Idbatterim wrote: » Id way prefer the eastern bypass. How long would would the outer ring motorway have to be? the numbers using it would be a fraction of what would use an eastern bypass. Many people could cut a serious distance off the commute if they could use the Eastern bypass rather than current m50 route... It would also take traffic out of the current port tunnel, which sends traffic around a very long way if going south... It should be 3 lanes in each direction IMO...
poppycock, its important but not that important and the phoenix parol tunnel can be used to implement some of its features I would argue that airport rail access is more pressing and also consideration is going to have to be given to either an outer ring motorway or a form of eastern bypass
plodder wrote: » DU should be funded before any major new motorways, particularly in the East, where they're going to cost as much as it anyway,
BoatMad wrote: » I dont believe it can, in so much that it has no room in the budget under the rules
Sam Russell wrote: » The Government could (perhaps) get the EU to make DU one of its funded projects.
But again, agree to disagree..
MrMorooka wrote: » Yep, and DU would feed perfectly into that. As it stands, adding more Northern line services for an Airport service into a congested Connolly would be a non-runner. With DU, you could make a DART line of Hazelhatch-Heuston-SSG-Airport/Malahide, alternating services(Howth being a shuttle). Or you could do a cheap non-electrified spur and run 29ks from the Airport to GCD, change at Pearse for DART to Hesuton etc. That's the whole point of DU, it unlocks a lot of potential that is not being realised. But again, agree to disagree..
BoatMad wrote: » poppycock, its important but not that important and the phoenix parol tunnel can be used to implement some of its features
BoatMad wrote: » I would argue that airport rail access is more pressing
MrMorooka wrote: » I disagree, it is/was the most important capital project in the country, it should have been prioritised over other projects. I also refuse to believe that the EU could be opposed to it, it's a no-brainier and would be guranteed to cover it's costs easily.
it is/was the most important capital project in the country,
BoatMad wrote: » DU is not the centre of the universe as far as capital project go.
Drives me mad!
Grandeeod wrote: » This is well known, but Im really excited about BoatMad's response to this, because he/she sounds like a complete FG apologist, getting to the party a bit late.:D
cgcsb wrote: » They could easly CPO the land and leave it for decades if need be. They've done it before in plenty of locations.
cgcsb wrote: » We didn't need billions to carry out the CPOs and keep the project going, we didn't even need commitment to build it.
BoatMad wrote: » They were being CPed under the provisions of the railway order, Otherwise the "Government " is just another commercial buyer and gets outbid frequently. The court case established that without a directive to proceed, the railway order had to fall and could not be extended. The Gov could not exact the CP without signing the process into action
BoatMad wrote: » Money isn't there for all the specified projects, we are subject to quite onerous EU regulations on Capital borrowing limits from this year onwards. doesnt matter who's in power
BoatMad wrote: » because it would have required the Gov to budget the whole DU project and there is no space for that at present under EU rules
Idbatterim wrote: » had they started with the enabling works, I believe the cost was nothing, like 150 million, how long could they have stalled before the major money would have had to be spent?
I believe the government must exact the project under the railway order. They cannot simply do a " bit". this was all established in the court case. Basically the gov was told, enact the project or the Railway order must fall.( expire)
Idbatterim wrote: » could the government not have simply CPO'd them and sat on them and not do work until they decide to proceed, I wont say until "finances allow" as they did, they simply didnt want to build it now...
Idbatterim wrote: » why didnt the government simply purchase these sites, you are talking about pocket change in the scheme of things. If the plans change, simply sell the sites at a later date...