admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Just days to go until the Garden & Landscape Designers Association’s 2011 seminar.
Roisin Heneghan, James Doyle, Hugh Ryan & Tom Stuart-Smith – It promises to be a welcome day of inspiration & escapism.
A couple of tickets remain, if you fancy it, contact the GLDA office to book your place.
Phone: 01 294 0092
Email: info@glda.ie
Web: http://www.glda.ieHope to see you there,
Peter Fitzpatrick.Forgive me if I am a little out of date its been a few years since I was down this way; but assuming limited if any progress in the interim; then Nicholas Street really needs a total refurb; I can understand why it was defered as pre tunnel the street was one of the more popular routes with trucks going from the N7 to N18; the first thing you would want to see is a 7.5 tonnes weight limit save as for access. The second thing you would want to see are tax breaks on both the intital capital outlay and then the income derived from restored buildings for a period of 50 years; the third thing you would want to see are CPOs on buildings in poor condition if renovation or redevelopment (later buildings only) to a good standard were not commenced within 5 years from launch of the scheme as clearly any owner would with the benefit of extremely generous tax breaks be able to find a buyer.
This particular street is on a knife edge; on the one hand you have great proximity to the City Centre and the Castle and proximity to the river; equally not too far away you have reputational issues which certainly deter private sector investment. The intention of a well targeted urban renewal incentive programme is to give streets like this the tax advantage to overcome the private sector reluctance to invest; to my mind both optimism and caution on the part of investors are rational at this location hence why you need tax intervention to correct the balance. As one of the last reminants of Irelands great Medieval cites it is to be welcomed that the Minister for Limerick has by publicly at least propping up Biffo secured a grant for the castle; it is however only a belated tokenistic start; the wider area also requires assistance in the form of favourable tax treatment.
The figures speak for themselves; the June 2010 cost benefit analysis prepared by the RPA indicated that the maximum intra journey peak demand at 3,640 passengers; the November 2010 planning consent removed stations at Bellinstown & Lissenhall which added 666 passengers between them and as park and ride sites remote to the remaining route and closer to Donabate station than Swords are clearly now out of the picture; the figure of 3,640 was under the intermediate growth scenario allowing 2% year on year growth from 2010 to 2015. This gives a total remaining demand figure of less than 3,000 per hour ans a planning precendent that the line cannot be extended.
Also removed in the planning consent is Seatown stop with c 700 people or almost a quarter of the remaining passengers for which the further leakage to Dart at Malahide needs to be considered by independent transport consultants, not commissioned by the RPA but by the Dept of Finance. With 90m trams Metro North would only require a tram every 20 mins to meet demand; unlike Luas which with 43m trams which could with a tram capacity of 430 persons meet demand by running frequencies of every 8 and half minutes.
Allowing for growth is increasing Luas frequency from 8 mins 30 seconds to 4 minutes over the next 35 years. The fantasy is that a country unable to run its finances independent of the IMF can afford to spend €3bn on a system with a capacity of 20,000 intra journey hourly peak when the demand is less than 3,000 per hour allowing for future growth for 5 years and at that growth rate adequate for 35 years.
I have to laugh at the most recent responses from the Metro North proponents
Fantasy Luas
The Green line carries far more passengers than demand exists for Metro North as there is a higher population and commercial density on the Green Line
Drumcoundra
This suburb has had a rail station since the mid 1990’s it is one of the least used stations on the Irish Rail suburban commuter network
We can’t release the price for reasons of commercial sensitivity
It doesn’t stack up but like the M3 our small band of supporters want it so we’ll bury the economic analysis by hiding half the equation
Both Metro North and Dublin Underground will be built
The one that mattered was axed for the sub 3,000 per hour light rail line; the proven demand exists on Dart, it is standing on train platforms with 10 minute gaps between trains and getting onto complete crush loadings well beyond design capacity. Whilst it is proposed to waste €3bn plus on a system that only needs to run trams every 20 mins to meet its design capacity.
At the intermediate growth scenario rate Luas is adequate to accomodate 35 years of growth.
Luas = 6,000 per hour maximum intrajourney demand capacity
Metro North = less than 3,000 per hour maximum intrajourney demand
These are the RPA’s own figures…..
Airport passengers fall by 20pc
By Paul Meliahttp://www.independent.ie/national-news/airport-passengers-fall-by-20pc-2498825.html
Monday January 17 2011PASSENGER numbers at Dublin Airport fell by two million last year because of the recession, the volcanic ash crisis and the Big Freeze.
The Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) said last night that 18.5 million people used the airport in 2010, a drop of almost 20pc from the peak of 2008.
And the DAA defended the number of passengers using the €600m second terminal, T2.
Reports said yesterday that just 10 flights a day were departing from the new facility, despite a massive advertising campaign costing €500,000.
T2 is designed to handle up to 15 million passengers a year and was officially opened by Taoiseach Brian Cowen last November.
DAA spokeswoman Siobhan Moore said that five airlines would be using the terminal by the end of this week.
Continental Airlines, US Airways, Delta Air Lines, Etihad Airways and all Aer Lingus services to London Heathrow would be from T2, and 40pc of all passengers travelling from Dublin would be accommodated in the new terminal.
She added that US customs would be providing a full pre-clearance service from this week, and that final training and testing was being completed.
The DAA was keen to avoid the situation at T5 in London Heathrow where the baggage system failed on its opening day, causing chaos for thousands of passengers,
Dozens of flights were cancelled and planes were forced to depart half-empty, taking passengers with hand luggage only. The DAA said that extensive testing and staff training at T2 would avoid similar scenes here.
“It (T2) was always going to be introduced on a phased basis. We were conscious of what happened in T5. There was an extensive process of trialling and it’s a massive operation. We’ve been working very closely with the airlines and handling agencies and a lot of training needed to be done.
“Airlines are moving their operations in on a phased basis. Ryanair will be the anchor tenants in T1 and they’re the biggest customer in Dublin Airport followed by Aer Lingus. Sixty per cent of flights will depart from T1, and 40pc from T2.
“We’ve always said that T2 is for the future. There’s a downturn in the economy, but the reason we built it was because in 2006, 2007 and 2008 it was dreadfully congested in T1 and there were huge complaints.”
New figures from the DAA also show that passenger numbers plummeted last year.
In 2008, some 23 million people used the airport, which fell to 20.5m in 2009.
Preliminary results for 2010 show that 18.5 million passengers came through Dublin. The recession and grounding of flights during the exceptionally cold weather of January and December last year, coupled with the volcanic ash crisis in April and May, led to the fall-off.
Last week, the Irish Aviation Authority said that 513,236 flights travelled through Irish airspace last year, a 3pc drop on 2009 but 14.5pc down on the peak of 2008.
It expected an increase of 6.5pc for commercial traffic this year.
– Paul Melia
Irish Independent
Less than 3,000 passengers per hour at intrajourney peak; Luas capacity is 6,000 per hour, when will the penny drop on this white elephant?
FF stuffing quangos with cronies during its last days in office – Ministers appoint party insiders to roles on key state boards
By Nick Webb and Shane Ross
Sunday January 16 2011
THE Fianna Fail-led Government is stuffing quangos and state boards with political cronies and insiders in its last weeks of office.
In an unprecedented spree of patronage, ministers have appointed Fianna Fail councillors and supporters to often lucrative part-time boardroom positions.
In the last two weeks, a series of appointments has been rubberstamped by ministers.
Leitrim FF councillor Mary Bohan has joined the board of the Health and Safety Authority, which paid its board members €97,067 in 2009. She was also appointed by Fianna Fail to the Central Fisheries Board and has served, unpaid, on the Fire Services Council.
Donegal FF councillor David Alcorn has been appointed to the National Roads Authority, which paid its directors a total of €98,000 in 2008.
Former Louth Fianna Fail councillor and activist Pearse Hanrahan has been put onto the board of the Railway Procurement Agency, which paid its board members €13,000 last year.
Transport Minister Noel Dempsey — who is to stand down at the forthcoming General Election — appointed both men to the key infrastructure jobs.
Fianna Fail party trustee Rich Howlin was reappointed as chairman of the National Building Agency, which paid €11,970 last year. Mr Howlin, a trustee of the party since 1993, is a former director of Coillte. Financier and Fianna Fail loyalist Dan McGing was appointed as chairman of the Drug Treatment Centre Board. The former ACC banker was once the party’s auditor.
Former Progressive Democrat local-election candidate Rita Hayes has been put on the board of the National Treatment Purchase Fund with a three-year term. Board members are paid €7,695.
Ms Hayes was appointed to the post by her former Progressive Democrat constituency colleague Mary Harney.
Former Fianna Fail spin doctor Jackie Gallagher is one of the ministerial nominees to join the board of Trinity College. The post is unpaid.
Some 291 plum jobs on state boards are to be filled by ministers by the end of February as the Government bestows its final gifts to its supporters before the expected decimation in the General Election.
Fianna Fail is utterly shameless when it comes to appointing party cronies to state boards.
In recent years, former Fianna Fail general-secretary Pat Farrell has been appointed to the boards of the Health Service Executive, VHI and Dormant Accounts Board.
Former Fianna Fail senator Aidan Eames sits on the board of An Bord Gais, which paid him €11,753 in 2009. He was appointed to the board of the nationalised Anglo Irish Bank last year.
Former FF Agriculture Minister Joe Walsh was appointed by Finance Minister Brian Lenihan to BoI. He is chairman of the bloodstock quango Horse Sport Ireland. The board of the ESB includes former FF councillor Gary Keegan, while the loss-making Dublin Airport Authority has former FF minister Gerry Collins on its board.
CIE’s board includes Paul Kiely, one of Bertie Ahern’s closest allies, as well as Neil Ormond, who comes from a staunch Fianna Fail background.
But Fianna Fail is not alone in this regard. Progressive Democrat party trustee Brendan Malone has also served on the boards of the Dublin Docklands Authority and the Railway Procurement Agency, while another former party loyalist, Paul Mackay, sits on the board of the IDA.
The Green Party has also seen a number of key insiders parachuted on to state boards during its term in office.
– Nick Webb and Shane Ross
The last days of Saigon…..
By increasing the population of towns it makes it a lot harder not to retain essential community assets such as fire and police stations and when the health sector gets reformed primary healthcare centres.
In terms of townscapes I fully agree that this will happen for the reason that unlike the bubble years you will not with the exception of maybe 10 large new towns / major inner city regeneration schemes see phases of 100 houses / flats delivered at a time in individual phases; how many developments of 300 plus units were sold off plans in their entirity before the first units were delivered? This will not happen becuase developments on this scale will probably be sold in tranches of 10% yoy so that design standards will need to be much higher as the consumer will see how eacwith the exception of the first phase see how each subsequent phase looks in reality vs renders and more critically the build quality.
Higher standards will have higher build cost making it vital that a floor is put under land price market to allow for higher quality.
There is a once in a generation opportunity to change the nature of the residential housing industry by changing
1. One off houses to edge town zoned land; closer to essential services
2. Commuter belt development from frenetically developed 1980’s South East of England type estates to 21st century townscapes
3. New towns / large urban regeneration to be plugged into new transport infrastructureIntel will invest $500 million in Irish plantExplore related topics
Pharmaceuticals Intel Corporation Story Quotes Comments Screener (3) Share Yahoo! Buzz
By Quentin Fottrell
DUBLIN (MarketWatch) — U.S. computer technology and manufacturing company Intel Corp. /quotes/comstock/15*!intc/quotes/nls/intc (INTC 21.08, -0.21, -0.99%) will begin work on a two-year, $500 million upgrade of its Irish research and development plant in Leixlip just outside Dublin, the Irish government announced Saturday.The news comes at a time when Ireland’s economy is in the grip of an economic and financial crisis, with unemployment once again in double-digits in percentage terms, and a general election due in March for the embattled Fianna Fail-led government.
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said the investment will support 850 construction jobs as well as 200 new high-skilled employees in Ireland and called the announcement by the U.S. company a “watershed moment” for Intel’s relationship with Ireland.
“Intel’s investment demonstrates that Ireland remains a competitive location for advanced manufacturing,” Cowen said. “This is a cornerstone of the smart-economy strategy which recognizes that manufacturing will play a fundamental part in our economic future.”
Ireland jealously guards its 12.5% corporate tax rate, a major attraction for multinationals, but there are concerns among businesses here it may be threat after Ireland agreed to a EUR67.5 billion European Union-International Monetary Fund rescue package. Ireland will contribute an additional EUR17.5 billion to the EU/IMF deal.
Cowen said, “The government remains committed to providing a stable and competitive location for foreign direct investment, while also investing in R&D and innovation, thereby ensuring that major international companies like Intel continue to create jobs in Ireland.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-will-invest-500-million-in-irish-plant-2011-01-15That now strengthens the case for Dublin Underground which this government shelved for the Metro North vanity project. It is however at IDA level a deal that they can be very proud of and could not have come at a better time to get Sarko off his box and back into it.
Agreed on the picture generally and the Garmin signage in particular; I would go further to say that proper a post code system would make life a lot easier to get around; who needs signs when you can print out a map which you know to consult when you reach a particular point having been directed there by sat nav or rail station or bus stop name highlighted on a bus display.
Internet mapping really does work so well where a proper postcode system exists.
Its not like there aren’t bucket loands of graduates willing and able to work on such a project for a few months which could easily be recouped by a temporary .1c diesel levy to recoup costs and would clearly be surpassed by all the savings it would produce by making the logistics industry considerably more effecient; Mrs Bucket types deliberately giving a wrong suburb type to inflate their self importance are not a source of lost time to industry that is ever more competitive.
I understand what you mean, but my point is that you seem to be willing to sell the land now at a low price for relatively low density development instead of waiting for the market to recover and going for higher density development.
That means that land bought for a haircut price, but still over-valued possibly will be sold befroe its value has recovered.
Thats the financial end of it compromised.The financial end of it is already completely compromised; an Article in the IAVI in late 2004 titled “Faith, Hope and Charity” basically celebrated all that was wrong in Irish land markets, Faith being unlimited economic growth, hope being buying unzoned land at inflated values outside the development frontier and charity being the rezoning taking place; sadly there is enough zoned land in most locations to last 30 years at medium term development levels and in some for up to 100 years. I will outline below where I see higher density being appropriate and where the taxpayer should simply try to unwind the collosal losses currently consituting a massive hole on the Irish Banking sector following transfer to Nama which was inflicted by the “Faith, Hope and Charity” philosophy.
Then you’re proposing single dwellings on the land.
This is despite all best practice urging us to develop at higher densities.Probably 75% of the value is in holdings that will over the next 5 – 20 years be suitable for for higher density development; these lands must be retained for development on conventional developer led lines through masterplans such as Adamstown. The other 25% which should never have been rezoned if development plans were prudent should be divided up in to plots for sale; to put how small an mount of land we are talking about into context; at an eighth of an acre to make 3,500 plots available per year you are talking about less than 450 acres or 4,500 acres across 26 counties over a 10 year period. In total you are talking about slighly more than one third of total unit completion in 2007. With one off housing the equivelent number would be somewhere between 50,000 – 70,000 acres over an equivelent period.
To give effect ot this strategy, you are telling people [correct me if I’m wrong here] that they can only build on NAMA’d land.
I don’t think thsi strategy will fly.All zoned land can be built upon once the planners give FPP; it is simply to correct the situation where the country has completely over-zoned development land and yet government policy allows additional development on unzoned land. Does that not strike you as totally nuts?
NAMA’d lands are reassessed to see whether high density development is viable on them – then accord them that status.
I totally agree with this; hence the 75% retain : 25% alter asset sub-class proposal.
There is an embago on granting one off permissions on unservices and unzoned land remote from schools and amenities etc.
One off housing is only allowed on already zoned land, but not necessarily NAMA’d land.Agreed subject to local planning consent being forthcoming; this accomplishes the goals of reducing the over-hang of zoned land and the perception that development land has reached a maximum level that is being reduced and not that all land in the state is capable of development.
There is a risk that whatever strategy is adopted, costs will rise – in the sense that many of the above get the sites for little money because its their families’ agricultural land or because its unzoned, etc.
If it is zoned it is rightly or wrongly deemed fit for development; the market will find its own level and one would expect that in the context of a glut of development land on the market that prices will be reasonable; you may see site prices in Donegal or Leitrim at €25k for a site and in the hinterland of Dublin at €75k. Affordability is no longer the issue it was; a freind recently went to Barcelona to buy a flat; found one liked it; went to a bank and they declined the loan but said have a look at these 20 similar properties we will fund any of these which in the end he bought one of at a not disimilar price. Designing ones home is a privilage it is not a right and there is no question that there are plenty of existing homes available at very attractive prices.
My own views is that if NAMA’d land is to be used at all, even at this low price point, we should be seeking the highest possible densities commensurate with residential amenity and build them to the highest sustainable standard.
That way, even if the initial price is low, the quality of the built work and its “sustainability index” will be high.For the majority of lands this is appropriate particularly those driven by transport improvements i.e. Adamstown, Middleton etc which have seen substantial public transport improvements. The disposal prices in some locations will be only a small part of the equation; take a site sold for €25k in an area where valuers attribute nil value; that is a gain of €25k to the exchequer, apportion a €100k build cost; €13,500 in vat; €10,000 in professional fees which at least €3k will be paid in income tax. Add in a builder who earns €40k and pays €10k tax as opposed to taking €20k in benefits . That is a net €71,500 to the exchequer.
The current scenario sees sites in Donegal at €45k and Sallins at €185k with probably much of the design work done as nixers, without PI cover in many cases. Ask your self the question do you want a floor under the real estate market, do you want everything in the open or do you want a free for all with most of the action in the shadows?
The idea behind NAMA was to take all large scale property loans off the banks balance sheet; when the initial due diligence samples were taken it was quickly realised that marking the loans to net present value would put the banks out of business; hence the flawed concept of ‘medium term value’ or in plain english what the loans may at some future point be worth when the market recovers closer to a more long term equilibrium position. Just to be clear this only relates to the development land portfolio and not the wider portfolio involving completed buildings and property investments which were in the main I understand marked to market.
The valuation of property is problematic at the best of times in that it relies entirely on comparable transactions to establish what a willing buyer may pay a willing seller having acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. In short no transactional evidence existed for the period late 2008 through mid 2010; that could prove that any transaction on any development land at the speculative extreme of the market; was in accordance with the principles of prudence in terms of buying into a massive supply overhang; or sellers acting prudently selling into a market where only fire sale offers were available. Outside prime city centres you probably could systematically apportion a nil value to virtually the entire NAMA commuter belt portfolio in its current use; i.e. to be sold for redevelopment by a professional developer.
Where the proposal I have is entirely different is that it involves changing the land use sub-class from medium scale professional developer holding to a semi finished product where consumers of ‘buy to occupy property’ could buy in accesible plot sizes which would be much smaller chunks than are currently available on zoned develpment land and then engage their own design team to convert from OPP to FPP and a place to call home. It is about taking an asset sub-class where there is no demand and altering the subject properties to one where demand can be created by turning off the most comparable supply which currently undermines the market to the extent of 35% of all planning consents granted.
Any clearer?
@goneill wrote:
Maybe representatives of groups of those clients, for example RIAI members in the case of RIAI Insurance Services, (only a broker I think, but still influential) should say that we as clients charging reasonable fees are not happy if they insure those who are charging ridiculously low fees.
The real problem here is that those that undercut to such an extent that they can’t resource the instruction are often those who don’t have insurance at all or such cheap insurance that the exclusions are so wide that sustaining a claim is near impossible.
There is no question that the ‘Grandfather Act’ is a complete dogs dinner; the sooner a workable system is enacted to ensure that the various levels from F to A are recognised and that it is required to gain and maintain membership of a body that checks essential items like insurance, CPD and client accounts the better.
To go from near zero regulation to an exclusive regime but letting a number of people through the gate with little or no checks was farcical and has clearly annoyed everyone from those with graduate qualifications through to those who completed their training through RIAI; I really hope this issue can be put back on the agenda into the next Dail.
there’s nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren’t allowed to do private work is there
The idea is basic restrict supply; ban one off houses; watch the oversupply on the market see all demand directed towards it. Negative equity will persist until such time as the over-supply is drained down.
The idea on making large sites available is a carrot for those that cannot accept developer led product and feel the need to instruct their own design team; giving local agents copies of land registry maps with a basic road layout and an indicate plot carve up would cost very little money.
Why I wouldn’t go down this route is that I live in an apartment and will develop two houses next year as buy to let investments; an urban setting is always better for getting solvent tenants. I don’t expect everyone to live in the middle of a city; hence why I propose a choice for those who want a reasonable amount of space. Just not at the cost of adding further unwanted supply to a dramatically over supplied market.
@teak wrote:
Construction costs 1,500 per sq m;
house 200 sq m – build cost €300k –
cost of site 15 – 25% of build cost i.e. €50,000 – €75,000;
number of units 3,500 = range €175m – €262.5mThese figures are really nonsense, PVC.
However anxious you are and however strongly you feel on helping a resurgence in the economy, you have to do it with a coldly realistic head.Burtonport co Donegal http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=340742&search=1
If sites are quoted at €45k in locations like this; commuter belt can acheive those types of valuation as an absolute floor if residential development is limited to zoned land only in future.
@teak wrote:
A builder who can’t bring in a house for less than €100/sq ft (€80 for me) is going to be dog idle.
Houses like this will be nowhere near 200 sq m = 2,153 sq ft in size. 1,600 sq ft max more likly.You could be right on build cost being deliverable at a lower price; however taking something well built with a feature staircase; quality bathrooms and kitchen you could easily hit that number; whilst labour costs have fallen materials haven’t anywhere near as much and won’t because most of the World is well on the road to recovery.
@teak wrote:
None of the one-off house people could — nor would — pay €50,000 – €75,000 for a village plot.
Moving into Sallins a single site is quoted at €185k http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=396198
Yes the site is bigger but the price is equivelent to 1/4 acre sites in the bubble years
Quality parcel of land extending to 4.25 acres / 1.72 hectares with good frontage being sold subject to planning permission to suitable applicants. This is a wonderful opportunity to acquire a beautiful property in a sought after setting.
One off house local FF mafia only need apply.
@teak wrote:
Don’t you know yet that most people building in the countryside are doing so with a site given to them by their families ?
They could not afford to buy sites market rates for such a site in the last 12 years — and have less chance now with cash being so scarce.The options for those ion a budget are simple; buy an existing house in a foreclosure, buy a house from a developer who is discounting heavily or buy a site from NAMA; if sites in Burtonport are €45k then the market will dictate what sites are worth. Take average couples combined earnings as being €80k; modest build cost for 1,500 sq ft at your rate of €100 per sq foot and add €50k for the site and with a 10% deposit the loan to earnings is only 2.25:1. With supply controlled going forward they are a lot more likely to have an asset that will at worst be stable in value.
@teak wrote:
Owning a site with PP gives them enough leverage (via the site’s collateral value) to raise a mortgage that might otherwise be beyond their ability. Local councillors understand this situation intimately.
They will never support an idea that would make it harder/longer for these people to start building their own house.
Not just for the family site owners but also for the sake of the small builders.I think looking at the way the country has been run for the last 10 years we need to focus on the national picture and not the Kilgarvin way of running a country. The deficit needs to be cut and anything from NAMA that comes in will ensure that national services such as education, healthcare and policing will face less painful cuts.
@teak wrote:
That aside, you are still having fantasies about getting 8 houses per acre of village edge land.
The demand – which is largely unsupported by building lobbies, of course – to have land near villages for allotments, non-GAA pitches, tennis courts – even cricket greens for villages holding a share of Indian/Pakistani/Aus/NZ/ZA immigrants – and pram walks has to be taken note of by local councillors also.Talking about master planned sites that equate to ‘New Towns’ such as the scale; I would fully agree with you; however the proposal is restricted to small holdings at the edge of existing towns no larger than 10 acres in size which would see a maximum of 80 houses not place much strain on a town with an existing population of 3,000 plus; these are all on lands that are effectively valued at nil. Bear in mind that developers were developing at 20 to the acre on similar sites only a few years ago; I would have more worry of the environmental lobby saying the densities are too low.
@teak wrote:
You have to realise that there is no quick asset-sale fix to our national property blowout.
The collapse of demand for property is largely now down to the high numbers of unemployed.
Getting people jobs has to come first before the property market, the new car market, the retail market or any other secondary sector of the economy.87% of the population are still working; I know in the built environment field u/e is significantly worse than most sectors and it often feels like we have fallen off a cliff. However for those working for large successful companies many of them have never had it so good; wages in line with where they were 5 years ago but prices significantly cheaper. I am not saying for a second that we will hit medium term average output of 40,000 units inside the next 5 years.
What I am saying is that a significant factor undermining the market is that a planning free for all is removing 35% of actual demand at a time when confidence is in real trouble; if the 35% of demand going into one off houses were paying down loans it would eat into the supply over-hang which is keeping the market in a perilous state. You simply cannot create 3,500 new permissions each year on unzoned land without removing other supply if you want to see a sustainable recovery.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
I see you’ve invented another canard to perpetuate your opposition to Metro North. However, if you are willing to use the business case of MN to justify your position, you have to accept all of it in order to be consistent. The business case, even with your “half-Luas capacity” patronage, finds a BCR of 1.55:1 for the project in narrow terms and 2:1 in broad terms. So regardless of how many people get on at what stop the project as a whole makes sense and will reap us significant economic return ergo we should proceed with it.
The RPA figures speak for themselves 3,640 maximum intra journey demand; less 666 for Bellinstown and Lissenhall give less than 3,000; Seatown with 700 plus passengers also axed. Luas with a capacity of 6,000 per hour has almost 3 times the capacity of the existing demand which underpin those cost benefit analysis which were compiled in the same manner as the one for the M3 and Limerick tunnel which will cost the exchequer €100m due to traffic levels not hitting the ‘minimum base levels’
Address current projections based on the revised project.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
If Metro North is dropped, as you so crazily hope, then that is the end of any plans for any rail line of any kind connecting the city centre to the airport and city centre for the next 20 years. They will not suddenly adopt Luas as an alternative to Metro North like you suggest, it will be completely dropped and the only discussion about rail links to the airport will be in transport engineering lectures in DIT. Even if it does come back on the agenda 20 years’ hence, it will take more than 10 years to build due to our byzantine planning process. This means that Dublin, unique amongst European capital cities, will not have a rail link between its airport and the city centre. It would also mean that, again, the people of Ballymun would be denied the rail link they have been promised since the 1960s. It would also mean that Swords continues to suffer with a sub-standard bus service which breaks down at the first signs of snow.
It doesn’t have to be this way and, hopefully, by the end of this year, it won’t be as Metro North will have cleared all obstacles and be set for boring in 2012.
No; a Luas line can go back to planning and have consent within 3- 4 years. That is just scaremongering.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
It’s not just an airport link! It’s a completely new public transport corridor which will get people to and from the airport quicker and cheaper than Aircoach and a lot more besides. On top of that, don’t be so Anglocentric – Metro North will bring us into line with what Copenhagen, Vienna and Amsterdam enjoy in terms of time taken to get from the city centre to the airport. That’s the standard we should be aiming for.
I also see you completely ignored my point about what will inevitably occur if we drop Metro North. It’ll go the same way as the 3-line DART proposed in the DRRTS in 1975. There will not be an immediate search for a Luas alternative. People will be condemned to our slow and inefficient bus service which keeps commuters car bound in our city. The €3 billion we’ll “save” will quickly be eaten up by the costs of congestion across the northside of the city.
A transport corridor whose stations with consent produice just over a third of the capacity of a Luas line at peak times.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
That is not what the map says; it also lists unsegregated light rail. The Luas proposal for Ballymun was government policy until 1997 it is therefore credible.
Oh yes it is, the map clearly shows a METRO line running through Ballymun to the airport, not a Luas line. Luas to Ballymun was government policy until it was realised that it was insufficient. This was around 2000 and this change of thinking is reflected in the PfC ergo your fantasy Luas line died back in 1999.
http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf
The map at p30 is pure fantasy; an underground to Tallaght from Tara St via Finglas in addition to another underground metro to Tallaght via Kimmage and another underground netro to Lucan via Bluebell. That document was the most crayonic exercise in the history of the state even more so that Martin Cullen’s road map.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
Ask anyone what their preference is between an on street tram or an underground and unless they intend to use it will say underground;
Utter rubbish. The RPA has conducted extensive consultation on Metro North with the residents of Ballymun. They originally proposed elevated rail through Ballymun as this was seen to be the cheapest means of building the line through the area. However the locals objected on the basis that the rail line would create an area where anti-social behaviour would develop. Similar concerns were expressed about an on-street line. It was therefore decided to create a cut-and-cover tunnel through that area for Metro North to address these concerns. If we were to go with your fantasy Luas line then they’d be on to An Bord Pleanála like a flash and their objections would force you to put the Luas underground. However we’d then be putting a low capacity line underground, not a high capacity Metro. It’s things like this which make me feel your proposed Luas line would fail a CBA and therefore be rejected by Cabinet.
No disrespect but you obviously have no experience of underground if you think an underground is safer than an on street system; regardless of peoples perceptions the reality is that stations create more anti-social behaviour than Luas platforms because the entrances provide a focal point to congregate as opposed to open access platforms. Regardless of the views in berties boomier Dublin; the city and country cannot afford to build an underground due to the misinformed views on anti-social behaviour.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
The way you go on you’d swear it’d just be one man and his dog on the metros going from Stephen’s Green to Swords. The fact is that cities with lower populations and lower population densities than Dublin also have underground Metro lines which are well-patronised. Another fact is that DART and Commuter rail services are in huge demand in the same Dublin through which metros will travel. They had to double capacity on the DART service to keep pace with demand as people responded to its high-speed, high capacity nature. Add to this that the 90m metros will have only 2/3rds the capacity of a DART train and there is no doubt that metros will be packed once they start running.
The capacity with stations as sanctioned is about a third of a Luas line. with those loadings one 90m Luas every 20 mins would satisfy peak demand.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
When the RPA can’t get demand above half that of a Luas line capacity then what other conclusion can you draw other than nice idea but unaffordable when the IMF are running the country
Well since Metro North is included in the four year plan which was agreed with the EU and IMF, then they mustn’t have had any problems with proceeding with this project which has a positive CBA.
The 4 year plan which was put together on the back of a cornflake box was brtoad brushstrokes; all it proves is that they are ok with one project of that size not that it has to be a Luas line that will have usage of less than a sixth of its design capacity.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
They had a finalised route in 2004 but decided to change it as you well know to include a stop at Inchicore and only tunnel from there. That was a self-imposed delay by CIÉ and it results in their project being significantly behind that of Metro North. The way it’s looking, it could be 2013 before we have to think about the boring of DART underground which would almost be outside the bounds of the four-year plan. In any case, the track works around the tunnel are expected to continue so we can start on Metro North now and do DART underground later.
They did not sit on the idea for 5 years until 2009 before changing their route at the last second; they were not given the funds until about 2007/08 to undertake detailed design. You can’t spend €3bn just because it is the project that is first in the former ministers pecking order. Dart Underground is an opportunity cost that Luas North can’t pay; like Anglo its bankraupt.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
A lot of Spanish names in there; I can’t see Spanish banks doing anything other than defending their balance sheets in the context of Portugal looking like it will be IMF’d within the next 2 weeks and Spain then being lined up for the CDS tug of war that will define the Euro’s future. Barclays private equity probably won’t do it; leaving Mitsui as the only credible player; will they still build it for nothing?
Well given that the consortium has spent millions on bidding for this project and will be looking to sign the contract to build the line this year, it is highly likely that yes, all parties to the consortium would like to build it.
A consortium may have spent up to 5% of the project value on initial design and pitching; they still need to raise the other 95% of finance; in this climate would you lend money to a Spanish construction firm to build an Irish Government project that will lose a lot of money operationally; at an attractive rate of interest? I’d rather buy Hungarian debt……
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
Celtic Metro Group
MetroExpress (Global via Infraestructuras S.A., Macquarie Capital Group Ltd, Allied Irish Banks p.l.c. and Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) UK Ltd). Contacts for the consortia listed on RPA website.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
So it is actually funded by a nationalised bank; the more you look at this project the more it is a complete fiction.
Oh yes, a complete fiction which has its railway order, a complete fiction whose enabling works budget has been granted, a complete fiction which, after a few procedures will get the go-ahead in the Summer of this year. What’s a complete fiction is your fantasy Luas line.
Well I’ve news for you; the proponents of the fantasy Luas line will be in Government in a few months time and AIB will be 99% owned by the taxpayer; €3bn isn’t going to happen.
@onq wrote:
Okay, time for a reality check here.
Once off houses may represent 30% of the housing market, but essentially these are two storey developments with around 30% site coverage and a plot ration of less 0.5 : 1
To get any really decent return on the land you need your plot ratio up at a multiple of your site – 3.5 to 5 :1
With 50% site coverage and a plot ration of 5:1 to one that’s a ten storey tower – now ye’re talkin’!
ONQ.
I would roughly calclulate an acre as 4,166 sq m and allow 516 sq m for roadway/ paths, planting etc; each plot would therefore be 450 sq m; which I would configure in plots of 15m frontage and 30m depth; this would allow 8m for a front garden / driveway; 12m depth assumed build area of 180sq m or say 165 sq m when circulation is allowed for at ground with a smaller first floor of 135 sq m.
This would be a site coverage of 0.367 and a plot ratio of 0.66. Taking private open space requirements at 25 sq m per bed room the site with 285 sq m of private open space would have enough space for an 11.66 bedroom house to give a true sense of rus en urbe. To address town densities a certain portion of any holding of this size could be retained to construct higher density units down the line when a solid floor has been put under the market and lending is back to normal levels.
In terms of return; the state is well protected on most of this land in that whilst the banks lent about €1m per acre on it the book value of it at purchase was probably a discount of 70% of that costs if that OR €300,000 per acre; if the state sold 8 plots at an average of €50,000 after roads were put in then €400,000 would be the net return or put another way any net price above €37,500 after legal and agents fees breaks even from the component of the portfolio where analysts have pencilled in a near 100% loss of acquisition costs.
One stroke of a pen to get rid of 3,500 plots a year; and no over dependence on any individual holding should land be made available on the edge of every town where NAMA has holdings; which as we know from the Ghost Estate map is just about everywhere outside Tehran.
@teak wrote:
If this became government policy, it would clearly inhibit the granting of PP by planning officers to people who own a plot (naturally still zoned agricultural) in the countryside.
Functionaries need clear lines of decision-making.
I think that they’d end up making it harder for people with a desire to “go country”.In no other country in Northern Europe can you simply build a house in the middle of the country unless you are a farmer; if you work in a town you are urban and your needs need to reflect that unless you wish to purchase an existing house in the country.
@teak wrote:
1/8 acre plots would be lucky to get €25,000 right now.
That is the exact problem and why the market is so weak; there is no value attached to a planning consent; a house in an entirely unsuitable location 3 miles from anywhere has a similar value to a site at the edge of a town where development is suitable. By creating a clear set of rules the market can discount to agricultural values land of that class and apply residential values in a safer fashion without a third of all demand being new supply on unzoned land.
@teak wrote:
Please explain how you get the handsome figure of €200 million per annum.
Construction costs 1,500 per sq m; house 200 sq m – build cost €300k – cost of site 15 – 25% of build cost i.e. €50,000 – €75,000; number of units 3,500 = range €175m – €262.5m
@teak wrote:
I’ve got nothing against more construction action if there is demand for it.
But investment in productive (and employment-generating) enterprise seems to me to be a better way — you get the money to swirl around through more people that way.
And, frankly, once you get outside of Ireland whose finance lenders seem both intoxicated by their own importance and deluded in their valuation of real estate, it is easier to raise capital for good manufacturing ideas.When the state has purchased loans with a face value of €77bn it is not like you can just write it off; the state needs to recover its money; it is worth holding land that will have a real value such as large city centre development sites such as the Opera Centre in Limerick or Liam Carrolls holdings in North Wall into the medium term; when you are holding a landbank where an average of a €1m per acre was paid for land that could only be described as wildly speculative; you need to get a return from it; in this case by carving it up into a new class of land; sites with OPP to give people the freedom to engage a designer and select their own construction team. Unlike tenanted commerical property land doesn’t pay much rent if any; with most of this land if this isn’t its use there will not be a use for decades.
The choice is simple does the taxpayer need to be forced to hold land it doesn’t want just to allow people to build in places they would not have been allowed to in any other northern European state; each one off built removes demand for one NAMA site except in very specific circumstances.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
As I said to you before, the RPA under-estimates demand all the time. They had to lengthen the trams on the Luas to meet the demand the RPA didn’t foresee along the routes of the Red and Green Line. The same will happen with Metro North as people flock to a high-capacity, very reliable and rapid rail transport. Luas isn’t future-proofed, it’s jampacked at the minute and has very little spare capacity just 6 years after being completed. If we were to build your fantasy Luas line then it too would be packed in less than a decade and then we’d have to build Metro North anyway because the trams would be too full. What you’re proposing is the rail equivalent of the two-lane M50. Build a lukewarm shadow of what’s needed and then build what is needed 10 years later at twice the cost.
According to the proponents of the scheme in their most recent cost benefit analysis the true demand is less than 3,000 allowing for moderate growth; why would you develop a system with a 20,000 capacity when growth is predicted at 2% p.a. Forget 2004 a set of initial demand figures when the eastern European floodgate opened; the migration is now in the opposite direction. Whatever way you spin it a maximum demand figure of 3,000 intrajourney per hour cannot justify a €3bn capital spend.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
If Metro North is dropped, as you so crazily hope, then that is the end of any plans for any rail line of any kind connecting the city centre to the airport and city centre for the next 20 years. They will not suddenly adopt Luas as an alternative to Metro North like you suggest, it will be completely dropped and the only discussion about rail links to the airport will be in transport engineering lectures in DIT. Even if it does come back on the agenda 20 years’ hence, it will take more than 10 years to build due to our byzantine planning process. This means that Dublin, unique amongst European capital cities, will not have a rail link between its airport and the city centre. It would also mean that, again, the people of Ballymun would be denied the rail link they have been promised since the 1960s. It would also mean that Swords continues to suffer with a sub-standard bus service which breaks down at the first signs of snow.
It doesn’t have to be this way and, hopefully, by the end of this year, it won’t be as Metro North will have cleared all obstacles and be set for boring in 2012.
Dublin City Centre is 25 minutes by Aircoach from the airport; Heathrow to Oxford Circus cannot be done in less than 40 mins and that assumes you hit everything on the nail. The passenger loadings are Luas so should the specification be.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
Lucan via Bluebell was actually going to be Luas, not Metro actually, and the RPA has fleshed this out with the Luas Line F proposal. The certainly do call for a Metro line from Shangannah to the Airport and Swords, but the map clearly indicates that what they were proposing was a lot heavier than a Luas line. If they were proposing a Luas line then it would be indicated on the map as other Luas lines are charted there too. This illustrates that the DTO abandoned any Luas line to the airport proposal and upgraded this to a Metro. Therefore these transport exports disagree with you and your fantasy Luas line.
That is not what the map says; it also lists unsegregated light rail. The Luas proposal for Ballymun was government policy until 1997 it is therefore credible.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
You also need to consider Ballymun. The local residents have expressed a clear preference for an underground rail line through their area. You would also need to go underground at the airport because you couldn’t have trams criss-crossing the apron. You also need to consider the need for grade separation around Swords which requires sections of elevated rail and cut-and-cover tunnels. This is all manageable when we’re building a railway line with 17,000 maximum capacity, another story when we’re doing it for your low capacity fantasy Luas line. And don’t tell me that the demand doesn’t exist there for a Metro line.
Ask anyone what their preference is between an on street tram or an underground and unless they intend to use it will say underground; that does not address a rationale on a cost benefit basis. The airport needs a limited amount of tunnel and the only location on the route where you can justify an underground station; Swords with the M1 built now has the road space to accomodate Luas. The design capacity is actually 20,000 the demand less than 3,000.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
The way you go on you’d swear it’d just be one man and his dog on the metros going from Stephen’s Green to Swords. The fact is that cities with lower populations and lower population densities than Dublin also have underground Metro lines which are well-patronised. Another fact is that DART and Commuter rail services are in huge demand in the same Dublin through which metros will travel. They had to double capacity on the DART service to keep pace with demand as people responded to its high-speed, high capacity nature. Add to this that the 90m metros will have only 2/3rds the capacity of a DART train and there is no doubt that metros will be packed once they start running.
When the RPA can’t get demand above half that of a Luas line capacity then what other conclusion can you draw other than nice idea but unaffordable when the IMF are running the country.
@Cathal Dunne wrote:
Martin Cullen and Noel Dempsey did not slow down the DART Underground project, it’s due to CIÉ incompetence that it’s taking so long. They originally proposed starting the tunnel at Heuston and boring from both ends. This changed when they added in Inchicore and decided to only bore from that end. They themselves imposed the delay when they changed the plans for DART Underground. Noel Dempsey only found out about the delay through the media. The point remains that DART Underground has only begun the railway order process, Metro North has one, CIÉ has only begun the tendering process, Metro North will have finished that by the Summer. MN is shovel ready, DART Underground is not and therefore should get the priority over the next year. Once DART Underground is finished its preliminary work by 2013, we should proceed with it too.
It is well known the CIE were not given the resources to design the DART underground project on demand; the project had a finalised route in 2004 but took many years to receive the resources. For the entire period until the IMF’s arrival the public were completely misled into believing both projects were fully funded; when it mattered DART underground was not funded and a route with a demand of 3,000 maximum hourly intra journey demand was funded to a capacity of almost 7 times what is required.
Celtic Metro Group (Barclays Private Equity Ltd, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Grupo Soares da Costa S.G.S. S.A., Obrascon Huarte Lain and Iridium Concesiones de Infraestructuras, S.A),
A lot of Spanish names in there; I can’t see Spanish banks doing anything other than defending their balance sheets in the context of Portugal looking like it will be IMF’d within the next 2 weeks and Spain then being lined up for the CDS tug of war that will define the Euro’s future. Barclays private equity probably won’t do it; leaving Mitsui as the only credible player; will they still build it for nothing?
Celtic Metro Group
MetroExpress (Global via Infraestructuras S.A., Macquarie Capital Group Ltd, Allied Irish Banks p.l.c. and Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) UK Ltd). Contacts for the consortia listed on RPA website.
So it is actually funded by a nationalised bank; the more you look at this project the more it is a complete fiction.
@teak wrote:
I see nothing wrong with self-generation in rural areas.
The appearance of the turbine need not be as ugly as some existing ones.
The argument that you give on creating a false market is not really all of the story.
Many of us would say that the existing electricity market is patently false in terms of unit prices. I think these would drop for everyone,especially those industrial users of close to wind generators, had we only better energy planning and more control over the ESB.
Saving carbon (and a lot of other more dangerous SOx & NOx) emissions from Moneypoint may be cheaper to the national economy than saving it from the burps of our national animal — upon whom the livelihoods of maybe 200,000
households directly depend . . .For turbines to be effective they have to be of such a significant scale that you couldn’t live beside one or within hundreds of meters of one such is the noise they emit; I have no objection to farmers building wind turbines outside areas of outstanding natural beauty or important bird habitats. What I am against is the site farming industry; which leads to largely urban dwellers buying sites with or without planning consent and producing significantly more carbon in a year by their extended commute than any token windmill would produce in 1,000 years.
@teak wrote:
I do not think that acceptance of people’s right to live in a rural area will cause failure to a scheme of NAMA plot sales along the lines indicated by you because the price of these plots would be much cheaper.
People with the desire to have a healthy home environment without the squinting windows of neighbours will pay an extra premium.
A possible issue not raised is design harmony amongst the various new home built on the same area of land.
Left to the individual homesteaders, it is likely that there would be a lot of different shapes and sizes of homes (designed by some local “builder’s draughtsman”) with little relation between them and no coherent landscaping plan for the whole scheme. I don’t want to deny anyone design freedom or their right to hire whoever they want but some lines have to be drawn for
the landscaping at least .Nobody is proposing to stop anyone from purchasing an existing dwelling in a rural area, or any farmer from building a new house on their farm. The aim of the policy is to see the supply input in the housing market restricted to only land considered suitable for development by professional planners as being possible to develop unless the applicant works the land. To ensure that people that want to self build continue to have the ability to do so it is proposed that NAMA make land available. The only losers in this are those that made a living from site farming i.e. securing consent to build and then selling the consent to a third party or those who bought unzoned land as opposed to zoned land for a multiple of its true worth as agricultural land.
The national interest dictates that the oversupply in the housing market is corrected; the economy is essentially mired in a property recession and having 30% of planning consents or real demand constituting new supply under those circumstances is gross economic mismanagement when one piece of legislation could net close to €200m p.a. to service the NAMA loanbook.
@Teak- Having never lived in a rural area is it common for country folk to live in a permanent state of mild paranoia ,assuming anyone who lives within earshot or spitting distance of a neighbour will ‘know all yer bizniss’.
I’m genuinely intrigued as it obviously has a material influence on spatial policy within our society in your view.
