RPA don't want to know
 

This is the link for the public to submit comments to the RPA on the proposed metro on the RPA web site:


http://www.rpa.ie/404/404.asp?404;ht...pp/content.asp

I'll let you draw your own conclusions :mad:

The link is http://www.rpa.ie/metro/ndp_ppp/content.asp?id=78

Which becomes

http://www.rpa.ie/404/404.asp?404;ht...pp/content.asp

Once again the incompetence is shocking

Or could it be the 'Public Sector Hiring Freeze' which prohibits the hiring of new staff? It could be that Cullen will not give them the funding to hire staff to assess the responses.

Either way it is a disgrace that the EIA directive in relation to consultation is being flouted.

Very poor.

The page you want is

http://www.rpa.ie/?id=78 once you understand the RPA site its easy as the original url can't exist http://www.rpa.ie/metro/ndp_ppp/content.asp?id=78

The simple schematic is here http://www.rpa.ie/content.asp?id=299 again the link on the RPA site http://www.rpa.ie/cms/htmleditor/content.asp?id=299 is impossible

Unless you spend ages designing content management systems you haven't got a hope in working that out. I'm reliably informed the errors on the site are human its not the software

It may be human error, but it does show a certain lack of care - it wouldn't take long to test the links after posting the article. They seem to do this on a regular basis. I've also seen them post telephone numbers with only six digits.

Still no FAQ either

When I update the website I always check all related links. Sometimes one or two get through and Mark G normally spots these other times I find something in the error logs. I am yet to have a broken link on our site pointed out to me by anyone other than Mark (please don't start looking :D ). I think it is a disgrace that a voluntary organisation like us exhibit better website practices than a government body.

Yet again the NGO non-profit sector standards exceed that provided by the taxpayer

Strangely the links have now all been changed to the ones I quoted earlier (Ok they added trick to preselect Metro as the inquiry subject)

A big hello to Parkgate Street so good to see you are paying attention

Maybe you can fix this
http://www.rpa.ie/metro/progress points to news
http://www.rpa.ie/metro/news points to public private parternships
http://www.rpa.ie/metro/ndp_ppp points to have your say

Someone really wants to make life difficult

http://www.rpa.ie/?id=295 metro history has no reference to the 1975 DRRTS report which proposed the very metro route now being built

Metro is not a NDP project nor is it a EU funded project so the logo has to go as well


Might as well lose the London Underground photo as well, use the Porto ones you have they are much more realistic

A clear cost figure would be nice, we know its about €6.5 billion over 26 years you might as well admitt it

My invoice for IT consultancy will be delivered later

You were all talking rubbish when you said there were problems with that website and if you found anymore today you would still be talking rubbish. :D

Actually Paul it is a doubleplusgood website. Be carefull or you'll become an unperson.

Well the RPA site is second only to the mess of Irish Rails site at least the RPA have navigation

Don't be quoting Orwell in our public section, you might give our friends in IE and the RPA some ideas :D

I never realised how Orwellian it was of <RPA Person> to say that to Derek. Do you reckon once the lines are connected the RPA will write that the lines were always connected? :D

Yep! :D

"There were never 30 meter trams on the Red Line" :p

Look into my eyes, you are feeling very sleepy..........

More likely:

"Look into the eyes, just the eyes, not above the eyes, not below them, only into my eyes, just the eyes and...............you're asleep. Now. That's a 40m tram, understand, it's 40m. And it's always been 40m, it was never 30. And..... you're awake!"

Throw us in a pit of rats until we 'admit' there were always 40m trams on the red line.