ctesiphon wrote:Why is the date of 1880 so important?
notjim wrote:Cute Panda: Time again to contemplate the often forgotten fact that good government arises out of the mediation of extremes, I would be annoyed if PF's concerns derailed the metro project but I am glad he holds them so passionately and is able to express them so well, the concern and objection of people like him will help protect the park from needless damage, similarly, your views, though not so well expressed, are typical of those that help drive the project forward, between the two extremes lies the ideal, the metro is built but the damage to Green is kept to the minimum.
It is silly to pretend that the felling of mature tree would not be a loss, it will. Further, unless great care is taken, the rebuilt portion of the park will lack the sense of nature begrudgingly but beautifully tamed and it would be a huge pity if the metro exits impinged on the Green itself, as they appear to in the map at the start of this thread.
alonso wrote:The basic question is are we prepared to take the pill required to deliver transport infrastructure.
ST/OPW wrote:"We've asked them to keep the number of trees to be felled to a minimum, 40 - 50 tops, everything will be reinstated afterwards"
ST/DOEHLG wrote:"The department is keeping the situation under review", a spokesman for Gormley said, "If permission is given it will be on the basis that the green is restored to its present state"
ST/RPA wrote:The RPA has promised to hire an arbocultural specialist to advise on the management of the trees. Only those identified as being close to the end of their life will be removed, it says, and they will be replaced.
alonso wrote:The basic question is are we prepared to take the pill required to deliver transport infrastructure. Is Dublin willing to do what Boston did? We're focussed on the Green here, but all along the route of both currently proposed metros and other luas lines, people will face chaos for the best part of 5 years each. What is the alternative? Not just for this location, but for the City as a whole.
PVC King wrote:The alternative is to future proff the project by moving the end of the current line away from the central business district to a selected inner most suburb where retail and office activities will not be effected by the thousands of movements of spoil.
The alternative is to select a site which has no heritage or tourist value such as Mount Pleasant Park, Cathal Brugha Barracks or Harolds Cross Hospice.
The alternative is to ensure that he other section of the green doesn't have to excavated in 10-15 years time when the line is extended.
The alternative is to extend the length of planning control where development contributions and higher densities can be leveraged.
Alonso wrote:The basic question is are we prepared to take the pill required to deliver transport infrastructure. Is Dublin willing to do what Boston did?
PVC King wrote:This project is nothing compared to Boston's big dig;
BostonorBerlin wrote:Dublins turned into a right shite hole anyways, may as well drive the last pylon in the coffin and be done with it, then everyone might stop codding themselves that its some kind of vibrant cosmopolitan utopian phoenix arising from the flames of the Celtic tiger, envy of europe and all that bollix. Ha ha
hutton wrote:Ah, youve discovered the Irish planning "process" when it comes to infrastructure projects. The same is happening with the metro
For future reference, please bear in mind that the Irish definition of "consultation" regarding infrasturucture projects is simply defending already fixed plans at oral hearings - which inevitably get rubber-stamped anyway, as by that stage theres no alternative. Consultation me hole!
BostonorBerlin wrote:Dublins turned into a right shite hole anyways, may as well drive the last pylon in the coffin and be done with it then everyone might stop codding themselves that its some kind of vibrant cosmopolitan utopian phoenix arising from the flames of the Celtic tiger, envy of europe and all that bollix. Ha ha
Peter FitzPatrick wrote:I doubt many that post here are so deluded as to view Dublin in those terms, lets call them your terms. I'd suggest most are motivated to contribute out of affection for their capital city and a desire to see it progress, however each one defines progress.
PVC King wrote:I think for once M Cullen was right.
CIE brought this as part of a much wider Dublin Rail Plan in early 2004 and given the failure to complete Luas first time out at least 4 of the poins were decided i.e. Hueston mainline, Stephens Green Luas, Pearse Station Dart and Spencer Dock.
Laughable.The only real choice was where you put te High Street/Christchurch stop or if ore stops were added. .
BostonorBerlin wrote:Peter, how does this fit into your definition of progress? ... Im still 100% behind this project, its going to be a source of endless amusement as well as cementing for all time and for all to see the fairly disastrous actions,waste and mediocre achievements of those involved, it will be their maginot line ...
Peter FitzPatrick wrote:your posts often read as the sneers of an exiled emporer type, watching his people flounder in his absence.
Seamus O'G wrote:Spencer Dock? Why not Connolly Station, for example?
Pearse Station? Why not Tara Street? It's busier, after all, on a line which serves both stations. This would seem to be an indication that more people want to go to Tara Street than Pearse Station.
St. Stephen's Green? Why was it important that the line go through here?
Spencer Dock? Why not Connolly Station, for example?
St. Stephen's Green? Why was it important that the line go through here? (And please don't say "integration"
Pearse Station? Why not Tara Street? It's busier
Don't forget, the city's buses carry many times more people than the Green LUAS line.