Dublin Port – Feasible or not?

I’d be all in favour because I think we all know that the Dublin Port Tunnel will be entirely ineffective in the absence of full interchanges on the M50 and a proper Eastern Bypass.
It’s certainly something worth thinking about although the denizens of Balbriggan probably wouldn’t be thrilled with the idea.

The PDs have assembled a most dishonest document claiming that land values are worth €billions.

They as well as everyone else knows that all of the lands in question are held on a leasehold basis; the lands would be worth €billions if held on a an enencumbered freehold basis by the Dublin Port company but they are not.

What the document basically does is dangle a carrot in front of oue eyes in the full knowledge that it is not attainable; given the benefits involved it is particularly cynical.

The end game here is that if it is forced through the taxpayer will have to fund a new deep water port whilst a number of leaseholders including coal merchants that haven’t importeed anything in years stand to benefit with the lions share of the gains.

Andrew unfortunately you will be waiting a while longer for your taller City unless something radical is done in terms of CPO legislation.

i posted this on boards.ie a while back.. the article was in the sunday tribune. The PD’s came up with it i belive.There was mixed reaction to this. It would make a mockery of the port tunnel.

The residents in Balbriggin werent happy with the whole idea

**edit
I didnt see the artists impression. Well its certainly an area for the highrises providing it was done properly. I would be all for it. I just wonder about flooding

🙂 What an excellent idea!!! All for it.

it has 20 years as the time frame >eek<

I would be for that idea too. It seems ambitious.

This is an ambitious idea that incorporates a vision of a Dublin which wishes to make a statement about where it wants to be, and be seen to be, in the 21st century. It is certainly more Boston than Berlin but with a sprinkling of a SanFrancisco or a Sydney to try and raise the City profile even higher. The City and the Bay should complement each other and not turn their backs on each other as largely happens at present. The Loop Line bridge and the development of the Port of Dublin have effectively separated the City from the Bay for the last 200 years. While recent docklands developments have retaken possession of part of the Port, the Port itself is relentlessly expanding.
The Bay should return to being the lung of the City rather than the bladder.
Yes I know some of the images are crude and to many Planners the whole idea is presposterous. However, look what the island of Singapore has achieved in less than 40 years in an island state with no resources of its own. It can be done. It’s a question of belief!

Would have my support. I love, however, the modelling of Dublin on Helsinki. Objectively, it seems a fair comparison in terms of size, geographical positioning etc. What is absent, however, is an understanding of the difference between the Irish mentality an dthat of the Scandanavians. The former sit around talking bxxxxxks and do nothing; the latter get off their asses and do things. What ever happened to the traces of Vicking blood in us I will never know.

This is only a ”carrot” as there is an election probably next year. This is hypocrtical of the PDs/Fianna Fail advocating high rises for the docks and all sorts of other much needed developments, when McDowell hindered the Natioanl Stadium calling it a Ceascescu stlye complex and Bertie calling Spencer Dock a monstrosity. They are a long time in government and its a last minute rush promising all these things as there is fuck all to show bar roads and houses.

@millennium wrote:

This is an ambitious idea that incorporates a vision of a Dublin which wishes to make a statement about where it wants to be, and be seen to be, in the 21st century. It is certainly more Boston than Berlin but with a sprinkling of a SanFrancisco or a Sydney to try and raise the City profile even higher. The City and the Bay should complement each other and not turn their backs on each other as largely happens at present. The Loop Line bridge and the development of the Port of Dublin have effectively separated the City from the Bay for the last 200 years. While recent docklands developments have retaken possession of part of the Port, the Port itself is relentlessly expanding.
The Bay should return to being the lung of the City rather than the bladder.
Yes I know some of the images are crude and to many Planners the whole idea is presposterous. However, look what the island of Singapore has achieved in less than 40 years in an island state with no resources of its own. It can be done. It’s a question of belief!

Why is it more ” Boston than Berlin”? Berlin is has plenty of high rise building. Anyway this hackneyed phrase is used more for comparing Europe’s high tax welfare economy to America’s low tax low welfare model.( Kind of ironic because in America Boston is in “Taxachussets”)

I mentioned above that I would be for the idea but to be honest I can’t see it happening. If they do manage to relocate the port we WILL end up with the same stuff we are already building (Spencer and Grand Canal Dock). I wouldn’t get my hopes up. People will object to the whole thing and most likely win.

this rekindles my hope for a functional dublin, its a beautiful proposal and would increase quaility of life to no end, the old part of the city would really be complimented by the new, pollution and congestion would go down, it would draw in more international business and spark new local enterprise… this city NEEDS this, as does the country.

how possible is this? what can be done to keep this on track and stop the proposal from flattened into sandyford industrial estate with a seaside view and congestion feeding underground parking, or am i getting my hopes up as this is all just an election ploy? ill have myself a revolution:mad:

The image in the Metro newspaper looks quite good. Kinda a Canary Wharf/New York look about the buildings . Boats/Barges on the river and all. Looks cool.
But when you look closely and see the 2 ESB chimney stacks placed right among the towers. Its kinda a rushed together whimsical photoshop montage just to catch the publics eye. Nothing will come of it.

This is alot of ridiculous nonsense. Pure and utter fantasy nonsense. No government in ireland in the whole of the 20th century had the competence or desire to carry out such grandiose world class projects, and that included all the celtic tiger governments which had the opportunity to. That situation shows no hint of a beginning of an end to it’s persistence. Anything which is more than decent is doomed before it gets started. As for T21- if I ever see a dublin underground in my lifetime, I vow to eat my hat.

Dublin port will reach capacity by 2008. They will want to futher infil the area after that. I think the nation should take the brave and right decision to relocate the port out north of Dublin.

The NIMBY brigade will have a field day but at least the north dublin location can avail of the rail line that connects the whole east coast and should in theory reduce trucks on the road. This project is of national importance and a few hardliners shouldnt be allowed to stop the project.

It would mean a cleaner Dublin with hardly any trucks on the cities streets.

It would mean a major boost for the economy of Ireland and bring the house/apartment costs down in Dublin.

It would result in Dublin being a city of consequence.

It would relaunch the city as being a modern international one and the tall buildings would demonstrate a air of confidence about the nation. (i have always been a firm backer of high rises in Dublin and was just wondering where to put them).

The spin offs are endless. Fair enough the graphics need work but its a fantastic idea that captures the imagination of what the city could be like.

I just blame Brian Boru for kicking out all the northern europeans who had the genes to go ahead with projects like this (and other things like the tuskar tunnel). We will probably debate this issue for another decade before going ahead with it.

i have to say that picture in the times was awful, it remindes you that crappy skyscrapers kind of scattered can look really awful: in fact tall buildings are only really dramatic when you spend alot on them and you are short of space to put them. everyone forgets that manhattan isn’t manhattan because of the tall buildings, lots of us cities have them: the point is it has a ton of housing, lots of great seven story areas, a great park, some beautiful older buildings, great zoning and the really tall buildings are crowded into midtown and the financial district.

as for the port; as a dubliner, for now anyway, you have to be nervous about anything that narrows the employment base, but, yes, the current preeminence of dublin is stupid, maybe not the big bang the pds are selling for whatever reason, but there ought to be more development of other ports and, yes, a gradual scaling back of dublin port.

One of those buildings shown in the photo is in Toronto.

I can’t help thinking this is just bluff from the PDs. They’ve been in power for most of the last 20 years and look at the mediocre architecture in the docklands.

The port tunnel was designed and built on the assumption that the port tunnel was remaining where it is. If they were going to move it. It should have happened then,

A big Transport plan was unveiled a few weeks ago with no mention of this. Land use and transport planning should go together.

@Pepsi wrote:

One of those buildings shown in the photo is in Toronto.

my point exactly!

i think the issue about the graphics is a silly one and shouldnt be discussed. Of course they just jumped a load of high rises on the docks. It is only designed to give an idea to people. The PD’s as a political party dont have access to a lot of graphical artists.

When i read these stories they are both exciting and sad. Exciting that something like this could go ahead but sad because of the ar$e ways planning in the country. No other country in the world would have built the port tunnel and then started to discuss moving the port within a few months of the tunnel opening.

Cynic alert – perhaps the pds are after ff’s developer friends donations….

It’s NOT feasible.

Dublin port is much larger, compact, and more complicated than Helsinki port. It’s well over twice the size as Helsinki Port.

Dublin

Helsinki

About 40% of Helsinki Port is open space for 40ft containers. The rest is taken up with large factories and warehouses. Relocating these facilities wouldn’t be all that difficult.

Dublin port is a different story. A lot of the port has discharging facilities for oil, chemicals and petroleum with an intricate network of pipe lines. There’s also a slight matter of a large power plant and Dublin’s state-of-the-art sewage plant. There’s is no way these could be relocated. The costs of relocating these facilities would be astronomical.

Also bear in mind that the Dublin Port Company is in the planning stages of reclaiming 21 hectares of land in order to expand the port.

Progressive Democrats – nice try, but no cigar.

@Morlan wrote:

It’s NOT feasible.

About 40% of Helsinki Port is open space for 40ft containers. The rest is taken up with large factories and warehouses. Relocating these facilities wouldn’t be all that difficult.

Dublin port is a different story. A lot of the port has discharging facilities for oil, chemicals and petroleum with an intricate network of pipe lines. There’s also a slight matter of a large power plant and Dublin’s state-of-the-art sewage plant. There’s is no way these could be relocated. The costs of relocating these facilities would be astronomical.

Also bear in mind that the Dublin Port Company is in the planning stages of reclaiming 21 hectares of land in order to expand the port.

Progressive Democrats – nice try, but no cigar.

The cost of relocation would be high YES but the benefits would be also ASTRONOMICAL. A proper evaluation of relocating the port should be undertaken by a professional body or some committe.

They are about to apply for more space for the port but that doesnt mean it should be given the green light. They can say no and start to move certain parts out of the port.

Anything is possible providing there is the political will

“political will”.. that’s the problem.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great idea and I’d love to see it happen, but realistically, our government wouldn’t have to balls to undertake such a large project.

I agree about that part Morlan.

We live in a pathetic country who couldnt plan a piss up in a brewery let along any major peice of infastructure of signifance.

Our society has completely failed at infastructure and all we ever mastered is endless meaningless chat and soundbites. Any other northern european nation would be pressing on with these projects and would have started to move the port a decade ago.

Ireland is far from perfect but there’s no need to brand it as pathetic. a decade ago we couldn’t afford to move the port, or do a lot of things. I’m proud to be Irish, even if we have shite infastructure!

Correct Boyler, i too am proud to be Irish and cannot stand the anti Irish, aren’t we crap, other countries are so much better vitriole that springs forth on this suite every few posts.

This country’s principal acheivement is that it has survived the malevolance of its neighbours and its isolated position on the western seaboard of Europe.

On the subject of infrastructure this country is unrecognisable from that of ten or twenty years ago. Back then we had no cash for big projects unless you took it from the schools, the hospitals or the 250,000 unemployed. Anybody who cannot see the acheivements in the intervening period is blind or bigoted.

Guess you don’t travel outside of Dublin that often. Try a nice weekend break in the north west when you get a chance – you will love the drive.

actually i go west more often – and now i have motorway to beyond mullingar – suppose though you wouldn’t consider that progress.

@dodger wrote:

actually i go west more often – and now i have motorway to beyond mullingar – suppose though you wouldn’t consider that progress.

It is progress – the new 50km nearly doubles the number of km of motorway per million in inhabitants in Ireland. Not bad. However, as Ali G would say – ‘keep it real’. Let us put this progress in context. In 1999 we had 22km of motorway per million inhabitants – this is after 5 years of the Celtic tiger and 80 years of political independence and relative stability. In 1999, Germany – 54 years after the total devastation of virtually all of its infrastructure – mustered some 138 km of motorway per million inhabitants. Lets compare Ireland and Austria – countries of nearly the exact same land area. In 1999, we enjoyed no fewer than 94km of motorway while Austria boasted some 1613 km of motorway. Of course, lest we forget, Austria also had to recover from the second world war in the meantime, and still managed to build much of its motorway network across one of the most physically challenging landscapes in western and central europe. After over a decade of rapid economic growth, we should be very proud of this particular stretch of motorway – it is a testament to what the Irish nation can do given the resources – namely 50km of motorway across a landscape that is as flat and unchallenging as could be.

This is far from the only stretch built in this period. There was a time that our friends across the border would mock our roads – not any more. Driving from Dublin to Belfast quickly proves that.

Within ten years we’ll have motorway / dual carriageway from Dublin to Cork and Galway. Perhaps this isn’t quick enough for you and perhaps we’re not the industrial powerhouse of Europe that Germany was but one thing we are not and that is pathetic. We are a country will full employment and working flat our in terms of infrastructure.

@dodger wrote:

Within ten years we’ll have motorway / dual carriageway from Dublin to Cork and Galway. Perhaps this isn’t quick enough for you and perhaps we’re not the industrial powerhouse of Europe that Germany was but one thing we are not and that is pathetic. We are a country will full employment and working flat our in terms of infrastructure.

We will wait and see with regards to the completion of a motorway netwrok across Ireland. Given the standoff that we witnessd at the southern part of the M50 and the nearly twenty year wait to have the relief road through Sligo built, I think we need to pace ourselves a little bit on this one.

Perhaps, a comparison with Germany and Austria was a bad idea – maybe a comparison with the other traditional ‘poor men’ of Europe would be more appropriate. Consider, for example, Spain. In 1999, it had 8,257 km of motorway, that means it ranked highest among all EU countries with some 186 km of motorway per million inhabitants. Puts Ireland’s 22 km per million inhabitants somewhat in the shade. With regard to Ireland being ‘pathetic’, it depends on what you are referring to. In terms of road-building, we are pathetic. The above figures clearly show that we are not really up there with the Romans in this department. Our rail infrastructure is not exactly first class either. Mind you, neither is our national bus netrwork, Dublin’s public transport, and so on.

How much of Spain/Austria etc’s planning and CPO regulations hark back to the days of dictators running the show?

I presume this is a rhetorical question as it would be difficult for me to present an analysis of the history of these countries’ planning laws. I am not negating your suggestion, however, that certain political ideologies may have had an implicit influence on some of the planning laws in these countries.

Lets consider then two countries that are not and have not been run by dictatorships (at least not since the invention of the motorcar): Belgium and France:

Belgium (1999): 1682km; 165km per million inhabitants

France (1999): 9303km; 142 km per million inhabitants

The facts are inescapable. For a country that has one of the highest dependencies on the motorized vehicle in the world, is it not ironic that we have one of lowest rates of motorways per km in the EU? Encapsulates everything about Ireland, if you ask me.

But too be fair in France in particular if they want to build a motorway through your house they will do so without any of the “niceties” that go on over here. Blame deValera for giving too much leeway in the Constitution to NIMBYs if needs be

Returning to a point made above with regard to the PD’s utopian vision of Dublin harbour. If such a plan was ever to get beyond the stage of a two page flyer, the Port Tunnel would not necessarily be a dead loss. Indeed, it could be capitalised on quite nicely. If a ‘mini-Manhatten’ was constructed in the docklands, direct access to the airport would obviously be a huge attraction to companies that would wish to locate in the area. In that regard, it could provide a nice incentive to such companies. It would also provide an opportunity to plan a new port that could be modelled on rail transport rather than motor transport. It could also offer a huge qualitative change in the lives of Dubliners in terms of rescuing the city’s relationship with the seascape (somewhat like the development of an open green area as a public amenity on the site of the old land-fill dump in the Claddagh in Galway). The PD’s plan might seem like pie-in-the-sky at first glance, but it is a very good idea.

Some good points above but what I feel is missing is that it needs to be said that the Irish as a race are a tremendously resiliant and creative society in all respects bar one. We continue to elect morons who promise much and deliver little.

This particular proposal takes the biscuit as does Tom Morrisey in general; this idea was discussed on boards earlier in the summer and the above points were made by different contributors; the clear consensus was that it is an extremely worthy objective to provide a high density mixed use regeneration project in what is now an exclusively industrial / distribution area.

Much of the area on the Northern is sufficiently far away from all the important heritage areas to merit real consideration free from conservation grounds.

What the real problem is and the PDs knew before they published was that this would be SOUTH WHARF PLC all over again and that there would be virtually nothing coming to Dublin Port to pay for the new port as virtually all the plots are held on 99 year leases with an average of 50 to 60 years unexpired. Which as any property advisor will tell you any freehold with a leasehold of over 20 years in place has a virtual nil value.

To compound this untruth Tom Morrisey as coalition partner failed to deliver the interconnector to the docklands until 2015 which if the NDP delays are bourne out should arrive in a timeframe of approximately 2025-28.

Should it happen yes

Will it happen probably not as I’m sure McDowell will veto it just like then incinerator on NIMBY grounds.

PDLL, you have to compare like with like. In terms of economic success we compare very favourably to the likes of Germany but only over the last 10 years, in terms of infrasturture we currently compare poorly. But this is partly a chicken and egg debate. We have acheived an astonishing economic turnaround and are now working on the infrastructure. If we had built motorways in the 70’s and 80’s there is a chance the tiger would never have arrived. It was McSharry’s cutbacks that kickstaarted the economy not a cash splurge. Instead of constantly moaning can’t we at least concede that we are moving in the right direction and can’t we give the politicians and planners the time they require.

I also don’t agree with the notion that we elect morons any more than other nations.

This is not to say that mistakes have not been made – the M3 route is a travesty – but given prosperity didn’t reach us until 10 years ago i don’t feel we’re doing too bad.

Finally if you really want to know how europe did so well within a short period after the war – it was the Marshall plan and not anything the German’s or French did.

I would agree completely, dodger, about comparing like with like and I also agree that our economic success does compare very favourably with the likes of Germany. The problem is, if we cannot compare Ireland to Germany and Austria – considered wealthy and developed countries, at least for the last 30 years, and we cannot compare Ireland with Spain – considered to be traditionally poor and limited economically and infrastructurally, who then can we compare Ireland to? Indeed, why do we need to compare it to any other country at all? We need to compare it with other EU countries as that is exactly how the concept of the Celtic Tiger was derived – by comparing the statistics of our economic growth against those of our European neighbours. This is where the politicians get their ammunition to crow about the Celtic Tiger and it is where the journalists source their comparative information. Of course there is nothing wrong with this, unless of course it is not in the best interests of the State. And this appears to be one case where that is happening. Ireland was , oddly enough, more than happy to compare itself to Germany in the 70s and 80s when it meant getting more money out of the EU!

Returning to the issue of comparing like with like. In the 1920s and 1930s, Germany was an economic dead-end. In the ‘40s, it was an economic dead-end. Much of the 50s and 60s focussed on re-building and putting some very basic infrastructure back in place. In the 70s things started to get better and have done so up until quite recently really. In other words, it went from a position where it had less than nothing (flattened cities, no political infrastructure, no medical supplies, no industry worth speaking of, no public transport, devastated ports and airports and, most of all, no manpower!). In about 30 years it went from the severest infrastructural and industrial deficit imaginable to become the biggest economy in Europe. Not bad. Yes, the Marshall Plan was a big element of this redevelopment – this is undeniable. It provided the finances to get Germany back on its feet. Following that, however, was it US companies that strengthened Germany’s economy in the 70s and 80s? – no, it was indigenous German industry (BMW, VW, Mercedes, Krupps, Phillips, Siemens etc) that brought it back on its feet and largely kept it there. At the same time, Germany continued to fund us here in Ireland via the EU!!!

Lets consider Ireland. In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, it had no major war to contend with, its limited infrastructure (mostly from colonial times!) remained limited, it had no drastic shortage of manpower. It had, however, a reasonable level of political and social stability. In addition, it started to benefit from an injection of funds that probably on a per head of population basis was similar to that of the Marshall Plan in Germany – it enjoyed the billions injected into it each year from the EU. Unlike Germany, however, Ireland has not enjoyed a serious development of sustainable indigenous industry as a result, rather it has continued to depend on external investment, primarily from the US. Since the 1990s, we have enjoyed 15 years of prosperity, but it remains dependent on that external investment and is, therefore, precarious. Neither have we enjoyed a level of infrastructural development that might rightly have been expected during this period of time.

Ireland is truly Europe’s Hamlet – incapable of serious action.

I think were somewhere in the middle. Yes after 1922 we didn’t do a whole pile and struggled for many decades but we had an awful lot of things to sort out.

We weren’t getting the full island which a major psychological barrier to get over.

We were a post colonial nation who had to start from scratch. It takes a long time for a nation to build up expertise itself in all areas that it’s involved in.

There were other factors; Britain and Ireland were not at ease with the separation and the trade war didn’t help things. Neither did the civil war for that matter.

Throw in more instability during the Second World War and missing out on the Marshall plan afterwards and then political and social upheaval in the north during the 60’s which destabilized the island.

On top of all that you had huge emigration where the best of your population got up and left. Considering all that you have a nation which did alright.

We did miss manage the economy for decades and it took us a long time to get it right (and plan a year ahead like the Americans were doing for years and years).

I don’t know how any of this is particularly relevant to relocating the Dublin Port. The only points which I have are

The individual has too many rights in Irish law and the collective good of the nation doesn’t supercede the individual enough.

Brian Boru kicked out all the Vikings back in the 11th century and we haven’t been able to plan anything since. However I think we have learnt a great deal in the last decade and we can achieve world class infrastructure if we put our minds to it and adopt best international practice and a can do approach.

Personally I would like to see the Critical Infrastructure Bill being put through the D

Of course the conflicts in Ireland werent of the same scale as that in Germany but you have to factor in population size. The vast majority of people in northern ireland knew somone who died in the conflict. The entire island was affected and it did hold the entire island back. You cant not recognise the problems that plagued this island for decades.

I dont want to get bogged down in Irish history. At the end of the day its all behind us and we cant change any of it. What we can change is the future and adopt a more can do approach like other nations. The port can be relocated without too much hullabaloo if there is political will.

Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

I remain unconvinced whether the port will actually be relocated in a reasonable timescale, I also doubt wether the government has the balls to press ahead with the Tuskar tunnel, Shannon deep port and HSR in this country. Even some of the pressure groups dont seem to have the stomach to campagin for these 4 major projects.

You only have to look to China to see what can be achieved in such a short period of time. They went from bog to high rise in just a matter of a few decades. Were just mucking around with semi-d’s. The PD’s came about the shake the political establishment. I dont think they have been radical enough but if they were to press ahead with the relocation of Dublin Port then I would gladly vote for them.

@Maskhadov wrote:

Of course the conflicts in Ireland werent of the same scale as that in Germany but you have to factor in population size. The vast majority of people in northern ireland knew somone who died in the conflict. The entire island was affected and it did hold the entire island back.

In what way was the infrastructural development of the Republic of Ireland affected by the conflict in Northern Ireland? Economically? If so, why did Northern Ireland, which – one would presume – was most affected economically by the conflict there develop such a fine motorway and road network during the Troubles while we in the Republic did not? Seems the conflict had more of an economic effect south of the border than north of it!

I remember hearing a story about some politician who was showing a group of foreign visitors around Dublin in the 1980s and when asked why there were so many dilapidated buildings, responded by saying that it was due to bomb damage. Maybe its urban myth – I don’t know. Someone might be able to verify the story or discredit it. Either way, it is just another example of a rather lame excuse for developmental inadequacies in the Republic.

Whatever about the undoubted human suffering the troubles caused, NI’s economy did not collapse between the 1960s and the 1980s. It may not have blossomed, but neither did it suffer total collapse. As one of the many border county people that regularly ventured to Enniskillen and Newry to do our shopping during those decades, I can vouch for that. It was never a war zone and the conflict’s mortality rate was even quite low (3000 over 30 years is not high as civil conflicts go – ask a Palestinian or a Bosnian). To suggest that the Republic’s economy was somehow severely retarded by the Troubles is, therefore, a fairly exaggerated claim. CJ Haughey did more damage to the Irish economy than any group of terrorists could ever do (back to the moron line).

Again, this is the post-colonial line of thinking – project our inadequacies unto other issues. Whatever we do, we should never take responsibility for the way we are when we can blame it on someone else. With that, I return to an earlier comment of mine on our rather lack lustre talents in the self-governance department.

infastructure is not the real issue.

The real issue Is to do with the national charachter and national pyhce. We changed a great deal in the early 1990’s and trying to compare Pre 1990’s with Post 1990’s is not valid.

Pre 1990’s we had a large number of issues to sort out. We werent helped by anyone really and had one hand tied behind our back with emmigration and the north.

You have a selective memory of history. The english built that motorway in the north. Not anyone from northern ireland. So they didnt make any progress themselves. They never progressed an inch.

The north got on so well because the anglo saxon government in england decided to pump the north with millions and millions to try and show up the new state in the south. they ridculed anything related to Ireland. Be it the name “Eire” (which we cant use anymore because of all the baggage associcated with it) or the punt which the english regularly tooth the mick out of.

You need a reality check PDLL, some parts of your posts are a nonsense.

Tuskar tunnel, Shannon deep port and HSR

At least they made some attempt to stetch cost v. benefits of moving Dublin port and present some numbers for debate.

The Tuskar tunnel is an undergraduate civil engineer’s fantasy which simply could never be justified. Comparisons with the Channel Tunnel are not just naive – they make no sense at all. The latter connects two of the most populous countries in Europe and links, in a direct way, two metropolitan areas each populated by about 14 million people – and thats ignoring the other mainland destinations like Brussels. It makes about as much sense as the campaign by the 46 inhabitants of Inis Biggle for a cable car connection to Achill Island.

Neither does building TGV make any economic sense – we simply do not have the population concentrations in this country to make such a service viable. Maybe in 40 years time when the population of Dublin within the M50 is 4 million and that of Cork is 2, it might make economic sense to consider such a line. Given the real problems this country has regarding infrastructure in general, these fantasy proposals obfuscate the real issues in my opinion.

A most singular response.

@Maskhadov wrote:

infastructure is not the real issue.

This was (and is, despite some contextualising debate) about the PD’s proposal on Dublin port. I provided some thoughts on the attitude to infrastructural development in the Republic.

@Maskhadov wrote:

We changed a great deal in the early 1990’s and trying to compare Pre 1990’s with Post 1990’s is not valid.

Given that we changed a great deal between the early 90s and the pre 1990s, comparisons between both periods are perhaps even more valid and justified. If we have no comparison with the Pre1990s, then we cannot even talk about the Celtic Tiger which is itself derived from the comparative notion of Ireland before and after 1990-4.

@Maskhadov wrote:

Pre 1990’s we had a large number of issues to sort out. We werent helped by anyone really and had one hand tied behind our back with emmigration and the north .

The billions upon billions we received from the EU (and still do!!!) does not qualify as help? As regards Northern Ireland, I ams till waiting to here how it affected the Republic’s economy. Ya, it may have detered some investment in the border counties, it may have cost the army, the guards, and the prison service some extra money, but we rae not talking about major amounts of the nation’s resources. You could cross the border at Blacklion during the height of the troubles and there would have been about 5 Irish soldiers and three gardai there at any one time. There was never a major secuirty operation of any prolonged duration that brought the Republic’s economy to the brink of collapse or anywhere near it.

@Maskhadov wrote:

The english built that motorway in the north. Not anyone from northern ireland. So they didnt make any progress themselves. They never progressed an inch..

I do not know how to respond to this. The British Government (not ‘the English’) probably resourced the building of NI’s motorwayS through British tax payers money (that would include taxes paid by workers in NI). What building company physically built the motorways, I do not know. I am sure though that a load of English workers did not pile into a ship to come to build it – local labourers probably contributed a great deal. I could be corrected on that if someone knows a great deal about the building of NI’s motorways.

@Maskhadov wrote:

The north got on so well because the anglo saxon government in england decided to pump the north with millions and millions to try and show up the new state in the south.

!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anglo-saxon government in england. Time to do a bit of research on the cultural, ethnic and political history of our closest neighbour.

@Maskhadov wrote:

the english regularly tooth the mick out of.

!

@Maskhadov wrote:

You need a reality check PDLL, some parts of your posts are a nonsense.

! Words fail me. I think you are toothing the micky out of me now.

This was (and is, despite some contextualising debate) about the PD’s proposal on Dublin port. I provided some thoughts on the attitude to infrastructural development in the Republic.

My point was the problem was related to the Irish pysche. We were a post conial nation and it took us a while to get going.

The billions upon billions we received from the EU (and still do!!!) does not qualify as help? As regards Northern Ireland, I ams till waiting to here how it affected the Republic’s economy. Ya, it may have detered some investment in the border counties, it may have cost the army, the guards, and the prison service some extra money, but we rae not talking about major amounts of the nation’s resources. You could cross the border at Blacklion during the height of the troubles and there would have been about 5 Irish soldiers and three gardai there at any one time. There was never a major secuirty operation of any prolonged duration that brought the Republic’s economy to the brink of collapse or anywhere near it.

The money we recieved from the EU will all be paid back, starting in the next few years. We recieved approximately €40bn for infastructure projects (which we spent far better and more efficeiently than anyone else) while at the same time we handed out €40bn in fisheries to Spain and the rest of them. We could have simply declared the waters as Irish and refused access.

The troubles in the north were effectively our cold war in the south. If the country started to move it would have been very destablising. A lot of people wanted a 32 county republic before progress began. Looking back at history in hindsight is a completely different angle than being there and your ignorance is astounding.

In short, ireland wasnt a nice place to live back then, we had massive emmigration, we had a society based on the catholic church which was rotten to the core and corrupt. We had high unemployment and little natural resources. There was no such thing as foreign direct investment. Up until recently the idea of a small country existing was highly questionable. Only large countries could exist. A point you dont even mention.

We were a country who faced 500 years of war, famine and other problem while the continental countries had 500 years of peace and stability (largely) and the nation state. To compare Ireland with a 500 year old nation state is a pathetic sham and your arguement is false.

I do not know how to respond to this. The British Government (not ‘the English’) probably resourced the building of NI’s motorwayS through British tax payers money (that would include taxes paid by workers in NI). What building company physically built the motorways, I do not know. I am sure though that a load of English workers did not pile into a ship to come to build it – local labourers probably contributed a great deal. I could be corrected on that if someone knows a great deal about the building of NI’s motorways.

English / British. Dont get pedantic. The fact of the matter is that the north could NOT sustain itself and all that money came from British tax payers in England and the north sea oil. The north did nothing for itself. Its still €8bn short each year today. A failed state. Actually building the motorways is nothing. All the expertise came from England and there is no skill in manual labour. That point is absolutely irrelevant

!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anglo-saxon government in england. Time to do a bit of research on the cultural, ethnic and political history of our closest neighbour.

Go and do some research of your own and you will find out that although England is a mutli ethnic country. Those in power do not reflect this !!

! Words fail me. I think you are toothing the micky out of me now.

No Im not. You’ve lost the plot on your rant.

It is tempting to respond (perhaps I will later when I am not in the office), however I genuinely fear that it would be a waste of all of those tiny little skin cells on the tips of my fingers. Maskhadov, my man, I take my hat off to you. I bow to your unquestionable knowledge of our island’s chequered history, the development of the nation state in Europe and your sensitivity to the politics of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Perhaps what I respect most of all, however, is the deft subtely of your argument, your crafting of words and your unquestionable knowledge of European history:

@Maskhadov wrote:

Up until recently the idea of a small country existing was highly questionable. Only large countries could exist. A point you dont even mention… We were a country who faced 500 years of war, famine and other problem while the continental countries had 500 years of peace and stability (largely) and the nation state. To compare Ireland with a 500 year old nation state is a pathetic sham and your arguement is false.

Lest you think I am not toothing the mick, I am.

Shame on all of you. Quit your nonsense.

THis thread is about relocating the Port. I wont get bogged down and answer another question on Irish history.

@Maskhadov wrote:

You only have to look to China to see what can be achieved in such a short period of time. They went from bog to high rise in just a matter of a few decades.

Yes there’s nothing like a totalitarian dictatorship to get things done!

The effect of the troubles in Nothern Ireland had a massive effect on the South, economically speaking. Ireland was associated with terrorism as this was the only thing that ever made the foreign news and you’re not going to get much foreign direct investment when you’re associated with terror – thus stagnation.

@dodger wrote:

Within ten years we’ll have motorway / dual carriageway from Dublin to Cork and Galway. Perhaps this isn’t quick enough for you and perhaps we’re not the industrial powerhouse of Europe that Germany was but one thing we are not and that is pathetic. We are a country will full employment and working flat our in terms of infrastructure.

Have you ever heard of the National Development Plan, 2000-2006? That was supposed to see the roads you mention already completed. I admire your optimism, however Ireland is pathetic in many ways, most notably the ability to complete major infrastructure projects. The green white and orange tinted sunglasses can’t mask it.

@dodger wrote:

It was McSharry’s cutbacks that kickstaarted the economy not a cash splurge.

Ah come on, the economy was kickstarted because of a number of things. These include massively increased investment in Telecom Eireann to convert the trunk channels to all digital, investment in the RTC system (the so called binary education system-Universities and Technical Colleges working together to deliver graduates) and the lowering of corporate tax rates, not forgetting the finance act, 1987 (the legal basis for the IFSC was in that).

Lots of countries have cut spending-don’t see a wirtschafstwunder in many of them though!

@murphaph wrote:

Have you ever heard of the National Development Plan, 2000-2006? That was supposed to see the roads you mention already completed. I admire your optimism, however Ireland is pathetic in many ways, most notably the ability to complete major infrastructure projects. The green white and orange tinted sunglasses can’t mask it.

I will have to remember how pathetic Ireland is the next time i am driving to Belfast along the M1… I much preferred gettings stuck on the quays in Drogeda.. then in Dundalk and passing through every hole in the hedge village along the way…

If one thing holds this country back its negative attiudes of begrudgers. If we told someone 15 years ago Ireland would be have an economy growing at 6+ % a year , virtually full employment, a booming population and a goverment with more revenue than it knows what to do with they would not have said we we optimistic they would have said we where mad….. optimistim has been proven to be well placed

We had NO investment in infrastructure for decades.. the Dart did not have a single carriage added to the fleet for 20 years then it doubled within a year. I take the point that we may not be great at implemeting infrastructure projects… Why? because having money to spend on them is something relatively new to us and it is a learning progress… Maybe we are learning the lessons too slowly but we are still learning them in any case!

@aj wrote:

If one thing holds this country back its negative attiudes of begrudgers. If we told someone 15 years ago Ireland would be have an economy growing at 6+ % a year , virtually full employment, a booming population and a goverment with more revenue than it knows what to do with

That is exactly the point;

We the taxpayer have worked not only hard but equally smart for our employers; our employers have taken big risks to develop excellent EMEA and US & Asian markets.

The government have taken huge amounts of tax as illustrated so clearly by Rip Off Ireland and both worker and employer are stuck in traffic created by indecision and a lack of investment both transit and shipping facilities. We are not pathetic we are heroic to survive the dithering and incompetence visited upon us in infrastructural under-provision given the economic circumstances of the past seven years.

The development process surrounding our isolated Luas lines is metaphor for all that is wrong in this country; sadly nothing has been learned as the Cherrywood public inquiry will show.

@aj wrote:

I will have to remember how pathetic Ireland is the next time i am driving to Belfast along the M1

Personally I don’t see Ireland and its ‘youthful’ infrastructure as pathetic. Slightly embarrassing at times (it is good sometimes to listen or eavesdrop on what tourists really say about the country rather than we like to think they say)]http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1228/motorway.html[/url]

Time for more infrastructural funds – perhaps firearms for the Gardai would be a start.

@PDLL wrote:

Personally I don’t see Ireland and its ‘youthful’ infrastructure as pathetic. Slightly embarrassing at times (it is good sometimes to listen or eavesdrop on what tourists really say about the country rather than we like to think they say)]http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1228/motorway.html[/url]

Time for more infrastructural funds – perhaps firearms for the Gardai would be a start.

agreed on both counts

Its just another example of how reluctant the native civil engineering elite are to actually LEARN !
The issue of “Youthful Hi-Jinks” and our refusal to appreciate it came to the fore many years ago after the opening of phase two of the M50 when ayong boy was critically injured by a lump of debris thrown from one of the overbridges in the Tallaght region.
The boy later died in an unrelated but equally sad tragic manner which might not have occurred had he not been the victim of the original attack.
A quick flurry of Protective (and effective) Grilleing then took place as the proffessionals scrambled to cover their well padded exposed backsides.
Now,many years on we stagger blindly along the same road.
One can almost hears the various enginerers sighing with relief as they say….”Ah sure she was`nt killed anyway”…as they pack for the next conference in Brussels,Baghdad,or Benidorm…..
The simple message from all of these “Incidents” is that at this particular time in our social development we are incabable of dealing with the challenges presented by an exposed bridge across a busy arterial road.
Its pretty much the same challenge presented by a new Glass Bus Shelter which will recieve incredible amounts of energy directed into it until it lies totally smashed and awaiting a new equally glass replacement.
It`s not in our psyche to recognize or confront problems such as this nor to take any definitive action against the perpretrators in case it`s seen to paint us in a harsh light.
In the meantime Polititians get to waffle and daub ad nauseum about our place amongst the nations of The World…..!

Firstly the idea of not doing things correct in the past is no reason for not doing anything in the future. Yes, in this country the M50 was decades over schedule, the port tunnel was not correctly planned, the red cow roundabout is a joke, but ireland can learn from its mistakes just like anyone can and move to tommorow.

Now to address the PD’s proposal,
It is very very ambtious, but I don’t have a problem with that, many projects in history of the world have been very ambitious, to give an example of something in my head, the london underground was decribed as radical back then as us travelling in flying cars today. Ambitious and radical ideas can be very good, that is never a negative point as some of you mention. If it’s not feasible that is another thing, It would be uneconomical for our govt. to splash out on a Mag-lev billion euro train Dublin-Cork in less than an hour when the population does not support it. This proposal is possibly unfeasible in its present state.

In Saudi Arabia, one very good move by cities was that truck traffic was banned in city limits during hours of daylight, this forced the truck traffic to travel during night, and kept traffic flow moving during the day, It was an extremely sucessful. The proposal to move the port would have the benefit.

The port tunnel would not be redunant or dead weight, as if ‘manhattan’ appeared on the docklands, the traffic flow would need a high level of infrastucture.

The current Transport 21 plan faces so many problems by going through the city centre, if dublin revolved more around the docklands, we could for the first time plan ahead and make an underground, without bearing a fraction of the 34bn needed for transport 21

The georgian dublin would remain, and be part of history in 100 years time, and not be dotted with high-rise blocks needed for dublin’s expansion. (the listed buildings would remain, but beside them new places would be developed and on large-scale) The city is growing and it has to grow somewhere, it will probably grow vertically in the city centre, ruining somewhat of what is there. This could be saved if the docklands land became available.

As previously mentioned, dublin port is near full capacity, and will be at full capacity by 2008, we are a growing city and a growing economy.

Most importantly, why is the port in the city centre? Purely and simply for reasons that are historically based. It would save time for truck drivers, essentially delivery costs to port should drop dramatically and access is much easier, city traffic would flow better. Nowadays, transport has improved, and there is no reason to have such valuable land taken up by a land use that is transferable, I wonder how the new port would change north dublin, but its impact on dublin city centre would be extremely positive.

J

The more I think about it the more I think it’s a good idea. We could build up at the port if we wanted to and leave our low rise historical Dublin spots alone. Will it really happen though? I can see lots of people objecting to it, both in the CC and Balbriggan.

It should happen and the entire area should be high dentisty high quality apartments (for the accomadation).

It just takes a government decision and they can start to phase it out from 2008 over a number of years. A plan could be drawn up as to how to relocate the port between now and 2008.

Whatever happened to that Critical infastructure bill ? The number of objections would surely drop with it. The government is sitting on its ar$e and its time they thought big and acted quickly.

As I mentioned before, they already had an opportunity to build high-density away from historical Dublin in the docklands. What we have now is an new Sandyford.

@Morlan wrote:

As I mentioned before, they already had an opportunity to build high-density away from historical Dublin in the docklands. What we have now is an new Sandyford.

That’s very true. I just hope it doesn’t happen again. I guess time will tell.

looks great sounds great
but our leaders do not have the liathroidi (balls!!) to go start anythin like this

Did anyone see the program on RTE about the Docks ? it wa called ” the bay” . It was really hyping the docks but I thought it was over rated. Someone reckoned the port should never be moved even though they admitted that having a port at the city is completely out of step with what the rest of the developed world is doing.

I think there may be another “The Bay” program on next week. lets hope they see sense then and put forward the case for moving the port.

Just got this from Tom Morrissey today:

Please find attached a direct link to the New Heart for Dublin Conference
being held on 20th October at Dublin Castle. Please feel free to forward to
your circulation list.

http://www.newheartfordublin.ie

Regards.

Senator Tom Morrissey.

Speakers are to include: Tanaiste Michael McDowell, Senator Tom Morrissey, Senator David Norris, Frank McDonald, Sean ‘Dublin Bay’ Loftus, Jurgen Bruns-Berentelg, Tony Reddy, etc – its worth having a look at their site, but I’ll post some of their blurb below anyhow. Suspect I’ll see some of you there.

Hutton.

From website (http://www.newheartfordublin.ie):

A one day conference comprising Irish and international experts who will discuss a new vision for Dublin Bay, including its port.

THEN

On Thursday the 15th December 2005, Senator Tom Morrissey and Tanaiste Micheal McDowell TD launched a discussion document entitled “A New Heart for Dublin’ in the Clarion Hotel on Dublin’s north quays.

The document was intended to generate discussion about redeveloping Dublin Port as a centre for cruise liner traffic, as part of a major urban regeneration project.

“This has the potential to create a spectacular Manhattan-style approach to Dublin by sea. The plan draws on international experience in cities like Helsinki and Barcelona where run-down port areas have been transformed beyond recognition. It would breath life into Dublin Bay, which is currently an underused asset,” Senator Morrissey said at the time.

“Industrial port activity should be moved gradually from the already over-stretched Dublin Port to Bremore, north of Balbriggan. This would free-up 600-plus acres of Ireland’s most valuable real estate for phased redevelopment, which could include housing, office accommodation, shops, waterfront promenades and green spaces.”

The proposals also aims to deliver a truck-free city.

“When you consider that Irish imports and exports have grown five-fold since 1990, then it is really no surprise that Dublin Port currently has a capacity problem. The worrying reality of the situation is that the Port is likely to run out of capacity by 2008. The consequences for our economy will be profound as exporters and importers face increasing delays and costs in getting goods to market.

“This proposal by the Progressive Democrats is intended to spark debate on how best to develop Dublin Bay – a unique asset in the heart of our capital city. We welcome submissions and ideas from members of the public and interested groups on how the bay can be best used for the people of Dublin,” Senator Morrissey concluded.

NOW
The proposal has been well received in all areas of society that further public discussion was obviously needed. The over-riding question asked by many people was “Now do we make it happen?” hence the sub-title of this important conference. Respected speakers from all over Europe have been brought together to discuss how we can move forward with this radical concept.

How have other cities dealt with these issues? How can it be funeded? How best to ensure the mistakes of the past are not repeated again? These questions and more will be addressed by the speakers in our Conference Schedule.

To book a seat at this important conference please click here.

“At at price in excess of €30 million per acre, Dublin Ports land bank of 660 acres could release between €15 billion and €20 billion on a phased basis to fund much needed infrastructure in the vicinity of the new port at Bremore”

Is it just me or is this just a bit of a pipe dream? It seems like something that might happen in 2100. Certainly not in our life time. We’re only just managing to add a third lane to a section of the M50.

Don’t get me wrong it sounds amazing but entirely unrealistic.

^^ Exactly what I was thinking.

I think he should get the people of the waskai company to do his visuals, they are awful and not helping the project. Those skyscrapers are totally overblown even comapred to the real life examples of helsinki and the new highriselowirse docklands today http://www.newheartfordublin.ie/downloads/liffey_river_boat.jpg

i agree, the graphics are absolutely appauling but we can defintley start work on relocating the port in the next few years.

I applied to go to this conference thinking that it would be interesting and at the very least offer some new perspectives on how the city should develop. I just got the invoice for a delegate place this morning: €477. Personally I can’t see how this is justified, is it to pay for the salubrious venue, the speakers (a number of whom are paid public representatives!), or is it simply a fundraiser for the PDs. Either way Im certainly priced out. “Be warned” anyone else who thinks they’d like to attend.

It appears that the PD’s are not alone in promoting Bremore. The Dublin Regional Authority in their submission on the National Development Plan in April 2006 they list moving the port as a major objective link here

To achieve the Region’s aim to build a public transport system that is integrated, affordable,
accessible and one which meets the capacity of a growing city, a number of important investment
decisions will need to be taken in the short term.
In addition, the DRA believes that before the end of 2007 a number of important studies will need
to be completed to address the longer term public transport needs of the Region.
On-going planned investments such as Park and Ride facilities will continue during the period of
the NDP and these too have to be included.
One over-arching consideration is that the city centre in particular will experience significant
disruption once construction of the Metro, LUAS and rail interconnector projects get underway.
To address these issues, the DRA recommends that the NDP include the following measures in
the proposed Operational Programme for Economic and Social Infrastructure:
1. Transport Supporting Infrastructure
2. Strategic Studies
3. Current Measures
4. Traffic disruption
5. Docklands Flagship Project
4.5.1. Transport Supporting Infrastructure
It is estimated that significant capital investment which falls within the remit of the Local
Authorities will need to be allocated to the provision of supporting infrastructure which is essential if the following projects are to proceed within the time scale envisaged in Transport 21:
• Metro North
• LUAS lines
• DART and rail improvements
• Dublin Airport
• Dublin Port/Bremore
Specifically, the four Local Authorities will need to procure and construct local roads, park and
ride facilities, access to public transport facilities, bridges and works to divert traffic away from
major construction sites.

Unfortunately a search of the published plan yields this

FF promises to study move of Dublin Port
06 May 2007 By Richard Curran

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=23447-qqqx=1.asp

Fianna Fail has moved one step closer towards backing the idea of moving Dublin Port to a new location.

The party’s manifesto – published last week – said if re-elected, it would examine the role of the port, taking into account its location and other factors.

The idea of moving Dublin Port to somewhere outside the city, such as north Co Dublin, was first mooted by the Progressive Democrats.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has not knocked the idea when asked about it in recent months, but the party has never committed to such a radical move.

However, the manifesto says Fianna Fail will ‘‘undertake a comprehensive study of the role of Dublin Port taking account of location, overall ports policy, transport policy, urban development and the National Spatial Strategy’’.

The reference to a study comes at a time when Irish Continental Group, owner of Irish Ferries, is the subject of a takeover battle on the Irish Stock Exchange.

Investment group,On€51, which, together with Dublin Port, owns Greenore Port in Louth, has teamed up with the Cork-based shipping firm the Doyle Group to make an offer for ICG. This is in response to a takeover offer led by ICG’s chief executive Eamonn Rothwell.

ICG has a lease on 30 acres of land at Dublin Port, while the Doyle Group also owns around 30 acres beside it.

Dublin Port tried to join the On€51/Doyle consortium in recent weeks but did not get a positive response from the Department of Transport.

Industry sources say the ICG property at the port is of little value unless Dublin Port were to move to a new location.

The PDs plan was to develop the port area into a Canary Wharf-style location with offices and luxury apartments.

A study ? They should really be starting work on that ASAP. Glad to see another party has come around to the idea though.

PDs really wag the FF dog, don’t they?

All things to all men

Couldn’t be an election year could it?

How big is the port in acres/hectares ? I think the land there is worth around €20 – €30bn but the actual area available isnt that big.

something in the region of 600 acres, at something like 50mill per acre… which does put the land value at ~30 bill

I think thats it….I read it a while back :/

The Irish Times 21/10/2006

Taoiseach supports high-rise waterfront for Dublin

”…According to Senator Morrissey, land prices of €30 million per acre could be achieved for most of the port holding which runs to 660 acres. The sale of land could release between €15 billion and €20 billion to fund infrastructure in the vicinity of the new port at Bremore….”

Pretty sure i read 50mill somewhere elese tho

who owns the port ? the government ?? That cash could help fund the eastern bypass tunnell, any dykes that are needed and any other infastructure that you can think of.

@Maskhadov wrote:

who owns the port ? the government ?? That cash could help fund the eastern bypass tunnell, any dykes that are needed and any other infastructure that you can think of.

The above displays a great niaivity of the way that local politics dominate in Dublin as well as the way urban land markets function.

If you released 500 acres of land in less than 10 years the value would fall from €50m per acre to less than €20m or less

What about global warming and rising sea levels? (I think someone may already have posed this question).
Aren’t these low lying areas precisely the sort of places that should be avoided?

€210m Balbriggan development given the go-ahead
05/09/2007 – 17:29:12

The Drogheda Port company has today been given the go-ahead to develop Bremore Harbour in Balbriggan, at a cost of around €210 million.

Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey told today’s meeting of the Cabinet that he intends to allow the company enter into a joint venture arrangement to develop the facility.

It’s intended the Balbriggan port will deal with vessels of larger capacity than nearby Drogheda Port

.
http://WWW.BREAKINGNEWS.IE
How will this affect dublin port?
Will it increase the chances of re-location

Oh this will defo spell the eventual end for Dublin Port for commercial travel but I can see passenger ferries still operating. If the Dublin Port Company wishes to continue in the business then they better wise up and get a slice of Bremore Port together with Drogheda Port. If not they will make a nice tidy sum from selling the land in Dublin Port.

Of course they could keep the land and change their business solely to property. If they get investors on board they could make a nice few bob from building and then leasing all or most of buildings that would be built in Dublin Port. :confused:

Dublin City Council has just published on their website a report called “Report on Dublin Bay – An Integrated Economic, Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development”. Some interesting basic designs of a possible future Dublin Port which I have to say are lights years better than the shite the PD’s brought out. 🙂

Thanks for the link

Had a quick skim over it

WOW!!!! Thoroughly under-whelming, almost apologetic,
DCC have gone above and beyond to NOT offend anyone….except people who may want a visually stimulating, exciting city quarter

Looks like another DDDA docklands snoozefest

Although some interesting info about the bay area,
i couldnt believe the amount of landfill that makes up the port area

From today’s IT

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT: The 650 acres of prime development land that makes up Dublin Port is significantly undervalued in its current use and the Government can no longer ignore its potential.

DUBLIN PORT IS undoubtedly one of Ireland’s most valuable pieces of real estate, involving approximately 263 hectares (650 acres) of prime development land that is significantly undervalued in its current use. The potential of the port cannot be overstated and can no longer be ignored.

It is anticipated that Dublin Port will have reached operational capacity by 2008. This leaves the Government with mainly two possible options: reclamation of some 21 hectares (52 acres) amounting to 0.04 per cent of Dublin Bay; or relocate the port.

Reclaiming the land may give rise to a number of damaging issues, such as increasing the risk of flooding in city centre areas and ecological threats. Furthermore, this option can only be seen as a short term solution to a long term problem.

Should the Government choose to relocate the port, they would be freeing up one of its high net value assets. Relocating the port and releasing up to 650 acres of city centre lands may enable rezoning to mixed uses. Under the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 the majority of the port lands are zoned “Objective Z7”, providing for mainly industrial use.

On appraising the potential relocation of the port, you would have to take into account the significant potential that Bremore Port has to offer. Located just north of Balbriggan, Bremore is a deep water port with room for expansion as it has an existing land bank of up to 1,000 acres.

Castle Market Holdings, a subsidiary of Treasury Holdings, was successfully selected by Drogheda Port as partners for a joint venture that will see Bremore transformed into a modern state-of-the-art deepwater facility. Drogheda Port will control a 51 per cent stake in the development while Castle Market Holdings will hold the remaining 49 per cent.

Bremore appears to tick all the boxes as a suitable relocation for facilities at Dublin Port with the process of preparing a port masterplan for Bremore already underway with Bremore expected to be fully operational by 2012.

In September 2007, Dublin City Council carried out a study – Dublin Bay – An Integrated Economic Cultural and Social Vision for Sustainable Development – which is seen as the initial step in preparing a strategic framework plan for the Dublin Bay area, including Dublin Port.

The study identifies seven options for Dublin Port which can be narrowed down to four and sorted into three realistic scenarios.

The first scenario is to re-develop about 51 hectares (126 acres) of the port lands, to accommodate at least 12,000 residents.

The second is to re-develop about 50 per cent of port lands, to accommodate about 32,000 residents.

The final option is to re-develop and relocate the entire port to create accommodation for about 55,000 people.

Opting to relocate the port would undoubtedly be met with stiff opposition as about 10,000 people work in and around the port, and relocating the port would require significant capital expenditure on the upgrade of infrastructure in the new location. Further difficulties may also be faced in securing planning permission in the chosen location.

Having said that, relocating port facilities would allow for strategic and proactive planning, to enable the successful development of modern purpose-built facilities to cater for future needs.

Also, the direct effects that accompany construction work is somewhat lower when choosing to relocate rather than upgrade existing facilities.

Upgrading existing facilities would have considerable impact on the day-to-day lives of locals and workers in the area, with a problem of increased traffic.

Under the National Development Plan 2007-2013, around €481 million of investment in transport is to be allocated for ports facilities.

In Budget 2008, the Minister for Finance Brian Cowen announced significant expenditure in the upgrade of transport facilities.

A budget of €3,837 million was allocated with a number of key improvements which are to be delivered in 2008 and over subsequent years. However, investment in ports did not figure on the list which could lead to the conclusion that Dublin Port is not high on the Government’s list of transport priorities.

The relocation of a significant port facility is not unheard of. In Finland they have opted to relocate the north and west harbours of the Port of Helsinki to Vuasaari Harbour.

Vuasaari is north-east of Helsinki’s port. Initial construction works began in 2003 with the new port due to start operating at the end of 2008.

In order to facilitate the successful and efficient operation of the new harbour there has been significant capital expenditure to improve the infrastructure in the area surrounding Vuasaari, include the construction of a new motorway and the upgrade of rail services.

Closer to home, there are plans to relocate trading activities from Cork’s City Quays to alternative facilities in the Ringaskiddy area of Cork Harbour.

The relocation of the facilities will allow for the significant re-development of Cork’s docklands.

Through a joint venture between the Cork Port Company and Howard Holdings, an application was lodged to Cork City Council for a €1 billion development of Cork’s docklands to include two hotels, office accommodation and residential units and a landmark building.

A new metro system is also planned to service the area and Cork City Council is seeking tax incentives from the Government for designated areas within the docklands.

Preparations for the development of Ringaskiddy appear to be taking shape as in November 2007 the Port of Cork Company lodged a planning application for the development of a new container terminal at Oyster Bank in Ringaskiddy.

In light of the recent media coverage surrounding the purchase of shares in ICG, the Dublin Port Authority has come strongly to the fore playing down the development potential and value of the 33-acre ICG site. The ICG site and port lands have undoubtedly got development potential and, while the Dublin Port Authority may choose to disregard this potential, the Government can no longer overlook the high value alternative use that Dublin Port can offer.

Surely it’s a contradiction to underutilise such a strategically placed asset when strong emphasis is placed on energy efficiency and sustainability.

Mairead Furey works in the development land division at DTZ Sherry FitzGerald

© 2008 The Irish Times

some crackin stuff on helsinki here

http://www.vuosaarensatama.fi/virtuaali/index.html

do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen? If this proposal goes ahead, what would’ve been the point of the expensive port tunnel? would it take on a new role? maybe become another clogged up artirial route into the city for private cars? Beside such a developement opportunity presented itself to DCC before. The redevolpement of Georges and Spencer docks were waisted. Now we have low rise low density areas that do little to combat urban spawl. Grand canal dock has proved a success however in that it is satisfactory in it’s density. I can’t imagine that developing the rest of the docks would be a worthwhile excersise. The DDDA would probably start building semi-d’s just to irritate the public and then proceed to claim more land from the sea and use it for “an exciting new high density developement”. We’ve heard this song before. Time to change the record!

@cgcsb wrote:

do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen?

I’ve heard this argument so many times and I really don’t understand it. Its absolutely ridiculous to keep our heads in the sand and not examine case studies in cities comparable to Dublin. i.e Barcelona, Copenhagen, Lyon and many others in Europe.

Dublin is in fact very similar to many cities in Europe in terms of climate, population, infrastructure, government etc.

If we examine these cities and take lessons learnt in their development surely it can only be a good thing, helping us to avoid mistakes which can only be seen with the benefit of hindsight.

We can also begin to see differences in the cities which may highlight deficiencies or positives in the way our planning and development of the city is proceeding.

Lets not close ourselves off to the experience and vision of other cities.

@cgcsb wrote:

do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen?

In what way is examining other European capitals and their redevelopment incompatible with Dublin City? Where do we learn from? Here? the great redevelopment of our own coastal areas?

If this proposal goes ahead, what would’ve been the point of the expensive port tunnel? would it take on a new role? maybe become another clogged up artirial route into the city for private cars?

Oh I dunno use your imagination. The best damn bus priority in Ireland? Perhaps a LUAS powered from beneath, cycle tracks – who knows? The whole East Wall area could be radically reimagined if the Port fecked off. Although you are correct to bring it up. Phase 1 of the Eastern bypass springs to mind

Beside such a developement opportunity presented itself to DCC before. The redevolpement of Georges and Spencer docks were waisted. Now we have low rise low density areas that do little to combat urban spawl.

I’m fairly certain that the planners and architects who will be guiding the redevelopment of the Port will be different people to those that have been senior officials overseeing this for the past 2 decades. Councils change, and this proposal is decades away possibly

Grand canal dock has proved a success however in that it is satisfactory in it’s density. I can’t imagine that developing the rest of the docks would be a worthwhile excersise. The DDDA would probably start building semi-d’s just to irritate the public and then proceed to claim more land from the sea and use it for “an exciting new high density developement”. We’ve heard this song before.

Yeh maybe we should develop the rest of Leinster instead. That’s way better and more worthwhile.

Time to change the record!

Yes. Yes it is. Let’s take the “jaysus we can’t be doin that” record off and put on the “let’s build modern Ireland’s first truly great urban place”. I like the second one. If you let the last song play there’s a hidden track which tells you how we’ll do it…

Anyway before any of this proceeds the complex legalities of ownership of the port must be addressed. Apparently oil companies and Dublin Port and a few private companies all own bits and pieces or have 999 year leases n stuff. It will be at least 50 years before the entire process of decommissioning, decontamination, movement, and redevelopment is finished. Better start soon so…

@cgcsb wrote:

what would’ve been the point of the expensive port tunnel? would it take on a new role? maybe become another clogged up artirial route into the city for private cars?

fast access to the new docklands perhaps ratther than sitting in traffic in whitehall? Think it may be less clogged than Drumcondra give there is only one point of access/egress

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1216817414108253.html

dublin port’ studied to death’ say broughan

Now instead of real decisions being taken on the Port and Bay we have more ministerial gridlock because of an apparent Green-Fianna Fail turf war on this issue

The point of the port tunnel is that it’s the northern half of the eastern bypass

eh No. It’s not.

anybody heard anything about the progress bremore

Major parts of new port to be built in Meath
http://www.meathchronicle.ie/articles/1/34641
A major change in planning for the new €300 million port at Bremore in north Co Dublin will result in large parts of the infrastructure for the port being transferred from Fingal into County Meath because of the presence of important archaeological monuments on the original site, the Meath Chronicle has learned.

i can’t see how they can build the port on the bremore nose and avoid the passage graves

Marine centre plans may be axed after council pulls €3m funding
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/marine-centre-plans-may-be-axed-after-council-pulls-euro3m-funding-1599941.html
sweeter axed
seems there slowing things or timming down although i thought this project was urgent.

When you go down to Poolbeg, the thing that strikes you most is the vast waste of space, the rusting containers, the empty industrial facilities, the sheer abandonment of potential. Dumping a waste incinerator down there just seems to bring this process of dereliction of duty to the city and it’s god-given natural setting to it’s logical conclusion.

In the draft Dublin City Development Plan, all the big issues are parked:

the presence and/or further development of the port,

whether Poolbeg is a ‘peninsula’ in isolation, or a potential stepping stone in the arc of the Bay,

We should just not accept yet another Dublin City Development Plan that doesn’t even attempt to write the brief for a future comprehensive vision for the city’s junction with the Bay, let alone produce that vision itself.

Gunter, I would like to Echo what you said. However, it is more then just indolence on the part of DCC and other Government bodies which are preventing the port area being feasibly developed into a citizen friendly interface with the Bay.

Firstly, when the Port was proposed to be moved initially to Loughshinny in the 1980s and more recently to Breamore, there was a corus of protest from many quarters to keep the port in the City. Granted some of it was vested interest, but, some was that mindless anti-change element which usually dominates in any planning debate.

Secondly, the proposed incinerator will cement the ports position as an industrial area. I have always had a problem, not with the incinerator iiself, but with the contention that the best position for heavy industry in Dublin is effectively the best bayside location. We are always told the Bay is the Citys best asset, yet, access to it is grudgingly small. To my mind the best location for an incinerator would be in some semi rural locale near Dublin, but crucially, not in an area of high pupulation density. Actually, Braemore if the new port is Developed there would be ideal. Unfortunatly this means moving it from one persons backyard to anothers…..that is only bound to cause more controversy!

C

I’m guessing everyone is more interested in a future east village…
If only Dublin could compete with the rest of Ireland for affordable housing and land prices then something “might” happen don’t hold your breath…

@thebig C wrote:

Gunter, I would like to Echo what you said. However, it is more then just indolence on the part of DCC and other Government bodies which are preventing the port area being feasibly developed into a citizen friendly interface with the Bay.

Firstly, when the Port was proposed to be moved initially to Loughshinny in the 1980s and more recently to Breamore, there was a corus of protest from many quarters to keep the port in the City. Granted some of it was vested interest, but, some was that mindless anti-change element which usually dominates in any planning debate.

Secondly, the proposed incinerator will cement the ports position as an industrial area. I have always had a problem, not with the incinerator iiself, but with the contention that the best position for heavy industry in Dublin is effectively the best bayside location. We are always told the Bay is the Citys best asset, yet, access to it is grudgingly small. To my mind the best location for an incinerator would be in some semi rural locale near Dublin, but crucially, not in an area of high pupulation density. Actually, Braemore if the new port is Developed there would be ideal. Unfortunatly this means moving it from one persons backyard to anothers…..that is only bound to cause more controversy!

C

I’m with you on the incinerator, big C, we had something like this down our way ten or fifteen years ago with a plan to stick a hospital waste incinerator in St. James’s Hospital. Around here, you’re lucky to get three people to turn up to a meeting to protest at the demolition and redevelopment of a heritage site, but as soon as the word ‘incinerator’ appeared it was standing room only and people I’d previously considered reasonably sane were pledging in public to lie down in front of trucks.

I dunno I don’t get it, I never get worked up about micro-particles and unless it’s actual glow-in-the-dark radiation, stuff in the air is never going to kill anyone that wasn’t probably going to die anyway.

I can’t say incineration would be my first choice, but for stuff that can’t be recycled, it’s got to be a better solution than ever more land-fill.

PVC will come on now with a cost analysis of the waste tonnage projection figures and melt valuable brain-cells, but common sense suggests that a waste incineration facility is something that a city should have. For me too the issue is location [and to a lesser extent, the reported dodgy contract commitments and higher than required capacity].

As you say, it’s another mega-tonne of concrete cementing the heavy industrial destiny of Poolbeg, and with that the ever diminishing prospect of ever remotely tapping the recreational, civic and urban potential of the Dublin/Bay interface lands.

I posted an extract from ‘Map F’ last week, the one with the whole of the port and most of Poolbeg stained deep purple: ”To porvide for the creation and protection of industrial uses and facilitate opportunities for employment creation”. As an aside, I’d place a bet that there are fewer people employed, per hectare, in the purple zoned areas of Map F than anywhere else in the city, but for sheer humour, it’d be hard to beat ‘Map J’, . . . . the cars and birds map . . . . [parking standards and environmental designations]

Not content with protecting and perpetuating the harsh industrial use of the port and Poolbeg lands, Map J shows us graphically that almost everything else on the foreshore of the Bay will be imprisoned under a multi layered grid of environmental designations in a spectacular act of development control over-kill.

Horizontal red hatching: ”Candidate Special Area of Conservation”
Diagonal green hatching: ”Special Protection Areas”
Vertical Blue hatching: ”Proposed Natural Heritage Areas”

This is headcase stuff.

Half the birds who will be living under this tripple protection when the new Development Plan is adopted probably don’t even know they’re in Dublin Bay at all, they just followed the bloke in front. They’re probably sitting there now, in the mud, thinking christ, this is a kip, I’m not coming here next year.

On the Dublin Port relocation issue, surely we need to stop thinking of a port as a vast tract of land and start thinking of it as a machine for unloading ships, which, as I think I’ve said before, could be achieved with small breakwater and a couple of oil-rigs at the end of a freight rail tunnel out in the centre of the bay.

What we need to do is get our priorities sorted out, put the environmental needs of people back at the top of the list along with civic pride and a faith in urbanism and stop this wanton despoiling of prime coastal land in the centre of a city of close to a million people with hectares of stacked containers, bulk storage tanks and the well-intentioned, but misguided, protection of the unintended habitats left over from haphazard land filling as if they were the last remnant of God’s creation.