Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:42 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45541 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021 ... 1139  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7810
on the Google/Facebook housing thing ...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/ar ... 788159.php

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/07/faceboo ... alley.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:50 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42098
rfurlong wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
Complain about the lack of use of the Dublin Watford motorway all you like, but in the context of Brexit it may turn out to be a smart piece of business.


not really ..... we'll have a completed M11 by then and most of the traffic/commerce from Dublin will end up going through Rosslare instead

Not without absolutely stupendous amounts of investment in Rosslare. It might take a few more daily RoRo vessels, but it has fúck all capacity for either LoLo or mixed freight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7810
camroc1 wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
Complain about the lack of use of the Dublin Watford motorway all you like, but in the context of Brexit it may turn out to be a smart piece of business.


not really ..... we'll have a completed M11 by then and most of the traffic/commerce from Dublin will end up going through Rosslare instead

Not without absolutely stupendous amounts of investment in Rosslare. It might take a few more daily RoRo vessels, but it has fúck all capacity for either LoLo or mixed freight.


why would brexit related freight go through waterford though? It'll go through Dublin or Cork surely?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:56 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42098
rfurlong wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
Complain about the lack of use of the Dublin Watford motorway all you like, but in the context of Brexit it may turn out to be a smart piece of business.


not really ..... we'll have a completed M11 by then and most of the traffic/commerce from Dublin will end up going through Rosslare instead

Not without absolutely stupendous amounts of investment in Rosslare. It might take a few more daily RoRo vessels, but it has fúck all capacity for either LoLo or mixed freight.


why would brexit related freight go through waterford though? It'll go through Dublin or Cork surely?

It won't go through Waterford. It'll continue to go through Dublin for lots of reasons, including the location of, and transport links to Corks deepwater port at Ringaskiddy, which also has pretty basic non RoRo facilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6843
Adetroy wrote:
Complain about the lack of use of the Dublin Watford motorway all you like, but in the context of Brexit it may turn out to be a smart piece of business.


That must be some road.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6843
camroc1 wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
Complain about the lack of use of the Dublin Watford motorway all you like, but in the context of Brexit it may turn out to be a smart piece of business.


not really ..... we'll have a completed M11 by then and most of the traffic/commerce from Dublin will end up going through Rosslare instead

Not without absolutely stupendous amounts of investment in Rosslare. It might take a few more daily RoRo vessels, but it has fúck all capacity for either LoLo or mixed freight.


why would brexit related freight go through waterford though? It'll go through Dublin or Cork surely?

It won't go through Waterford. It'll continue to go through Dublin for lots of reasons, including the location of, and transport links to Corks deepwater port at Ringaskiddy, which also has pretty basic non RoRo facilities.


I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this btw.

https://www.independent.ie/business/iri ... 70164.html

BAM undercooked their tender to relocate to the port facilities by a shade over 20% of the contract value. They've now pulled out and claimed they cannot proceed due to an 'arithmetical error' while the Port of Cork say they need to get moving and they'll see them in court. Either way this will delay things for a minimum of 12 months and most likely have significant know on effects for the docklands development (which will prob be stuck in neutral for years anyway) and the upgrade of the Port of Cork services.

I don't know who the Port of Cork had reviewing the tenders and what other bids were received but this is comical you could err this badly or accept a bid that seems so low or too be good to be true. BAM seem to have form with this after also screwing the event centre around since they were awarded the contract and have now seemingly gotten the money they wanted from the government in the end. Maybe striking them off a few tenders lists going forward might sharpen their pencils and get them in line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18737
Without knowing the full details of any post-tender correspondence it's hard to say. If a tenderer has genuinely messed up the pricing you would generally allow them to withdraw as it's in neither party's interest to proceed. Devil is in the detail though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
rfurlong wrote:
anyone who has ever driven the waterford dublin motorway will see what a monumental waste of money it was (ditto the M2) ...... I hope Dr Morgenroth is wrong on this .... but I suspect not

The old N2 was littered with accident black spots and there was regularly 6 mile tailbacks in the morning from the M50 out and similar from Ashbourne in the evening. It was needed but there's no point in taking it out any further.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
rfurlong wrote:

I don't think that's a good thing. Are we trialling feudalism?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
rfurlong wrote:
CM11 wrote:
To be honest, I prefer the 'if you build it, they will come' attitude to upgrading roads. If only they'd had the foresight to plan similarly on the M7 or M50.

I don't think every infrastructure project has to have a direct financial benefit to the country straight away.


thats dangerously close to what the monorail salesman told the people of Springfield

No it's not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6843
Gavin Duffy wrote:
Without knowing the full details of any post-tender correspondence it's hard to say. If a tenderer has genuinely messed up the pricing you would generally allow them to withdraw as it's in neither party's interest to proceed. Devil is in the detail though.


It's impossible to know now but it will all come out in the wash soon enough and when their bid bond is called in. I'd be amazed they could win a tender and not have any questions asked if they were 20% below other bidders though. If they were within an acceptable range and now have decided they omitted a massive section of the bid, it seems farcical.

We worked as a contractor on the new port project in Doha a few years back. There were 4 or 5 big contractors on site and the guys we were working for had one of the biggest packages there but they also made a balls of their bid and started the project severely in the red. They flew in their top global guys to oversee things and the entire project was a case of trying to save anything, anywhere to avoid colossal losses. But this was discovered after the fact and I'm sure they would not have been able to wriggle out of their contract in any case.

I have no sympathy for BAM after their event centre shenanigans so I hope they pint them to wall and put them under the pump to either mobilise asap or pay the penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7810
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:

I don't think that's a good thing. Are we trialling feudalism?


absolutely a good idea to help employees with their housing problems .... whats your exact objection?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7810
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
CM11 wrote:
To be honest, I prefer the 'if you build it, they will come' attitude to upgrading roads. If only they'd had the foresight to plan similarly on the M7 or M50.

I don't think every infrastructure project has to have a direct financial benefit to the country straight away.


thats dangerously close to what the monorail salesman told the people of Springfield

No it's not.


A) I said it tongue in cheek (the simpsons ref might have given it away?)

B) If we are dispensing with CBA's for huge infra spending then we are on a slippery slope back to political patronage and clientilism

C) oh forget it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27281
I also think we should get a monorail


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23630
It certainly put North Haverbrook on the map.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27281
ZappaMan wrote:
It certainly put North Haverbrook on the map.


Teething problems there. Trick is to get much longer trains and get them to interact with the traffic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 51871
rfurlong wrote:
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
CM11 wrote:
To be honest, I prefer the 'if you build it, they will come' attitude to upgrading roads. If only they'd had the foresight to plan similarly on the M7 or M50.

I don't think every infrastructure project has to have a direct financial benefit to the country straight away.


thats dangerously close to what the monorail salesman told the people of Springfield

No it's not.


A) I said it tongue in cheek (the simpsons ref might have given it away?)

B) If we are dispensing with CBA's for huge infra spending then we are on a slippery slope back to political patronage and clientilism

C) oh forget it


We don't have to dispense with CBA's. Just expand the scope and accept some loss for the greater good.

There are huge parts of Ireland which would be instantly cut off using a ruthless CBA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:28 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42098
Rumham wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
rfurlong wrote:

not really ..... we'll have a completed M11 by then and most of the traffic/commerce from Dublin will end up going through Rosslare instead

Not without absolutely stupendous amounts of investment in Rosslare. It might take a few more daily RoRo vessels, but it has fúck all capacity for either LoLo or mixed freight.


why would brexit related freight go through waterford though? It'll go through Dublin or Cork surely?

It won't go through Waterford. It'll continue to go through Dublin for lots of reasons, including the location of, and transport links to Corks deepwater port at Ringaskiddy, which also has pretty basic non RoRo facilities.


I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this btw.

https://www.independent.ie/business/iri ... 70164.html

BAM undercooked their tender to relocate to the port facilities by a shade over 20% of the contract value. They've now pulled out and claimed they cannot proceed due to an 'arithmetical error' while the Port of Cork say they need to get moving and they'll see them in court. Either way this will delay things for a minimum of 12 months and most likely have significant know on effects for the docklands development (which will prob be stuck in neutral for years anyway) and the upgrade of the Port of Cork services.

I don't know who the Port of Cork had reviewing the tenders and what other bids were received but this is comical you could err this badly or accept a bid that seems so low or too be good to be true. BAM seem to have form with this after also screwing the event centre around since they were awarded the contract and have now seemingly gotten the money they wanted from the government in the end. Maybe striking them off a few tenders lists going forward might sharpen their pencils and get them in line.


Independent QSs will have checked all the tenders, both arithmetically, and for pricing.
BAM will have been asked to stand over their tender prices, and will have to have answered in the affirmative before their tender was accepted. The amount involved is extraordinary, being € 12m out in a € 46m tender, ie 25% out, and can, imo, have only been deliberate, or else was a gross dereliction on behalf of their directors. Without knowing the particulars, I would conjecture that BAM thought they saw something in the tender docs that they could drive a coach and four through, which tempted them to tender well under cost. However the door to this gap in the tender has subsequently been slammed shut on them, leaving BAM with a € 25m loss looming. For € 25m this will end up in the HC, after non-binding conciliation, and non binding arbitration (because the contract will stipulate this path in the event of dispute); and at some stage BAM will pull off site to avoid throwing good money after bad. And the port contract will be delayed as suggested.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
rfurlong wrote:
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:

I don't think that's a good thing. Are we trialling feudalism?


absolutely a good idea to help employees with their housing problems .... whats your exact objection?

Companies, particulary big ones with massive lobbying power, having that much control over their employees. And Google aren't getting involved for the sake of their employees, this is about their bottom line.

Like it's great getting more investment in the housing market but it's not a sign of a healthy market. To what extent are they squeezing out other developers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
rfurlong wrote:
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
CM11 wrote:
To be honest, I prefer the 'if you build it, they will come' attitude to upgrading roads. If only they'd had the foresight to plan similarly on the M7 or M50.

I don't think every infrastructure project has to have a direct financial benefit to the country straight away.


thats dangerously close to what the monorail salesman told the people of Springfield

No it's not.


A) I said it tongue in cheek (the simpsons ref might have given it away?)

B) If we are dispensing with CBA's for huge infra spending then we are on a slippery slope back to political patronage and clientilism

C) oh forget it

Yeah, look I didn't think you had a point and well you proved it.

Most of our infrastructure is terrible to begin with so it's not hard to make a benefit case, really it all comes down to how you decide on cost and how thats measured over time. If you don't take the long view, you'll find it very hard to justify any project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7810
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:

I don't think that's a good thing. Are we trialling feudalism?


absolutely a good idea to help employees with their housing problems .... whats your exact objection?

Companies, particulary big ones with massive lobbying power, having that much control over their employees. And Google aren't getting involved for the sake of their employees, this is about their bottom line.

Like it's great getting more investment in the housing market but it's not a sign of a healthy market. To what extent are they squeezing out other developers.


The employees don't have to rent the units (its D4 not Qatar) ..... it wont be part of their contract of employment

I think we can all agree that its not a sign of a healthy market ..... but objecting to it on those grounds is like blaming the Beacon Healthcare for coming into the hospital market.

Finally, why should Google not be allowed compete with others in the developer space? God knows, they'd likely be a damn sight better than some of the plasterers, electricians and assorted spoofers that have tried their hand at it over the last 20 years in Ireland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7810
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
paddyor wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
CM11 wrote:
To be honest, I prefer the 'if you build it, they will come' attitude to upgrading roads. If only they'd had the foresight to plan similarly on the M7 or M50.

I don't think every infrastructure project has to have a direct financial benefit to the country straight away.


thats dangerously close to what the monorail salesman told the people of Springfield

No it's not.


A) I said it tongue in cheek (the simpsons ref might have given it away?)

B) If we are dispensing with CBA's for huge infra spending then we are on a slippery slope back to political patronage and clientilism

C) oh forget it

Yeah, look I didn't think you had a point and well you proved it.

Most of our infrastructure is terrible to begin with so it's not hard to make a benefit case, really it all comes down to how you decide on cost and how thats measured over time. If you don't take the long view, you'll find it very hard to justify any project.


as I suspected, you're talking through your hoop


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16344
Location: #68
This is mental. When is someone with responsibility going to figure out that we need to build bloody higher?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21262
The problem with building higher is that it's expensive. And the people who can afford that can still afford gaffs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21712
Adetroy wrote:
Complain about the lack of use of the Dublin Watford motorway all you like, but in the context of Brexit it may turn out to be a smart piece of business.

How do you mean?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16344
Location: #68
anonymous_joe wrote:
The problem with building higher is that it's expensive. And the people who can afford that can still afford gaffs.


The main problem is actually our planners and certain people's attitude to high rise. The SDZ has been a total waste. Grand Canal Dock should be mostly buildings the size of the Montzerto with a couple higher, instead we are stuck with squat glass houses.

Google shouldn't be forced out into the suburbs to find office space.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21712
Rumham wrote:
Adetroy wrote:
Complain about the lack of use of the Dublin Watford motorway all you like, but in the context of Brexit it may turn out to be a smart piece of business.


That must be some road.

It's so good (and the N11 so bad) that for Dublin-Rosslare, you're nearly better off to go by the Waterford road. It's longer timewise but you don't have the soul destroying stress of being stuck in Enniscorthy with the clock ticking on ferry departure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
rfurlong wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Yeah, look I didn't think you had a point and well you proved it.

Most of our infrastructure is terrible to begin with so it's not hard to make a benefit case, really it all comes down to how you decide on cost and how thats measured over time. If you don't take the long view, you'll find it very hard to justify any project.


as I suspected, you're talking through your hoop

:lol:

You've already made a fool of yourself claiming that the M2 was a waste but your clearly have no idea about the reasons that drove the investment and the results its yielded (because you probably know little any area you're not connected with). Just stop digging.

The best justification for the spend on DART underground I've seen is it can be paid for over 50-100 years (and it's a convincing argument tbh). I mean it's not gonna pay for itself thru fares. But there's less obvious benefits like higher rents in some areas, maybe higher CGT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
The problem with building higher is that it's expensive. And the people who can afford that can still afford gaffs.


The main problem is actually our planners and certain people's attitude to high rise. The SDZ has been a total waste. Grand Canal Dock should be mostly buildings the size of the Montzerto with a couple higher, instead we are stuck with squat glass houses.

Google shouldn't be forced out into the suburbs to find office space.

Google, facebook etc should "suffer" the same as everyone else. I'm maybe coming accross as anti FDI here but those compnaies are going to create a problem for indigenous firms. Everything will be benchmarked to what they pay, and their market is a planet of 7bn. Higher rise would defo help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
rfurlong wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Companies, particulary big ones with massive lobbying power, having that much control over their employees. And Google aren't getting involved for the sake of their employees, this is about their bottom line.

Like it's great getting more investment in the housing market but it's not a sign of a healthy market. To what extent are they squeezing out other developers.


The employees don't have to rent the units (its D4 not Qatar) ..... it wont be part of their contract of employment

I think we can all agree that its not a sign of a healthy market ..... but objecting to it on those grounds is like blaming the Beacon Healthcare for coming into the hospital market.

Finally, why should Google not be allowed compete with others in the developer space? God knows, they'd likely be a damn sight better than some of the plasterers, electricians and assorted spoofers that have tried their hand at it over the last 20 years in Ireland

No, of course they don't. But clearly they can make an offer thats hard to turn down. I reckon a massive amount of the rent increases in the city centre are due to kids straight out of college on Goolge training contracts (about 45k ex benefits/bonuses) and splurging c50% of their after tax income on accomodation. A lot of them are from eastern Europe or further like Azerbijan and they're landing on the pigs pack. So Google offers them a fixed accomodation rate.........You don't have to threaten people to get what you want.

It's not. No, you're making the monorail argument again. Tongue in cheek this time?

You're right a multinational with bags of cash will make a ebetter fist of things than a cash straped tradesman. But it doesn't sit right with me that an economy thats growing at 7%(?), needs this kind of intervention. I bet there's a tax angle on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:01 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42098
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
The problem with building higher is that it's expensive. And the people who can afford that can still afford gaffs.


The main problem is actually our planners and certain people's attitude to high rise. The SDZ has been a total waste. Grand Canal Dock should be mostly buildings the size of the Montzerto with a couple higher, instead we are stuck with squat glass houses.

Google shouldn't be forced out into the suburbs to find office space.

Eoghan Murphy is supposed to be announcing new resi height limits along with the govt. expenditure programme, is he not ?

The ABP decision on Tara House will be interesting. It'll end up in the HC one way or the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
McWilliams getting flamed.

http://www.dublinport.ie/news/david-mcwilliams-idea-moving-dublin-port-makes-no-sense-says-eamonn-oreilly-dublin-port/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21262
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
The problem with building higher is that it's expensive. And the people who can afford that can still afford gaffs.


The main problem is actually our planners and certain people's attitude to high rise. The SDZ has been a total waste. Grand Canal Dock should be mostly buildings the size of the Montzerto with a couple higher, instead we are stuck with squat glass houses.

Google shouldn't be forced out into the suburbs to find office space.

I agree. The PDs idea of a proper high-rise docklands wasn't bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16344
Location: #68
In some ways I admire the tenacity from a semi state but that isn't the most professional of ways to go about it. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:56 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42098
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
In some ways I admire the tenacity from a semi state but that isn't the most professional of ways to go about it. :lol:

I gave my views on McWilliams article when he published it in the Indo in the autumn. Madness then, madness now.

If you want to utilise 'dock' lands for new resi, infill between the Poolbeg peninsula and Sandymount strand. Build away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 12817
Blackrock Bullet wrote:
In some ways I admire the tenacity from a semi state but that isn't the most professional of ways to go about it. :lol:

Easy to forget he's been taking pot shots at different parts of the civil service for about a decade now. I can't imagine many of them like him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:13 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42098
And here we go ........

On the metro :

Quote:
The Government is once again considering revising the scope of the long-planned Metro North rail link between Dublin city centre, Dublin Airport and Swords as part of its €115 billion capital plan.

The underground element of the 17km route was cut back in 2015 by then minister for transport Paschal Donohoe on cost grounds.

However, informed sources last night said that under the revised proposals more of the track could end up being subterranean. This comes amid controversy in Dublin over traffic issues arising from the new Luas cross-city line.


FFS the Metro doesn't interface directly with the road network even under the revised plan, going over roads on viaducts, where it doesn't go under them. Just build whatever the current design is, rather than going back into design stage FFS.

On rural roads:

Quote:
Hundreds of millions of euro will also be spent on rural roads, to offset the major transport projects being focused on Dublin. About 80 per cent of road investment will be outside Dublin.


That'll show those jackeens......

On Kevin Boxer Moran :

Quote:
Minister of State for the Office of Public Works Kevin ‘Boxer’ Moran said his hometown of Athlone would be designated “capital of the midlands” in the planning framework. He said he had personally intervened to ensure the designation.


:lol: :lol: :lol: FFS!

That'll show those jackeens again....

And in possibly the most interesting part of the article :

Quote:
A new land-management agency is also expected to be announced as part of the national planning framework. Sources said it would co-ordinate and “take on” the development of State-owned land, such as that held by councils and State agencies. It will also have the power to acquire privately-owned lands through compulsory purchase orders (CPOs). It is understood the agency will also have the power to rezone land for specific purposes to encourage “strategic” development in certain areas.


It was pointed out that the use of CPOs would not necessarily be used to encourage the construction of more homes, but because the State may envisage different uses for particular sites than they are currently used for.


Make that an independent semi-state body with infrastructural development powers and we might be going places.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3390016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 12293
The current Metro plan calls for the final section to Swords to be overground from the airport roundabout up pinnock hill and on into Swords

Causing chaos and fúcking up traffic LUAS style.

I'm glad sense is prevailing, it should be as close as possible to heavy rail and not some LUAS plus piece of shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30588
Mullet 2 wrote:
The current Metro plan calls for the final section to Swords to be overground from the airport roundabout up pinnock hill and on into Swords

Causing chaos and fúcking up traffic LUAS style.

I'm glad sense is prevailing, it should be as close as possible to heavy rail and not some LUAS plus piece of shit.


Could we not just run the f**king thing to the airport and stop trying to make it an all things to all men vote winner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 12293
Duff Paddy wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:
The current Metro plan calls for the final section to Swords to be overground from the airport roundabout up pinnock hill and on into Swords

Causing chaos and fúcking up traffic LUAS style.

I'm glad sense is prevailing, it should be as close as possible to heavy rail and not some LUAS plus piece of shit.


Could we not just run the f**king thing to the airport and stop trying to make it an all things to all men vote winner.



Swords is the fastest growing town in the country with a population the size of Limerick.

We would you stop building a rail line 4km from it?

The problem with this country is always doing things half-assed and then having to fix it all later, not the other way around.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45541 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021 ... 1139  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, Bing [Bot], camroc1, Captain Average, Cartman, DiscoHips D'Arcy, duke, earl the beaver, eldanielfire, Gauss, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, Jensrsa, jolindien, Laurent, Mog The Almighty, mrbrownstone, penguin, Plato'sCave, redderneck, Sandstorm, spookly, Toulon's Not Toulouse, unseenwork and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group