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

Planning for Dublin

Options
  • 02-10-2015 3:44pm
    #1
    McAlban
    Registered Users Posts: 405 ✭✭


    Taking into account the recent announcements on DU and MN and the entire Capex Plan; what do you think the solutions to the long term planning for Dublin are? It's over 100 years now since Abercrombie, Kelly and Kelly came out with their plan and it's still probably better than anything that's come since. I've seen suggestions for a single regional authority / directly elected mayor to take the responsibility away from parish pump politics. Etc. When recommendations are made by experts we seem to get shoddy solutions from Government.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I don't think it's the planning, its more the funding...


  • Options
    #3
    McAlban
    Registered Users Posts: 405 ✭✭McAlban


    Would Robust Planning legislation not counteract that though.

    Either you build something complying with planning or not. Proper building Inspectors (Priory Hall, Longboat Quay) may not go astray either.

    An Taisce now asking about High Rise Buildings too.


  • Options
    #4
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    McAlban wrote: »
    Either you build something complying with planning or not. Proper building Inspectors (Priory Hall, Longboat Quay) may not go astray either.

    An Taisce now asking about High Rise Buildings too.

    We seem to be well able to not build anything after getting planning for major infrastructural development...


  • Options
    #5
    Winters
    Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    I would love it if the country's funding for transport infrastructural projects was ringfenced annually against a % of the tax intake or something similar. This would prevent infrastructure projects becoming political footballs. The NTA could then plan and budget for these types of projects knowing they have x per annum to pay for it or to borrow against.

    These large infrastructural projects are so complex and with long planning and construction timeframes means they span at least one if not two political terms. No political party wants to start a project that they wont get any kudos for.

    Who gave the funding for the DART? The Luas? Who cut the ribbon? Who cares?


  • Options
    #6
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Winters wrote: »
    I would love it if the country's funding for transport infrastructural projects was ringfenced annually against a % of the tax intake or something similar. This would prevent infrastructure projects becoming political footballs. The NTA could then plan and budget for these types of projects knowing they have x per annum to pay for it or to borrow against.

    Unless of course the tax take dropped dramatically, so the x the nta thought the had was only 0.7x....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Winters
    Registered Users Posts: 14,761 ✭✭✭✭Winters


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Unless of course the tax take dropped dramatically, so the x the nta thought the had was only 0.7x....

    Correct but I cannot see any government guaranteeing a certain level of funding to non operational requirements. Perhaps a minimum level of funding plus % of revenue.

    How much does the emissions tax (AKA Motor tax) fluctuate I wonder?


  • Options
    #8
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Winters wrote: »

    Who gave the funding for the DART?
    As I understand it CIÉ borrowed the money for DART, rather than govt investment, so the debt dragged their finances, unlike whoever is ruing the trams, who don't have to cover their capital costs.


  • Options
    #9
    crushproof
    Registered Users Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭crushproof


    McAlban wrote: »
    It's over 100 years now since Abercrombie, Kelly and Kelly came out with their plan and it's still probably better than anything that's come since.

    I've never read that report until now.

    Note how they mention that it critical that Knightsbridge (now Heuston) be connected to the city centre by rail as soon as possible. :pac:
    Some extraordinary plans in the report, who know what kind of city we would have had if it was pushed through.


Advertisement