Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Why?
Isn't that what the DTO have spent the last 10 years doing? Didn't they base Platform for Change on all this analysis which the government then based T21 on? Sounds like you want to pause everything pay millions on consultants reports on analysing traffic patterns then decide what to build. Jaysus we'd still be here in 2015 and nothing would be built. Mary O'Rourke how are ya!
Derek I really can't understand why you feel T21 will not make a difference. Remember the Interconnector/Dublin Rail Plan which P11 promoted so vigourously and you said many times in the media, on the airwaves and message board posts would make a huge difference to traffic congestion. Last time I looked that was part of T21, same with Metro North, P11 got practically everything it campaigned for and now you turn around and say it's an outdated concept 
It isn't all that long ago that Brennan was in charge. Back then there was no talk of interconnector and the Metro proposal was an unintegrated joke. The orbital metro was a nice idea but we all expected it to stay just that - an idea. Back then P11 had a lot to despair about. Now less than 3 years later these projects are all going ahead, not in the right order but at least they're going ahead. |
1.Metro north and west are outdated already by definition of whats being built in terms of road traffic patterns along the route.
2. The DTOs "studies" for platform for change are already 10 years old. PFC was released in 1996. They are currently engaged in "new" surveys of road commuting patterns. I don't make the decisions, I only comment on them.
3. The interconnector/DRP is only a part of T21. In fact it was there long before T21 was even mentioned. T21 is irrelevent in relation to it. You're confusing a "specific" plan with a "broad" plan. P11 only campaigned agressively for it when the Government decided on the lottery that was T21. Circa 2004. Don't confuse my opinion with that of P11, until P11 make a statement on it that may or may not be similar. This is only a forum for discussion.
4. P11 campaigned for the interconnector/drp and an improved metro in terms of integration. We got that to some extent. But my personal opinion remains that in an overall context, T21 is based on old outdated information, a myriad of long proposed projects and polictical games, to portray some kind of committment towards public transport from Government. None of which will achieve a system that delivers whast 21st century Dublin/Ireland need
Dave, if you like many others, wish to believe in T21 and its benefits, then so be it. Personally, I don't. I believe in the DRP. I believe in metro concepts north and west (but not in how they are being implemented) I support the extension of Luas, but believe that its being done on the basis of future development as opposed to existing development. (the RPA are heavily tied to future development in order to fund PPPs)
What I write here is my personal opinion and not that of P11. While I will make it known at committee level, its up to the committee as a whole to make a final decision.
For now, I am prepared to stand my ground on the fact that I believe T21 in its "rail" entirety, is badly planned,(recent analysis) a mish mash of previously announced projects, (navan, midleton etc.) a featurette of new projects (interconnector/DRP) and the inclusion of politically motivated projects such as the WRC.
With the exception of roads, the WRC and the Midleton line, the rest is based on Platform for change, a document from 1996. In 1996, I could drive the M50without much inconvenience during peak. Today, forget it.
Things have changed a lot in 10 years, so I'll be different and predict doom and gloom. If Im wrong, Im wrong. If Im right, nobody will notice and the game will go on.
Cynicism can be very negative yet very rewarding. Its the flip of a coin. I enjoy public transport history and the political side to it. There's a pattern. I can't be the only one to see it.
Enjoy the board Dave. Im only one of many. Thanks for your thoughts. Always appreciated.