Rail Users Ireland Forum

Go Back   Rail Users Ireland Forum > General Information & Discussion > Events, Happenings and Media
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Unread 27-01-2008, 14:00   #1
Mark Hennessy
Membership Officer
 
Mark Hennessy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Maynooth
Posts: 1,116
Default

The technology is the easy part Colm.

The infighting and politics from civil service, DB, IE and RPA is the hard part.

The lack of clear direction from the minister down does not help at all.
Mark Hennessy is offline  
Unread 27-01-2008, 16:08   #2
philip
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 632
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Hennessy View Post
The technology is the easy part Colm.

The infighting and politics from civil service, DB, IE and RPA is the hard part.

The lack of clear direction from the minister down does not help at all.
The civil sevants are most to blame after the minister and ultimately Mr. Ahern.

It's simply not a big enough issue for most of the dopey electorate who still think widening the M50 is going to get them to work on the other side of town a few minutes earlier.
philip is offline  
Unread 28-01-2008, 10:29   #3
ACustomer
Really Regular Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 767
Default

If the information in the SNP article is correct, then the cost per km of Metro do Porto was about €28.5m compared with a projected €160m for Dublin. The difference is really staggering: its not enough to explain it away by saying that property acquisition and compensation costs will be higher in Dublin, which seems like factoring the inflated prices of the property bubble into the projected cost. A more valid reason for Porto being cheaper is that (a bit like the Green Line Luas) the Metro has used old narrow guage lines and tunnels (on the Povoa line, I think) and also has used one of the existing high-level bridges to cross the River Douro.

What is most interesting in the piece is the point about the investment in security in Porto (200 personnel), campared with the bland RPA approach of zero security personnel. The utter complacency of this should be highlighted.
ACustomer is offline  
Unread 28-01-2008, 10:44   #4
markpb
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACustomer View Post
The difference is really staggering: its not enough to explain it away by saying that property acquisition and compensation costs will be higher in Dublin
What property will have to be aquired to build the metro? I assume the depot at Metropark and the Blind Training Centre at Whitworth but what else would there be?
markpb is offline  
Unread 28-01-2008, 11:25   #5
philip
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 632
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markpb View Post
What property will have to be aquired to build the metro? I assume the depot at Metropark and the Blind Training Centre at Whitworth but what else would there be?
Lissenhall P&R. Bits of overground in and around Dublin airport approaches cross private lands. Not a whole lot which you'd think would be in our favour given land costs in Dublin. Is the Mater not owned by the Sisters of Mercy or something? Would they need compensating? One would hope not.
philip is offline  
Unread 31-01-2008, 17:39   #6
Aphfaneire
Regular Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: County louth, 6 miles from civilisation:-(
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip View Post
Lissenhall P&R. Bits of overground in and around Dublin airport approaches cross private lands. Not a whole lot which you'd think would be in our favour given land costs in Dublin. Is the Mater not owned by the Sisters of Mercy or something? Would they need compensating? One would hope not.
Does this mean they changed that law of owning land under a property or has that technicallity been changed when they built the port tunnel, or is just an urban myth to claim how s hit are government is.
__________________
Commuting is my extra 50 minutes of sleep
Aphfaneire is offline  
Unread 31-01-2008, 18:39   #7
Colm Moore
Local Liaison Officer
 
Colm Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,442
Default

They have set the cost of land below 10m(?) at zero.
Colm Moore is offline  
Unread 01-02-2008, 09:53   #8
Garrett
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Paris
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip View Post
It's simply not a big enough issue for most of the dopey electorate who still think widening the M50 is going to get them to work on the other side of town a few minutes earlier.
Careful now! The "dopey electorate" are commuters and their views have to be taken in context. Many have never lived with or truly experienced long term a proper public transport network, so you can't bash them for believing in the only form of transport that has worked for them - road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip
Lissenhall P&R. Bits of overground in and around Dublin airport approaches cross private lands.
I was wondering whether such lands are actually worth much, particularly if they're not zoned for residential or industrial use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip
Do you own it though? Maybe registry of deeds properties you do but land registry folios always say something like "does not extend to the mines and minerals".
I believe mines and minerals are considered national treasures and resources and are therefore "owned" by the Nation. I think it's in the constitution somewhere.
Garrett is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:05.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.