The Irish attitude to development – what is holding us back?
- This topic has 44 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I have started this thread out of a few comments made today in the Citywest : Mansfield’s giant heap of crap thread. Would love to hear good theories on why Ireland appears to be unable to develop projects on time and within reasonable cost in comparison with our European neighbours. I remember reading a quote once that said Ireland would be a third world country, just the bad weather prevents it. There must be reasons other than political ones??? Any theories?
-
A few quick points:
You alluded to it yourself, PDLL, in the Heap of Crap thread- I think the post-colonial mentality is still a powerful force. It can be seen in the Healy-Rae type of local politics, where the politicians style themselves as champions of a local cause in the face of ‘the man’, in this case Central Government. Being the cute hoor/Robin Hood is seen as the way to go. (Also the sensible way to go given that the locals are the ones doing the [re]electing.) This is a micro-version of the anti-British mindset that is still more prevalent than it should be in a country so long its own boss. (someone wrote a very interesting letter to the Irish Times about exactly this topic some time in the last year- I should try to track it down.)
Planning in Germany, for example, is characterised by Subsidiarity, i.e. tasks being carried out at the most local level suitable to their proper execution. Therefore, central govt is not burdened with actions that are more suitable to local govt, but equally local govt is not responsible for tasks the execution of which might be compromised by the local nature of local govt. However, in most cases central govt still sets the agenda, and local govt is permitted to act with relative freedom within the parameters set down by the higher level of power. (I hope that all makes sense.)
Lastly, I have heard it hypothesised by a relatively senior planner in Fingal that the reason our national roads are built in such a piecemeal fashion is to make sure they come in under the EU threshold for EU-wide tendering procedures. (So it would appear that the cute hoor mentality operates at many scales, not just the local.)
So it’s the parish pump and getting one over on the man.
-
Do you have any data to back up your assertion that
Ireland appears to be unable to develop projects on time and within reasonable cost in comparison with our European neighbours
?
Ireland began to put a lot of money into infrastructure when the economy started to grow, So all projects were afflicted by massive land and wage inflation. Many projects suffered from corruption. We can only blame ourselves for electing political parties that did not put anti-corruption policies and transparency on their agendas.
It could also be argued that public infrastructure projects are best built with borrowed cash during the down phase of an economic cycle when wages and land are cheap, rather than using tax surplus money during a growth phase.
Pointing at infrastructure built in poor countries under dictatorial governments is hardly a valid comparison.
What is a cost overrun in any case? Is it the difference between the original estimate used to justify the project and the final cost? Or is it the difference between the tender price and the final price?
Maybe the method of estimating a project at the political decision time is flawed.
Maybe the procedure for allowing design changes mid-project is flawed.
Maybe the process for validating that the specification is sufficient to meet the needs is flawed.
Maybe there is too much democratic input (tell that to Rossport)
Maybe we should be paying off our debts during the boom years and we should delay stimulating our economy with infrastructure projects until the next downturn.
Maybe the public sevants who negotiate and manage our multi-billion euro contracts should be paid something close to the sums earned by their opposite numbers in private industry.Most projects are built and run by third party international contractors on fixed price contracts so I can’t see what blame they carry.
what do you think?
-
Ctesiphon, The EU limit for tendering in the in the EU journal is €5 million for works contracts. Very few if any of the works on national routes come within this figure.
Substantial design changes while a contractor is on site is one sure way to increase a contract outturn cost significantly.
I believe that in the current climate that the design and project management practices are under resourced given the volume of work being executed. Smaller less experienced practices are trying to fill a void left by larger practices who are chasing the major projects. This environment creates a great opportunity for young construction professionals to gain experience , but this quite often is not in the exchequers interest as inevitably less experience means more errors.
While contractors are suffering the skill shortage as well, any contractor worth his commercial salt has invested in commercially aware QS and project management staff. Many of whom have returned from the UK and are extremely well versed in producing paper trails which would make many a graduate consider a job in McDonalds.
-
QUOTE=Frank Taylor]Do you have any data to back up your assertion that ? [/QUOTE]
Thanks to those who have offered some good insights into this issue. As regards ‘data’ to back this up, all I can go on is empirical observation. Consider the following examples:
cost estimate for building a Dublin metro (was estimated at about 3 times – if I remember correctly – the estimate given by Spanish metro builders based on the Madrid network);
apparent reluctance to build a metro (for cost reasons, technical reasons or just because we are inexplicably incapable of doing what most other European capital and second cities have done:
– worth bearing in mind: the London underground was started in the 1860s so how technically challenging is it really by modern day construction standards; many cities of lesser or equal size and wealth have managed to build underground lines (Prague, Sofia, Budapest, Vienna, etc etc);lack of proper motorway network:
– worth bearing in mind that Ireland (one of wealthiest countries in Europe) has one of the least number of km of motorway per person in western Europe;
– worth bearing in mind that we do not even have huge natural obstacles to overcome – no Alps, no major rivers, no deep ravines, no earthquake sensitive regions. No just flat land and we appear unable to lay a flat road network over it.
– even the roads we do have lack any sense of systematic design so you can go from a motorway to a boreen in the space of five meters. To me this indicates either complicated resourcing issues (as indicated in a contribution to this thread) or a lack of a total plan/vision. I presume it is the latter as all other European countries also face complicated EU resourcing issues, but still manage to have an integrated motorway network;
– delay in completing the M50 – don’t wish to appear archaeologically insensitive, but why? To prevent the destruction of a memorial of our colonial past – will we be preserving British watchtowers along the Armagh border in the years to come??? It is nice to see that our colonial past still stands in the way of our potentially progressive future!lack of a non-Dublin orientated road and rail infrastructure – evidence – just get in your car and see;
lack of adequate recycling infrastructure – effectively none by western European standards;
construction of high-rise buildings – how many proposals have been blocked by various protest groups;
lack of adequate public transport – try to travel in rural Ireland without a car. In Dublin? – we seem incapable of having a fully functioning integrated ticket system, yet we are so proud of telling people how Ireland was producing so much of the world’s software products in the 1990s;
– case study: compare Dublin with Vienna. Vienna – population 1.55 million people; 6 underground lines (one currently being extended); 60+ tram lines; I don’t know how many bus lines; 7 S-Bahn lines (like Arrow suburban service) and 3 or 4 regional train lines connecting outer satellite towns; special air-link train which is ultra modern. In addition, it has a properly integrated ticketing system and is largely reliable, clean and safe;
– Dublin – population about 1-1.2 million; no underground lines, 2 tram lines just built; I don’t know the number of bus routes – I estimate a couple of hundred but could be wrong; Dart line and how many Arrow lines. No direct air link. No integrated ticketing system and you still pay at the door causing unnecessary delays;
– Why? Bear in mind, Vienna rebuilt its transport infrastructure completely in the last 40-50 years (after destruction of WWII). Dublin has never had its transport system bombed into nothingness and yet is about 30 years behind. Neither did Austria receive the huge EU funding which Ireland did. On the contrary, it has been a net contributor to the EU since it joined in the 1990s. So why is Dublin’s transport development so retarded in comparison?????
– Consider Madrid. Spain was one of the poor men of Europe along with Ireland, Portugal and Greece. Despite all of the hype about the Celtic tiger etc, Spain has been silently purring away in the back ground and has not been boasting in the inflated manner that Ireland has. Result? – look at Spain’s developed underground system in Madrid and suburban rail network; look at the high speed AVE train to Seville and the new high speed line being built to Barcelona, look at the motorway network etc etc. Interesting. Even those traditionally poor countries in the EU are outstripping one of the allegedly wealthiest and they are doing it in style and with modesty. Just travel on the AVE from Madrid to Seville and then travel CIE from Dublin to Cork – you will get all of the data you need to exemplify the severely retarded nature of development in Ireland. As I quoted before – a third world country, just with bad weather.I could go on, but I don’t see any point. For anyone that has ever stepped outside of the country and compared its infrastructure with other EU states will know how exaggerated all of these claims are about Ireland’s dramatic success.
-
Why? Bear in mind, Vienna rebuilt its transport infrastructure completely in the last 40-50 years (after destruction of WWII). Dublin has never had its transport system bombed into nothingness and yet is about 30 years behind.
I think in part this is the reason why our infrastructure is so far behind the rest of mainland europe and britain. They had to start from scratch and plan infrastructure which would cater for motorised vehicles, and I would assume, the construction of these projects would have been implemented to provide both the infrastructure and post war employment.
-
The only problem that I see with this argument is that the concept of the motorway was very much a pre-WWII idea and was first put into practice in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Indeed to some extent it is very much interlinked with the development of the ‘people’s car’ – the VW Beetle. It is true that the wholescale destruction of Europe’s transport infrastructure during the war provided a clean sheet, so to speak, upon which new infrastructural projects could be designed and built, but it is always worth bearing in mind that the planning and development of motorways in the decade or so after the war was not a priority due to the need for other developments such as re-housing and the lack of a male workforce. It is also worth noting that car ownership in the post year wars was also limited for financial reasons.
I also have some reservations about the theory concerning the piecemeal allocation of EU funds. I am not denying the many difficulties, bureaucratic and otherwise, which surround the allocation and payment of EU monies for infrastructural projects, but all other EU countries must go through the same regulations and many of those countries have fully functioning integrated motor and rail networks (and have had for the past 20 years).
My own believe stems a bit from something which I noted above. The first motorways were built in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy where collective concepts of strong national identity existed and where for many the interests of the collective state where prioritized over the interests of the private individual. It is my opinion that this is one of the reasons that Ireland is incapable of coherent and systematic infrastructural development as the exact opposite mentality exists. It is private wealth and the satisfaction of the individual that are paramount. The collective good of the nation is secondary or even tertiary. This is evident in a number of ways. The comparatively low rates of tax and the hostility to any increase in tax rates highlights the stress that there is on personal wealth rather than on contributing to the overall development of the state. ‘It is ok if the roads etc are built with EU money, just don’t raise my taxes to build them; but just because I’m not willing to pay for them doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to complain about their absence’ mentality. The personal wealth vs. state development dilemma is again seen in the presence of a large number of Mercedes etc on the roads and the often immense one-off houses that dot the country. The money is there (this is why our national statistics indicate our growing wealth by international standards), but it is in private bank accounts rather in the developmental coffers of the state. This is why we have the strange appearance of the latest Mercedes cars on our cow-path roads. Incongruous as joint symbols of wealth, but a real indicator of the way the Celtic Tiger is just an old moggy wearing a fancy fur coat that it doesn’t even own.
The lack of interest and investment in recycling is again evidence of our private interest vs public good conflict. The continual battle that planning authorities and developers have for effectively every project proposed is again evidence of this. I must look for an article on the recent Argos debacle in Sligo where a small coterie of local business people have managed to block Argos from opening in Sligo for whatever selfish reasons – I must post for a link to the story on this. It is a very telling example. The difficulties which exist with regard to public-private partnerships is also evidence of the unease that exists between the two in this country. In addition, attitudes towards littering and the up-keep of public spaces and parks in Ireland again reinforces the concept of the individual holding himself sacred above the collective interests of the state.
Where does this mentality come from – this is another day’s speculation. I think, however, it definitely has some roots in our colonial past and the sense of non-co-operation with the State authorities. It appears that this has become inbred in our thinking and is, ironically, the British empire’s final revenge on us as it is truly preventing us from progressing in a harmonious and long-term manner. It seems we just cannot get over the past and get on with the future.
My last theory is slightly more speculative and open to criticism. I would suggest that the Irish have a natural deficit in their ability to plan things of any sort in the medium to long term. Why? I think most would agree that our natural environment plays an important role in the way society shapes itself and functions. As a major element of our natural environment, we cannot underestimate the role that weather plays on the human mind (consider seasonal disorders, depression, headaches caused by atmospheric pressure etc). It seems logical to suggest that living for centuries in an extremely inconsistent climate which varies not from week to week but from our to hour will inevitably have an effect on the way we think and ultimately on the way we plan and co-ordinate our activities. Pschologically it must have an effect if endlessly we plan our outdoor activities according to short periods of climactic consistency – e.g. we can go to the beach in the morning, but it may or may not rain in 1 hour. This type of narrow confinement of the way we plan and structure our daily lives must play a part in how we plan cognitively other more major parts of our lives. It seems like an odd contention, but I am personally convinced that it has some role to play in our collective thought processes as a nation. Speculation, I know, but possibly of interest.
-
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0920/construction.html
WE obviously never learn.
-
WE obviously never learn.
Isn’t the piece you linked too an example of how we are learning – at least the government is – the construction industry is not. Is that what you mean.
Lets get some terms correct. Ireland is newly “rich” but the “wealth” is just an increase in GDP per-capita. With the more correct ( for Ireland) GNP per capita we are 20% less “rich” in real terms. Even there you would have to take into account how income ( not wealth) is distributed – as median wage levels are always less than GDP/GNP per capita, and how much less tells you how much income is pushed to profit, not wages. Ireland is fast becoming a lowish wage economy, in fact. IT ( and other knowledge based) jobs do not register on the private sector jobs produced each year list – in fact construction dominates, and although well paid, is notoriously cyclical. Retail is next.
In any case even if equally distributed GDP per capita is not a reflection of the wealth of an economy, but it’s earnings. Imaging two 60 year olds both paid 100K a year ( to define a good “rich” wage). One of those 60 year olds was earning the equivalent of 100K ( more, or less) for 40 years and invested it, in his house and elsewhere. The other was earning a pittance for most of his life. Who has the bigger better house, with better furniture?
Ireland’s public wealth is insignificant as we were income poor for so long.
I would be inclined to agree somewhat with this statement
It is my opinion that this is one of the reasons that Ireland is incapable of coherent and systematic infrastructural development as the exact opposite mentality exists [ private greed]
except the US has a great public road system, but then I think that the US just after the war was a different society than today.
-
@PDLL wrote:
My last theory is slightly more speculative and open to criticism. I would suggest that the Irish have a natural deficit in their ability to plan things of any sort in the medium to long term. Why? I think most would agree that our natural environment plays an important role in the way society shapes itself and functions. As a major element of our natural environment, we cannot underestimate the role that weather plays on the human mind (consider seasonal disorders, depression, headaches caused by atmospheric pressure etc). It seems logical to suggest that living for centuries in an extremely inconsistent climate which varies not from week to week but from our to hour will inevitably have an effect on the way we think and ultimately on the way we plan and co-ordinate our activities. Pschologically it must have an effect if endlessly we plan our outdoor activities according to short periods of climactic consistency – e.g. we can go to the beach in the morning, but it may or may not rain in 1 hour. This type of narrow confinement of the way we plan and structure our daily lives must play a part in how we plan cognitively other more major parts of our lives. It seems like an odd contention, but I am personally convinced that it has some role to play in our collective thought processes as a nation. Speculation, I know, but possibly of interest.
If anything I would argue the contrary: Irish weather is very mild by comparison with other countries. There was also a theory floating around that harsh winters etc. led more to forward planning (as one has to plan ahead for stores, and preferrably as a social group) and some have suggested it as a reason for the particular types of totalitarian regimes in more northern countries compared to southern countries (Nazism in Germany with harsh winters compared to Fascism in Italy). I am personally not entirely convinced by either of these theories though.
-
@asdasd wrote:
Lets get some terms correct. Ireland is newly “rich” but the “wealth” is just an increase in GDP per-capita. With the more correct ( for Ireland) GNP per capita we are 20% less “rich” in real terms. Even there you would have to take into account how income ( not wealth) is distributed – as median wage levels are always less than GDP/GNP per capita, and how much less tells you how much income is pushed to profit, not wages. Ireland is fast becoming a lowish wage economy, in fact. IT ( and other knowledge based) jobs do not register on the private sector jobs produced each year list – in fact construction dominates, and although well paid, is notoriously cyclical. Retail is next.
In any case even if equally distributed GDP per capita is not a reflection of the wealth of an economy, but it’s earnings. Imaging two 60 year olds both paid 100K a year ( to define a good “rich” wage). One of those 60 year olds was earning the equivalent of 100K ( more, or less) for 40 years and invested it, in his house and elsewhere. The other was earning a pittance for most of his life. Who has the bigger better house, with better furniture?
Ireland’s public wealth is insignificant as we were income poor for so long. .
Thank you asdasd for the useful analysis of Ireland’s ‘wealth’. It is interesting when you start getting down to the nitty gritty of economics. However, none of this info or such subtle distinctions are included on the vast amount of propaganda which the Irish population is fed daily about the success of our fair isle. Nor indeed is it used to clarify statistics which show Ireland soaring economically above most other EU states. Maybe it would be useful if the press qualified their statistics a little more often.
Having said that, I do not disagree with the position you take, but I would like to point out that there are many other significantly poorer economies than ours which seem to have invested in some oprerrt expensive furniture. Look, for example, at India. It is building 4.5 miles of motorway per day and New Dehli has a pretty impressive and extensive metro. See link: http://www.delhimetrorail.com/index.htm
Ya – I know India is another Tiger economy and labour is substantially cheaper there in comparison to there, but we can continually come up with excuses to justify our lack of infrastructural development. It seems even when we do have a bit of spare cash, we just continue to buy IKEA furniture – cheap and short-term solutions like LUAS, for example.
-
-
Point taken. But what I really meant to say is that it was considered to be a ‘cheaper’ solution to building a metro which to my mind would have been a more worthwhile long-term investment for Dublin.
My primary point here is that no matter what, there always seems to be an excuse for our lack of systematic infrastructural development – in the 70s and 80s, we were too poor, in the 1990s and 2000s, we are too rich (boom is still going on – labour and land costs too high etc). If we wait till the boom is over, surprise – we will be too poor again – we will need to spend the money on other things. In the meantime, other countries – including third world countries – are managing to make progress and we just sit around with half-baked solutions (eg no rail link for airport, LUAS instead of metro, a mess of a road network etc).
This gets me back to the point about there being something lacking in the Irish pysche when it comes to deevloping an overall plan that we are capable of living by and sticking to. Another possible related example of this from history – the lack of a coherent systematic up-rising against the British. 1916 was the historical equivalent of our current infrastructural development. A fragmented and incoherent response to a national problem that should have demanded a coherent and unified national response.
-
-
PDLL, you need to go to the Platform11 site. They are supporting a “Dart Metro” option for Dublin ( they call it the Interconnector, but they need to promote their terminology more). The actual metro would cost more and achieve less.
-
Perhaps the winner of the Euromillion Lottery will feel an overwhelming desire to have her name inscribed in our national history books and will fund the development of a metro for Dublin. Well, it is about as likely as the State doing so.
-
-
-
-
it would be ever so handy to get from heuston to connolly and i’d say a train could do it in 10 mins or so.
First of all the tunnel doesn’t really go from Hueston to Connolly – it goes from a point further west than Heuston and can only be entered from the west. The map here is not completely accurate but it shows where the tunnel starts. You could have a train run out of Heuston, go past the branch off for the tunnel, stop, go into reverse and then go up the tunnel. The problem with doing something like this is that all the other trains coming and going from Heuston have to stand back and wait while this manouver is happening resulting in a reduced number of services on the line. People want more trains not less.
The tunnel could be used for commuter trains coming from Kildare but the problem is where do the trains go? Connolly is at absolute capacity so if you want a Kildare train to go into Connolly then you are going to have to cancel a DART service or a northern commuter or an Enterprise. All of these trains are absolutely packed at peak so all you’d achieve is to rob everyone between Bray and Malahide of one of their existing services to allow a train from Kildare into Connolly. This will only piss people off while reducing the total number of passengers carried.
What is happening is that a new station is being built in Spenser Dock. Trains from the Park tunnel (and in theory from Maynooth) can terminate in Spenser Dock without disrupting existing services through Connolly. Still this is more or less a stop gap measure until the Dublin Rail Plan is given funding. It is still unclear whether the DRP will be part of the minister’s 10 year plan. The DRP is a very ambitious project which will QUADRUPLE the number of passengers carried by rail in the Dublin area. It will involve extending the DART to use all four lines out of Dublin and will include an underground section serving underground stations at Christ Church, Stephen’s Green with an underground interchange at Pearse St. It includes an Airport link so you could get a DART from the airport and which ONE change get to practically any station in Ireland. Andrew Duffy (who contributes here) has done a map of what is being proposed.
All of these issues are well known and understood. You should really check out platform11 if you’ve any interest in this sort of thing.
-
-
@asdasd wrote:
Thats not even half the point of the interconnector, alpha. It’s about integrating all lines into Dublin into an electrified commuter DART service. Go read the website I posted.
i did read it. i am simply saying that the tunnel should be put to use passenger wise asap otherwise it is going to waste.
-
i am well aware that the tunnel doesn’t go all the way from heuston to connolly.
Well you suggested that the tunnel should be used to run a service from Heuston to Connolly, no? I pointed out why this would not work. Could you explain how you think it should be used for passenger services given the problems I outlined?
The reason I went to such lengths to respond to you was because the existence of this tunnel (which cannot currently be put into useful service because of the situation at Connolly) is disengeniously being used as an argument against the interconnector by some politicians. The minute most people hear of its existance, they assume that it could be used to “connect” Heuston to Connolly. This is simply not the case.
-
-
-
Probably as good a place as any to put this, particularly in light of the previous comments about wealth (above).
Anyone just see Martin Cullen on PrimeTime? Perhaps you can help:
Did he say “We are an income rich country but not a wealth rich country” as an explanation for lack of investment in transport infrastructure, or am I imagining it? And more importantly, what did he mean? That we are each individually better off, but the country lacks the necessary money to invest in transport?In other words, our ‘low tax’ economy that the govt makes such a song and dance about is actually the reason why we have such a cruddy public transport network. They have shied away from taxing us in our pockets in order to curry favour, only then to realise the consequences of such a policy… Quite an admission, if I understood him correctly.
No matter what way I phrase it, he comes off sounding like a complete eejit. If I’m wrong I’d appreciate correction.
Thanks. -
His ‘weath’ remark seemed to refer to the current state of affairs regarding infrastructure – not that we don’t have the resources to handle it, but rather as things stand we are not an infrastructure-rich or infrastructure-‘weathy’ nation.
But yes, regardless, it came across as daft.
What was encouraging however is that the Interconnector does seem like a strong contender at this stage in the eyes of Govt.The topic could’ve done with an hour. John Henry spoke but once aside from a V/O at the start.
Poor old battered Barry Kenny had some good points about city centre capacity. -
-
-
-
@ctesiphon wrote:
Did he say “We are an income rich country but not a wealth rich country” as an explanation for lack of investment in transport infrastructure, or am I imagining it? And more importantly, what did he mean?
He means that Ireland may have a high per capita income compared to other counties but that because that income has risen only in recent years, we don’t have great infrastructural wealth built up over years of investment. OECD comparisons that have shown ireland to be rich in income terms don’t count the fact that money has only started flowing recently.
-
He means that Ireland may have a high per capita income compared to other counties but that because that income has risen only in recent years, we don’t have great infrastructural wealth built up over years of investment. OECD comparisons that have shown ireland to be rich in income terms don’t count the fact that money has only started flowing recently.
More than that: it is also an issue of how capital and wages are distributed in the country and how private wealth is also built up over time.
I explained most of this on page 1 of this thread but “ctesiphon” wont be told
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=40077&postcount=9
As an addition to what I said there I noticed today, in the Irish Times business supplement on Germany, that Ireland’s average wages are 15K behind the German wages; even though our GDP per capital is about 15K greater than theirs. We tax wages more than capital – in fear that it will flee – and thus we are realistically income poorer than germany with less potential tax potential and practically no potential to increase taxes on the middle classes who have very little disposable income as is – with house and rent prices, creche care and rip off Ireland prices. In the long term I would prefer to be in Germany’s position.
-
The thing is that we are in the odd position that it suits the proponents of all ideologies to suggest that we’re richer than we are. The left want us to feel guilty about being rich so they can justify funnelling income into the pcckets of their pals – the unionised public sector – while the right want us to think that things are great as a result of their policies and that we should support them continuing to enrich their particular pals – for example the vitners or the construction industry. Neither really care about the general welfare of the country or are keen to face the fact that we are not really wealthy (despite highish income) but as I get older I find I have less and less tolerance for the snootily morally superior attitude of the Irish left having read of spouses of labour politicians pocketing 300-400K a year from the public purse for treating wealthy 70 year old medical card holders in Foxrock. FF are a shower of evil ignorant pr*cks but the fact that they seem to find it difficult to keep a straight face while trying to express similar levels of hypocritical false indignation about this or that is strangely redeeming. I still can’t make myself vote for them, ‘though.
-
@asdasd wrote:
I explained most of this on page 1 of this thread but “ctesiphon” wont be told
Finally! Thank you asdasd. Since signing up, anyone addressing me on this forum has called me ctesiphon, or Ctesiphon- not right, obviously 🙁 , but we persevere. And then you come along and put quotation marks around it, and all is right with the world.
Yes, it is an alias. But then again, I presume asdasd is one too. Which begs the question, why are quotation marks not necessary around yours? Or perhaps your christener/s really were more avant-garde than mine?
Or could it be that you’re trying to imply that I’m ‘hiding’ for a reason?Anyway, to get to your point. You will have noticed that I began by saying I thought this thread was the place to ask my question, chiefly because it already contained posts such as your original one. So yes, I had already read it, but thanks for the refresher link. Now it didn’t exactly clarify everything for me, but other posts filled in many of the blanks. GNP, GDP etc. have never really been my forte, but I thought there was sufficient uncertainty in my mind following Martin Cullen’s comments to ask for more detail. Luckily this was forthcoming from some contributors, and the variations in their responses indicate to me that the question was anything but answered previously. Perhaps I was naive to ask it, but it was in the hope of equipping myself sufficiently to assess Cullen’s utterances. (You’re right, he probably doesn’t deserve it, but I like to be fair to those whose announcements I’m going to question.)
The difference between the other contributors’ posts and yours was that they seemed by-and-large to do it with good grace, something that was notably absent from your text. If I exasperate you with my infantile questionings, go and have a cup of tea and keep your powder dry for those that might actually deserve your patronising ire. “Wont [sic] be told”? Won’t bother asking you in future, you mean.
Regards,
ctesiphon.Thanks to all others for your inputs with good grace.
-
ctesiphon
Dude, the quotes were a mistake. not sure why I put them there ( but read the paranthesis later on why I had to copy and paste).
Nothing meant by it. I did miss that you mentioned my previous post and I thought you had brought up the subject without reference to my previous post. nevertheless you probably need to take a chill pill not me 🙂
(As an aside here your name is hard work for a forum. It lends to being copied and pasted, since nobody would have a clue to it’s actual spelling without looking at it – and copy and paste is easier; and nor can it be shortened easily. Someone called FooBar, to pick a name, can be shortened to FB, but it is hard to know what to do with you. )
-
Yup, you certainly got the sharp end of something there- apologies for the inappropriate tone. Antiques Roadshow must have had my blood pressure up.
Incidentally, it’s interesting you mention ease of typing, as your name has often struck me as the easiest on this forum to type. A topic close to your heart, it seems. 😉@asdasd wrote:
it is hard to know what to do with you.
A spell in the army?
Anyway, back to business…
-
-
-
Here is list, for discussion, on some of what I think is holding us back.
Middle Class conservatism i.e. the opposition to new marina’s etc. Often opposed to high rise development in their area.
Working Class conservatism. Of the type that opposed the spire, feeling that the money should always be spent on the poor. Opposed to high rise, or high density, in all cases ( maybe a Ballymun hangover)
Incompetent and naive Politicos. The lack of expertise at Cabinet level can be amazing. Coming around to understand fixed price contracts just recently, huh?
Corrupt politicos: nuff said
Corrupt contractors: Didn’t mention that most of your private sector contracts are fixed price, no? Dawdle a bit on the Lu… some projects, did we?
Stupid Politicos: Mary whatsherface, the crayons, and the non-joined up luas.
Environmentalists etc: Useful when a hotel is being built close to Trim Castle, less useful when a snail gets in the way of the motorway.
Cynicism: The Port Tunnel design which rejected the increase in height to accomodate the silly Super Tankers was a good decision, as the alternative would have raised the cost enormously. However every Taxi Driver is convinced that the Tunnel is thus a disaster before it opens. We are cynical about everything prior to completion – the DART, Luas, Spire, Port Tunnel, and more.
Timidity: Politicans and designers get less flack when they are timid. The spire caused more flack that any of the developments in the Grand Canal, and IFSC, as they are so bland as to benot noticed. Related to general cynicism.
Lack Of Knowledge. Some people champion the “metro” for Dublin – but which proposal, and to where? What about the Interconnector?
I’ll prob. think of more later.
-
@asdasd wrote:
Lack Of Knowledge. Some people champion the “metro” for Dublin – but which proposal, and to where? What about the Interconnector?
This seems to patronisingly deride all people who favour the construction of a metro in Dublin but who cannot offer moderately detailed suggestions on its location and so on. I would argue that this is the job of a metro developer, geologist, and urban planner. You do not need to be any of these to know that Dublin could benefit from an underground – all you need to be is a commuter with a brain. It is as simple as that.
As one who ‘champions’ the metro but who cannot offer any concrete proposals on where it should be positioned, I will graciously bow my head to those who have the skills to do such things. Of course, I could say build a line to Tallaght because it has a very large population, but then this might not be possible as the geology might make it extremely difficult or expensive. In short, very few of us have enough knowledge to know exactly where to put a metro under Dublin, but we can have experientially based opinions without being accused of suffering from a lack of knowledge.
-
You dont have to produce moderately detailed plans of anything. On a per cost basis the plans outlined by Platform11, with whom I am not affiliated, and which are available online trump the metro. The interconnector can do more with the same resources than a single line metro which would probably just go to the Airport. Government has to make decisions based on finite resources, and if we spend the first 5 years, and 3 billion on a one line metro it will solve no problems at all. The Interconnector would massively increase the capacity of the DART and Dublin’s light rail ( and would be underground in parts for people who must have that), and a spur can be built to the Airport. Capacity can be added to this entire system, later, and if needed a metro can service areas that are not serviced by the joining up of the rail lines into Dublin.
This seems to patronisingly deride all people who favour the construction of a metro in Dublin but who cannot offer moderately detailed suggestions on its location and so on.
God, but there are a lot of timid souls on this thread. Dont ever get involved in real live debating, wimpering to the stage about how patronising the last argument was. This a forum for debate and I really wasn’t thinking of you, since I have no idea what you thought about anything, and any of my points may seem “patronising” to somebody.
In any case the details are all out there and you should argue on the merits and demerits of the metro or interconnector – then you can offer moderately detailed suggestions on “it’s location”, or not.
but we can have experientially based opinions without being accused of suffering from a lack of knowledge.
Clearly since I had mentioned the interconnector an d you failed to research it, but rather took umbrage, I can now acuse you of a lack of knowledge, and a deliberate one.
I dont buy this experts must decide thing either, or else why have any debate at all on these threads. You are a graduate of UL and probably a engineer, so research the issue. if you cant, who can? We would in this scenario have an unaccountable government who could do anything the experts say, as we are all soo stupid to understand the fundamentals. Dont buy it.
-
@asdasd wrote:
Clearly since I had mentioned the interconnector an d you failed to research it, but rather took umbrage, I can now acuse you of a lack of knowledge, and a deliberate one.
I dont buy this experts must decide thing either, or else why have any debate at all on these threads. You are a graduate of UL and probably a engineer, so research the issue.
Thank you Asdasd for your constructive response. I wasn’t ware that I was ‘wimpering’ in my last comment – I must learn to be much more aggressive in the way I relate to people when expressing opinions. How right you are: people engaged in public debate should cast aside all pretensions to civil discourse.
You seem to assert that I ‘lack knowledge’ on the issue of a metro for Dublin because (you assume) I failed to research the Interconnector. Do you suggest that because I neither refer to the Interconnector or agree with it, that I ‘deliberately lack knowledge’. In short, because I don’t focus on something you do, I therefore lack knowledge. Does this also imply that the Interconnector = knowledge. If so, are the people behind the Interconnector aware of the heavy philosophical burden they have to bear??
Indeed. You are right Asdasd, there is nothing worse than the lack of knowledge in a public debate. Oh, sorry, tehre is. That is making falsely grounded assumptions such as ‘I failed to research the Interconnector’, ‘I was a student in UL’, ‘I am probably an engineer’. Actually, I did research the Interconnector]www.ul.ie[/url]
-
This seems to have gotten a little personal. Could we steer it back to the general point about whether it is reasonable to champion something without having concrete details on the proposal? I don’t think there’s any need to refer to each others’ knowledge or lack thereof or motivation or indeed their education or status.
My contention is may possibly be reasonable to feel favourable towards a plan without knowing the precise details (for example, you could be infavour of a plan described as one to “improve the heath service” without knowing the specific details of what is involved). However if you are going to enter a public debate about the merits of such a plan, you need to be able to present details. Otherwise, because you are offering nothing up to debate about the proposal itself, the argument moves away from debating the actual proposal and inevitably ecomes personal.
-
@jimg wrote:
Otherwise, because you are offering nothing up to debate about the proposal itself, the argument moves away from debating the actual proposal and inevitably ecomes personal.
Point taken, jimg. Further up this thread I offered a number of quite detailed opinions on the topic of this thread – ie the difficulties concerning development in Ireland. Previously I refered to the Dublin metro as an example of one of the areas in which we show our reluctance to engage in coherent infrastructural development. The thread was never intended to be about the Dublin metro (or any specific aspect pertaining to it) alone.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
