|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 Posted by: KB, Glasgow on 11:07am Tue 19 Feb 08 Fab news - I just hope we look after it this time eg by keeping it clean, keeping smokers away etc etc. Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 11:08am Tue 19 Feb 08 If some of funding could be given to facade work around Govan village, a wee tidy-up. Where you'll find the free bus service to the hospital, then that would be jonick muckle. Posted by: jimm, scotland on 11:36am Tue 19 Feb 08 if there estimating £842m then by the time its finished you can double it/just like the scottish parliament building Posted by: People Power, Glagow on 11:54am Tue 19 Feb 08 And exactly where is the £842 million going to come from this time? We already have the mounting cost of the completion of the M74. Also - what alot of people are still unaware of is the A & E's accross Glasgow are all due to close - exept The Southern General - And - The Royal Infirmary. Meaning that many more people will end up using the Southern General & The Royal when these closures take place. I'd far rather go through the Clyde Tunnel to get to the Southern General - than cut accross a busy, city centre or M8 to get to The Royal Infirmary. Wonder what the paramedics make of the changes which are due to take place. As for the esimation of £842 million - try adding a further 1 - 2 hundred million on them. "Superhospitals" are a scary concept - and a legacy of Blairs rule, hardly something to be praised. All they will do is centralise our services further, making people have to travel further, and endangering lives - as 999 ambulance response times innevitably increase. Posted by: Judas, Glasgow on 12:05pm Tue 19 Feb 08 Posted by: Judas, Glasgow on 12:13pm Tue 19 Feb 08 Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 12:17pm Tue 19 Feb 08 This hospital will be built by the company that puts in the lowest tender (for lowest read rubbish materials )& can offer the best backhanders to officials..You can call me sceptical if you wish but before i used drugs, got clean & became a health worker i worked for a large building firm & that was & still is the standard operating procedure.. This will be a large black hole for tax-payers cash & a breeding ground for disease.. Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 12:38pm Tue 19 Feb 08 Even the name "Superhospital" - what utter guff! Why cant our council & government simply upkeep and run the existing hospitals we have. Its enough of a struggle keeping them free of germs, bugs and ward closures due to outbreaks. So, this superhospital plan, is an insult to the hard working staff of the struggling hospitals - like the Western Infirmary - which does it's best - but under the circumstances - is a dire, and depressing place to work, or be a patient within. Posted by: Richard Davis, Vienna on 12:51pm Tue 19 Feb 08 KB wrote:More important will money be available to staff it? Posted by: Maryhill Bill, Wyndford on 2:22pm Tue 19 Feb 08 The siting of the hospital is a huge mistake. Public transport to the hospital is very restricted. Only those with their own transport can get there. Another kick in the teeth for the poor. Posted by: Richard Davis, Vienna, Austria on 3:24pm Tue 19 Feb 08 Brilliant news just think of the car parking fees that could be charged for a 1109-bed adult hospital and a 240-bed children's hospital. Won't the visitors & patients be happy. Posted by: hightower, glasgow on 5:16pm Tue 19 Feb 08 A spokeswoman said: "For instance, consultant and junior doctors' rotas will become less onerous and therefore more cost-effective." - What exactly is this supposed to mean - maybe im stupid but i dont understand this concept - are there going to be even fewer docs on the wards cos thats a great idea. Also "Overheads will be slashed and there will be an unspecified cut in the numbers of nurses over the next six years. The health board says other major savings can be made." - this is exactly what this and the other hospitals need less nurses. Do the f*****g people in cahrge not realise that we need many many nore nurses and not less. The NHS can barely function as it is with current nursing levels. When are these people ever going to learn. Substantially reducing the number of managers would be a better start Posted by: hightower, glasgow on 5:17pm Tue 19 Feb 08 A spokeswoman said: "For instance, consultant and junior doctors' rotas will become less onerous and therefore more cost-effective." - What exactly is this supposed to mean - maybe im stupid but i dont understand this concept - are there going to be even fewer docs on the wards cos thats a great idea. Also "Overheads will be slashed and there will be an unspecified cut in the numbers of nurses over the next six years. The health board says other major savings can be made." - this is exactly what this and the other hospitals need less nurses. Do the f*****g people in cahrge not realise that we need many many nore nurses and not less. The NHS can barely function as it is with current nursing levels. When are these people ever going to learn. Substantially reducing the number of managers would be a better start Posted by: bluenose, glasgow on 5:21pm Tue 19 Feb 08 The best news on this is no PFI.it will be a public facility owned by the public . no more leasing for 25 years and making companies profitable at the expense of the public. also on an earlier point the escalating cost of M&$. If you had followed the story our government in Edinburgh negotiated a FIXED PRICE CONTRACT . unlike the last lot we are not now selling out to big business and for backhanders for cronies . Excellent News Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 7:07pm Tue 19 Feb 08 Bluenose, I see / hear what you are saying: If you had followed the story our government in Edinburgh negotiated a FIXED PRICE CONTRACT . But at the meer snip (NOT) of £842 million it is hardly good value for tax payers is it. And as Maryhill Bill says: The siting of the hospital is a huge mistake. Public transport to the hospital is very restricted. I fully agree with that point - Public transport at the moment to and into the Southern General Hospital is dire, and needs far more investment, if people i.e. (non car drivers!) from all parts of the city - especially the Southside are to be able to travel there. This is hardly value for money - this is daylight robbery, and what services and ameneties will Glasgow lose as a result. Cutbacks elsewhere will be innevitable! Posted by: upanattem, south side on 7:08pm Tue 19 Feb 08 Absolutely the worst location for any hospital period. It makes no sense to upgrade an already difficult-to-get-the re-from-anywhere facility. Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:29pm Tue 19 Feb 08 Well, you know why their not upgrading the Yorkhill / Queen Mothers or Western Infirmary sites! Despite their being in the easy to reach West End! (bus, train, Subway & car!) Way too much value in the land for selling off to Private housing developers. Prime sites like that must be worth a fortune - but you can bet the Council will be tight lipped about any long term plans here. . . . Posted by: Malcolm Green, Glasgow on 10:30am Wed 20 Feb 08 I find it curioous how many people think hospitals should be planned ans sited on the basis of how long it takes you to drive there. I thought hospitals were about making seriously ill folk well again. Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:53am Wed 20 Feb 08 Malcolm, I find it curioous how many people think hospitals should be planned ans sited on the basis of how long it takes you to drive there. I thought hospitals were about making seriously ill folk well again. That may well be the case for some - who aren't seriously ill enough in the first place, and are able to travel by car. Those who are unfortunate enough to need an ambulance haven't got that privilage - that is when the 8 minutes taget on reaching them, as well as the essential need to get them to hospital a.s.a.p. comes in. Not everybody are car drivers - and not all of us can afford ( nor justify) the parking fees charged at hospitals. This is why accessability is so important - so Malcolm ( if you are the retired Councillor, I think you are) go and join your Lib Dem / Labour cronies, and stop preaching the Labour line of justification for this "Super Hospital!" Posted by: A V Lowe, Glasgow on 5:50am Fri 22 Feb 08 £842m PLUS the cost picked up by those having to get to the new site totally inaccessible to the high number of Glasgow households without a car (65% in Anderston/City Ward) and what of staff displacement, and client population - 2/3 of area's people live North of the Clyde so whose brilliant idea was it to put their major hospital on the opposite side of the river in a location with possibly the worst level of PT access possible.
There is a location which can and should be used - College Lands, slap bang on the High Street and using the sterilised triangle of land which will be created when Crossrail eventually gets built. In this location linked to the Royal rather than Southern site there will not be an issue over car parking as the alternatives are in place - under £2 per day for a Zonecard measures up well against the capped £3/day for a parking space, and practically very part of Glasgow could be on a direct train route through High Street, Glasgow Cross or Bellgrove - it would also be under 15 minutes from Gartnaval via Hyndland (go on ET test the trips by train) and a staff travel scheme charging rail journeys top the Health Board should work out cheaper and with better coverage around the clock, than the current minibus shuttle. The Southern site fails miserably on environmental impact and social inclusion, with a potentially immense management problem being ignored - the high level of car use implied by choice of this site, and draconian measures which may be needed to restrain demand for parking spaces - or is that where the cost escalation is coming from? Once youi have to abandon open ground level car parks the cost escalates dramatically - the 1000 spaces at the Royal cost £7500 a shot and some multi-levels have cost over £30,000 per space, adn £500-£1000 per space per year uin running costs. Take those figures out of the price and see how the cost comes down..... |     |
 |
|
|
Copyright © 2009 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All
Rights Reserved Terms of Use |
Comment | Read Comments (20)
