admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@cgcsb wrote:
Again, what has this to do with anything?
Abolutely nothing just like the vasy majority of incomprehensible dribble from this poster.
One sincerely hopes that this project will be insulated from the additional €1bn in annual capital budget savings indicated by BL for next year and presumably medium term years commencing at the next budget.
Inchicore Residents are great.
No we don’t want that useful luas thingy ruining our village, we’re much happier on the bus and who do you think you are trying to give us a DART station?
Down with this sort of thing.
Its just all over the place, no matter what way I look at it … I just find my eyes straining to focus on its obscure profile – like what the hell is it trying to be? apart from an incoherent mess.
@wearnicehats wrote:
Noooooo – under our current system he should have had a decision within 42 weeks. Can you actually fathom that timescale – 42 weeks!!!!! utterly nuts. In the thread shown above I cut it to 22 without being overly crazy (despite what Devin thinks)
Anyway I don’t consider DPs optional but ABP are getting paid to do a job – why don’t they do it? Rather than a flat “no” why not have a system where ABP stipulate in their Direction an acceptable quantum of development / height profile that would inform a new application – Thereafter all objections with regard to overdevelopment / height etc would be disregarded and the LA’s decision on a second application would be final should all ABP stipulations be met
The inspector’s report is not an acceptable document for this as, likely as not, the final ABP decision overturns it
Not everyone is a crazy developer. Not everyone breaks a development plan or submits insane schemes. Some people do quite the opposite but because anyone can object and because of the system they can be tied up for a year, paying interest on loans all the time.
I would have to ask the obvious here but who would you restrict the ability to make submissions on planning to? And given that those making submissions, whether neighbours or whoever have for the most part no vested commercial benefit in a negative outcome what is the problem with giving them time to make their submissions. They aren’t professionals who are getting paid to work full time on them.
@wearnicehats wrote:
take, for example.
in 2008 there were 59,154 planning applications across the country. 3% of this is 1774
of these, however, only 8,291 were of a non domestic or agricultural nature
Let’s assume that AT object to 1% of the domestic schemes (I’m probably being generous) that means that 1200 of the objections are of the non-domestic type or – aren’t statistics great – that AT object to 14% of commercial schemes. This figure would be more in keeping with the experiences of archiects in that field
Err.. that 3% (and where does it come from?) figure is not necessarily all objections. Speaking for Limerick, we made I would say less than half a dozen submissions on planning applications each year over the last 4/5 years. And not all of those were objecting to the developments but also consisted of submissions commending some aspects of developments and suggesting ways in which the application could be made better.
Hats
You are only proving the veaxtious nature of the appeal taken in this case by turning it into a discussion on planning stats; I am disapointed that you have chosen to as I normally find what you say to make a lot of sense.
I feel a lot of sympathy for AT on this particularly the development levy angle; as landlord of Tailors Hall the council had the ability since 1986 or to assert a deviation from the user clause in the lease however they concurred that consent for this use did in fact exist. From that time there has been regular and occaisional use of the venue for private hire events.
When one looks back at the amount of money AT has saved the city by taking this building off their hands surely the money should be going in the other direction towards the latest round of refurbishment.
This really is a case of getting severly punished by a hurler in the ditch for dotting an i; no doubt sense will prevail with the i dotted.
@markpb wrote:
The second is the landlord of Park Place offices on Hatch St – the whole pavement outside had been scraped and cleaned properly and looked very professional. It’s a pity others weren’t so proactive.
Would the fact that the main tenant is an insurance company maybe be something to do with it?
You can just imagine the Herald headline in six months time ‘Insurance company gets sued by 4 of own staff for Heath & Safety failures’ good to see they value the welfare of their staff 😀
The problem will be maintaining a safe environment if this as predicted continues another 2 weeks; most buildings with public open space have given up on carparks and are concentrating on foothpaths to conserve valuable grit supplies; i.e. those that learned the lessons from the last freeze and bought in July!!
It all depends on the level of remodeling as opposed to reinstatement you are carrying out as to whether you would need an architect at all; my gut feeling is that if it is almost all like for like work you are probably better off getting a QS. A very good time to be buying property in need of work given the number of very skilled artisans out of same.
Japan engineers delay Dubai work over pay row
Leo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent
A consortium of Japanese engineering companies building the Dubai Metro mass transit system is to embark on a “work slowdown†from today over delayed payments from the Dubai Government.
The dispute follows official admissions in Tokyo last month that Japanese companies outside the financial sector are cumulatively owed about $7.5 billion by the government of Dubai and a variety of state-affiliated businesses.
The four Japanese companies, which include Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and Kajima Construction, are expected to scale back their pace substantially as they await payment from the Emirate for work they say they have already completed.
The companies are locked in negotiations with the Dubai Ggovernment over payment for the Dubai Metro — an ambitious public transport project which is less than half finished and where costs have spiraled to more than twice the original contract.
The initial orders taken by the consortium, which includes a Turkish company, were worth about $5.6 billion, but overall expenses are now thought to have soared in excess of $10 billion.
People close to the payment negotiations said that the work slowdown represented an attempt by the Japanese to push Dubai into restarting the flow of cash. “Once the payment starts again, the work will return to its original pace,†a person close to the mattersaid. “The slowdown is a negotiating manoeuvreâ€.
The Metro project involves two lines and 29 stations, ten of those stations were completed last year and a portion of the network opened in September. The remainder was scheduled to open in June this year, although that may now be delayed by at least six months because of the financing dispute.
A large portion of the additional construction costs is thought to have arisen from mid-project changes that the Dubai Road and Transport Authority (RTA) made to the design and number of the stations along the two lines of the Dubai Metro network.
That fact was acknowledged last year by officials at the RTA, but the Dubai Government said that it would negotiate with the Japanese consortium about sharing the additional costs rather than bearing them alone.
Obayashi, the engineering group that led the work on what is slated to be the world’s longest fully automated railway line, stands to lose the most if Dubai continues to hold out on payments. One estimate made last year suggested that if the government refuses to foot the bill for the additional work ordered by the RTA, Obayashi could lose $1 billion from its involvement in the project.
A spokesman for Obayashi confirmed to The Times that the company would be “slowing down†the pace of construction on the Dubai Metro, hinting that collecting the money it is owed by the government had become a priority.
Japan’s trading houses, general contractors and machinery makers are involved in at least 18 major projects in Dubai, and were hit hard by the financial problems which struck the Emirate late last year. In mid-December, the Japanese Government said that about $1 billion of the accounts receivable have gone unpaid past their due dates, some by as much as 12 months.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article6978828.ece
You just never know the costs until you dig; any project where costs are claimed to fall from €4bn to €2bn must be considered likely to attract the risks listed above.
There is nothing in the City Centre that can’t be served by extending Luas to Ballymun.
As conclusively proven on this thread the numbers are predicated on Swords growing to 100,000 population and about 40% of ridership coming from park and ride sites. The park and ride sites can be built on the Northern line and Swords can be connected to Dart by extending the line from Malahide in effect creating capacity through grade seperation removing the need for crossing movements. The Airport can as proven by Irish Rail’s Dublin Rail Plan by served from the Northern Line. Metro North stacked up in the context of 100,000 housing units a year being built for the foreseable… Now that the foreseable has moved to about 15% of that the need to build over-specified solutions is thankfully past.
Once the interconnector is built there will be 4 development corridors; more than enough in these straightened times. I say review the project in 2025
@EIA340600 wrote:
It’s hard to think of a larger waste of money….other than maybe the WRC.
Metro North at least Metro West was overground so it would have cost a lot less
Why are you still there then?
Scared you might get a serious kicking elsewhere?
There is nothing idiotic about wishing to see a continuity of connectivity; particularly when same would be revenue enhancing.
More to the point how much money can be made from developing train parking spaces to put more of those lazy fat residents into flats. Have you ever looked at the connectivity between Clontarf Road Station and Eastpoint Business Park one of the largest commercial schemes in the country? It is seperated by a road, scrubland and a driving school.
Lazy fat residents as you put them are a large constituency who pay a premium to get the best transport connections; it’s called efficient living.
Hamster
I’ve no idea where you commute to but suspect that if it were Tara St you would find the change to the proposed re-routing inconvenient. No doubt the DART Underground needs to be built and that the route is spot on. However you still have the issue that the five dart stations between Killbarick and Clontarf Road will not connect with what are 2 of the 3 busiest existing DART stations namely Tara St and Connolly.
The solution is very simple make outer commuter trains stop at Clontarf Road; possibly reconfigure Clontarf Road to accomodate 2 twin sided platforms and 4 tracks. This may necessitate the relocation of the Fairview depot to say north of Malahide but the value created by developing that site would more than pay for it. It would be such a simple project it could be looked at in parallel to the Dart Underground project.
I would have agreed pre-integrated ticketing; people everywhere hate paying for a single journey from point A to point B twice. If the connections are smooth you just get on with it; however if you are walking for 10 minutes underground it is certainly a lot less appealing. If you get off one train and another arrivers at the same platform 2 minutes later it is bearable or if the walk behind ticket barriers takes 2-3 minutes and is in the main done on escalators it is ok. Ensuring that people continue going in roughly the right direction also helps.
I’d go even further to say that once intergated ticketing is finally introduced that those using Connolly will probably in the main be better off with a switch to Docklands as the majority of users probably either work in the North Docklands and will have a shorter walk or use Luas and as such will be more likely to get a seat on Westbound Luas at peak times once the Northern Line and Maynooth Line commuters board at a later station.
For Tara Street the situation is less beneficial in particular those in the area between Tara Street and College Green. The core concept driving transport in the central area has to be to connect the maximum number of high density office locations within five minutes walk of a train station that can be accessed with no more than one change.
Whether passengers change from a Dart to a diesel train or a Dart to a Luas is irrelevant but keeping it simple and walking distances down to 5 minutes is vital. I think using the outer commuter fleet to preserve the existing Dart service to Tara St / Connolly is worth looking at along with possibly terminusing a large number of Northside buses using the Howth and Malahide Roads at an interchange at Clontarf Road is definitely worth a look.
