes sense to me.


    Can't see the new hospital being a nice low rise building, it'll probably be more or less a copy of what they were going to build at the matter. That's just a guess by the way.

    I wouldn't be too sure about regeneration benefits either. It might make the traffic situation sh1te.


  • #20
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Teyla Emmagan wrote: »
    it will do a lot for the regeneration of the area.

    The place is a shit hole. This is another dead end the government is leading us up.


  • #21
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Fair enough, the two sites aren't identical but I can still see some problems when it comes to planning. It wasn't only the Georgian Architecture that the planners had problems with. People are taking for granted that because St. James's has now been picked, that planning is a "shoe-in".

    One issue I can see is that the Chapel may have to be demolished, I know this was an emotive subject with a previous planning applicant to build a private hospital. Anyone know if this happened?
    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    No they're not. Reilly even described the planning risks of the James site as moderate. Planners don't live in a political vacuume though, I cannot see them refusing the hospital again. If they did then the government would be forced to reform the planning laws to reduce the power of the board.

    Thats the last thing they would want.

    Why would planning laws need reform? If there is a planning issue then a fingers in ears approach is ridiculous.
    Skid wrote: »
    It is an exaggeration to say St.James Hospital is close to the M50. It is closer than the Mater, but access is still difficult for most of the Population.

    Oh seriously? It is a short drive from the M50, on a Luas line, two stops from Hueston station. It is easily accessible for the vast majority of the population by car, light rail and national rail.

    Here is what Ireland really looks like in terms of population.

    http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ireland.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    squod wrote: »
    The place is a shit hole.

    Says the lad from Navan.

    *chortle*


  • #23
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    MadsL wrote: »
    Says the lad from Navan.

    *chortle*

    Not from Navan


  • #24
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    squod wrote: »
    Not from Navan

    Jesus - you choose to live there! :eek:


  • #25
    pontia
    Site Banned Posts: 385 ✭✭pontia


    short drive to m50 ? someones talking ****e,you can either go up naas road to get to m50 which will be a nightmare or palmerstown main road which is even worse


  • #26
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    pontia wrote: »
    short drive to m50 ? someones talking ****e,you can either go up naas road to get to m50 which will be a nightmare or palmerstown main road which is even worse

    I used to commute that road regularly. It's fine - N4 can get backed up a bit sometimes but fairly easy access. It has a dual carriageway to within a third of mile to the hospital. Do you want it a three lane motorway built to the door of the hospital??


  • #27
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    MadsL wrote: »
    Jesus - you choose to live there! :eek:

    Better than choosing to live on James Street. Not my first preference mind you.

    In all seriousness. It's a shit hole. I don't need to wait another four years and waste a load of money on consultants to find that out.


  • #28
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you want it a three lane motorway built to the door of the hospital??

    For €560m, yes.


  • #29
    flutterflye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    If it were built somewhere on the Naas road or similar, transport is easily remedied - just set up a regular bus route to and from hospital. Simples.
    Makes way more sense than sticking it in the middle of town.


  • #30
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    squod wrote: »
    Better than choosing to live on James Street. Not my first preference mind you.

    In all seriousness. It's a shit hole. I don't need to wait another four years and waste a load of money on consultants to find that out.

    Most patients don't rate a hospital by the "niceness" of the local area. Seriously, where would you like it built? Old Head of Kinsale??
    MadsL wrote:
    Do you want it a three lane motorway built to the door of the hospital??
    squod wrote: »
    For €560m, yes.

    See my comment earlier about getting no sense on AH. Have you any clue about how much it would cost to do that..?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I'm not a city planner or anything like that, but won't the St. James's Hospital site face more or less the same problems that the planners had with the Mater Hospital site. They are both located in the middle of a built up city.

    I know that whole bi/tri location system is probably the best way to go but surely we should think bigger (and much further down the line).

    It's not probably the best way to go, it's the only way to go. We live in a tiny country and we just don't have the amount of specialist doctors needed to staff a hospital miles from the other established hospitals when we can easily locate the hospital near the others and allow them to share the staff as required.
    As well as that it would make absolutely no sense to locate the National Children's hospital far away from the 3 main Maternity hospitals in the country.
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Why not build the hospital out on a huge greenfield site on the Naas Road somewhere, (where planning won't be such a big issue) leaving plenty of room to build a teaching hospital and a maternity hospital at some stage in the future (whenever we have the cash). Plus, surely a greenfield site build must be cheaper than trying to build it in a tight space in the middle of a city.
    The NCH is planned to be a teaching hospital. There would be no point locating it outside the city, far away from the 3 main Medical Universities in the country so students could not get to them.
    Also, why build another maternity hospital just so we can use a greenfield site, when we already have 3 maternity hospitals in the city close to the St. James' site?
    BattleCorp wrote: »
    The city centre locations aren't good locations. Being near to the Coombe isn't great either as it is a pretty old hospital and will probably need to be rebuilt at some stage in the not too distant future.

    Think big, build it properly from the start leaving plenty of room for future development.
    City Centre location offers:
    -Short distance to 3 Medical Universities
    -Short distance to 3 Maternity Hospitals
    -Short distance to the main hospitals in the country, each with their own specialities they'll be able to offer, aswell as being located on the site of the largest of these hospitals which also offers the most specialities.
    -Well served by bus, Luas and Heuston is a 5 minute walk away.
    -From my daily commute to St. James' at least, there never seems to be much traffic. I'd wager only minor upgrades would have to be made to surrounding roads, relative to what would be needed to connect a greenfield site to the majority of the population.


  • #32
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    flutterflye wrote: »
    If it were built somewhere on the Naas road or similar, transport is easily remedied - just set up a regular bus route to and from hospital. Simples.
    Makes way more sense than sticking it in the middle of town.

    So up to Dublin on the train, then a 30-45 min bus ride?


  • #33
    withless
    Registered Users Posts: 8,741 ✭✭✭withless


    Its really a credit to the people who time after time voted for FF that they are still capable of posting their ill-informed, backwards looking comments all over de internet and particularly in these threads, fair play to you all. You will always be out of step with common sense but alas too often holding the reins of power.


  • #34
    flutterflye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    MadsL wrote: »
    So up to Dublin on the train, then a 30-45 min bus ride?

    I don't know, they could set up a few routes from various directions.
    There are bus lanes, so it wouldn't be that long.
    The Luas goes to the Naas road too.
    I'm only saying the Naas road as an example because someone mentioned it already. Somewhere along the m50 would be good either.
    Just not IN town.


  • #35
    flutterflye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭flutterflye


    withless wrote: »
    Its really a credit to the people who time after time voted for FF that they are still capable of posting their ill-informed, backwards looking comments all over de internet and particularly in these threads, fair play to you all. You will always be out of step with common sense but alas too often holding the reins of power.

    What are you even on about?!
    Do you think you're in a different thread?


  • #36
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    flutterflye wrote: »
    Just not IN town.

    Because that is where the other hospitals ARE!!!

    Are you missing the point about co-location??


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    withless
    Registered Users Posts: 8,741 ✭✭✭withless


    There is no point arguing with these 'types'.


  • #38
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    MadsL wrote: »




    See my comment earlier about getting no sense on AH. Have you any clue about how much it would cost to do that..?

    Oh FFS. You and me both know that this figure will have grown immensely by the time that build is started. Look at Luas, €1bn for a poxy little train yoke.

    Lookat. It's as easy to build a road for a company like wyeth/ Pfizer or Intel etc. But not for a childrens hospital. That your argument? Are children and families not good enough for a new road? Just sling them in some shit hole, be grand.


  • #39
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Isn't it wonderful that we have so much money that we can afford to throw something like €70m to €100m down the toilet on a botched site selection process?


  • #40
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    squod wrote: »
    Oh FFS. You and me both know that this figure will have grown immensely by the time that build is started. Look at Luas, €1bn for a poxy little train yoke.

    Lookat. It's as easy to build a road for a company like wyeth/ Pfizer or Intel etc. But not for a childrens hospital. That your argument? Are children and families not good enough for a new road? Just sling them in some shit hole, be grand.

    That "sh1thole" is the country's largest teaching hospital.

    As for your bizarre snobbery about the location, frankly you are full of it.

    And your "think of the children" argument for trying to build a road to the very door, when there is a dual carriageway within a third of mile of the hospital - seriously, cop on.

    Lookat? Is that even a word?


  • #41
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    MadsL wrote: »

    As for your bizarre snobbery about the location, frankly you are full of it.

    Dafuq? Snobbery?
    MadsL wrote: »
    That "sh1thole" is the country's largest teaching hospital.

    Which could be moved and co-located to the new site if need be.

    MadsL wrote: »
    seriously, cop on.

    I can't get through to you. We're gonna waste another few hundred million and another four years because of malarky like this. The place needs a childrens hospital. Somewhere everyone can get to. That place isn't on James's Street. Same as it wasn't on the Mater site.
    MadsL wrote: »

    Lookat? Is that even a word?

    The lad from towin never heard ''lookat'' before?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    squod wrote: »
    Which could be moved and co-located to the new site if need be.




    I can't get through to you. We're gonna waste another few hundred million and another four years because of malarky like this. The place needs a childrens hospital. Somewhere everyone can get to. That place isn't on James's Street. Same as it wasn't on the Mater site.
    Is this serious?
    Move the largest and already established hospital in the country? If you're looking to "waste another few hundred million" then that idea is a great way to go about it.


  • #43
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    squod wrote: »
    Dafuq? Snobbery?

    Your sole objections so far has been that there is no empty motorway to the door and that the area is a shithole.
    What the hell has the area got to do with it? Utter snobbery.
    Which could be moved and co-located to the new site if need be.
    So build two new hospitals. Ah, that'll be more cost effective, duh.
    I can't get through to you. We're gonna waste another few hundred million and another four years because of malarky like this.

    What malarky, the site is chosen now??? :confused:

    The place needs a childrens hospital. Somewhere everyone can get to. That place isn't on James's Street. Same as it wasn't on the Mater site.

    No-one can get to James' when it is served by 1. A dual carriageway to a motorway, 2. A luas line connecting within 10 minutes to a major rail station. 3. Within walking distance of the city centre. 4. Within 30 minutes by taxi from the airport.

    Seriously, who has problems getting to it? Aran islanders with no car and a fear of water?


  • #44
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    Is this serious?
    Move the largest and already established hospital in the country? If you're looking to "waste another few hundred million" then that idea is a great way to go about it.

    How many more times? We are wasting, have wasted and will waste millions. That's the actual reality. A few hundred million is fuhkall in the grand scheme of things. The states bill for public service pensions will be hundreds of billions for example.


  • #45
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    squod wrote: »
    How many more times? We are wasting, have wasted and will waste millions. That's the actual reality. A few hundred million is fuhkall in the grand scheme of things. The states bill for public service pensions will be hundreds of billions for example.

    Hundreds of billions?!


  • #46
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    squod wrote: »
    How many more times? We are wasting, have wasted and will waste millions. That's the actual reality. A few hundred million is fuhkall in the grand scheme of things. The states bill for public service pensions will be hundreds of billions for example.

    Ah well then. Personal hospital for everyone and no pensions for the PS.

    Will we just start building ovens in your fantasy new greenfield site. Think of the children, euthanise the elderly?


  • #47
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    squod wrote: »
    How many more times? We are wasting, have wasted and will waste millions. That's the actual reality. A few hundred million is fuhkall in the grand scheme of things. The states bill for public service pensions will be hundreds of billions for example.

    What relevance does this have to the location of the hospital?
    Up to €40 million was lost through planning for the Mater site which is now not being used. That shouldn't have happened clearly, but at the time, the planners did not think their application would be rejected. Nothing can be done about it now.
    Your gripes just seem to be more about the government in general instead of the hospital being located at James'.
    Locating the NCH outside of the city just has absolutely no grounding in reality. The benefits (and basic requirements) far outweigh the minority of disadvantages of locating in the city. These disadvantages are far easier overcome than the huge list of disadvantages that would need to be dealt with by locating out of Dublin.


  • #48
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Hundreds of billions?!

    ~€160bn


  • #49
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    MadsL wrote: »
    No-one can get to James' when it is served by 1. A dual carriageway to a moterway, 2. A luas line connecting within 10 minutes to a major rail station. 3. Within walking distance of the city centre. 4. Within 30 minutes by taxi from the airport.

    Yeah, I'm going to run into towin with a sick child in my arms or wait for some bus to turn up when it feels like it. Or sit in traffic, or wait for a train.

    MadsL wrote: »
    So build two new hospitals. Ah, that'll be more cost effective, duh.

    The place will be used for the next hundred years. How dafuq do you know a new site won't be less costly over a long period of time? Anyway who cares?

    Read my post above. Hundreds of billions were in the hock for at the minute.


  • #50
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    Your gripes just seem to be more about the government in general instead of the hospital being located at James'.
    .

    No, its not. We could build a hospital now. We could have built one years ago on a greenfield site. As I said before this is another dead end for the childrens hospital. I don't need to wait for another four years to find that out.


  • #51
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    squod wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm going to run into towin with a sick child in my arms or wait for some bus to turn up when it feels like it. Or sit in traffic, or wait for a train.

    If you used your head you might figure out I'm not from Dublin so less of the accent nonsense, you might also figure out what a Children's hospital does. The vast majority of parents will be visiting their children, not on some mercy dash. they have ambulances these days and most emergencies are taken to their nearest hospital.

    Which citizens of Ireland are having difficulty getting to Dublin these days?
    The place will be used for the next hundred years. How dafuq do you know a new site won't be less costly over a long period of time?

    Because I can think. Tell me about the cost savings of a greenfeild site - what do you suppose they are?
    Anyway who cares?
    You seem to. Have you considered moving out of Navan to help your angst?
    Read my post above. Hundreds of billions were in the hock for at the minute.
    Economics isn't your strong point is it?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement