Westlink toll bridge

DWCommuter

Straight forward question. When it came to construction, why didn't the Government of the day not apply for European Structural funds to build it, instead of farming it out to so called private enterprise?

ardmacha

I am sure that structural funds did aid the project, but they would never have paid for all of it.

Hagar

ardmacha wrote: »

I am sure that structural funds did aid the project, but they would never have paid for all of it.

It's probably safe to assume that the builders of the toll bridge didn't have the hard cash to build it either so they must have borrowed the money for the build. They then operated the bridge for a number of years, paying staff costs etc and still paid off the loan and made a tidy profit. The big question is why didn't the Govt do the same? Cynics might think that there was some some jiggery pokery with the handing out of the contract for this particular little goldmine. Not me, I have total faith in our leaders. They have never abused their office to line their, or their cronies, pockets. No sirree, not one single cent. Never. Nope. Definitely not.

ardmacha

Yes the government could have borrowed more cheaply. But in 1987, the ratio of public debt to GNP was 151%, there wasn't much support for more government borrowing.

The problem with the Westlink toll bridge was the contract, which made no provision for a the level of service in terms of queues etc and which ensured that the operator got all of the upside. This was such a bad contract that there have to suspicions as to why it was so bad. You can say that traffic growth was not foreseen, but if it was not expected then it should not have been a point of contention to add it to the contract!

Calina

It is my understanding that a piece of infrastructure co-funded by structural funds cannot be tolled. So I'm pretty sure that the M50 did not receive structural funding. As to why it might not have been requested, it is possible that at the time it was not seen as an essential piece of infrastructure from a structural funding point of view. It might be worth looking at the criteria by which structural funds are assigned. AFAIK, incidentally, the Jack Lynch tunnel in Cork was a recipient of structural funding and this is why it couldn't be tolled.

The initial expectation for the M50 was that it would be used by long haul transport only, ie, intraDublin traffic would not be using it. Given that - licks finger and holds it in the air - probably around 90% of the traffic on it is not long haul, someone got that terribly wrong. Net result: a lot more money coming in on the tolls a lot sooner than expected and NTR did very well out of the deal. No one would be complaining if all they got from the M50 was the the level of traffic that clears through the DPT on a day to day basis.

I will never understand why anyone thought that only long haul drivers would use it. Why it occurred to no one that people working in the city area would consider the toll, irritating as it is, worth it not to have to drive through the city if they were working on the outskirts or moving from north to south.

Wishbone Ash

Calina wrote: »

I will never understand why anyone thought that only long haul drivers would use it. Why it occurred to no one that people working in the city area would consider the toll, irritating as it is, worth it not to have to drive through the city if they were working on the outskirts or moving from north to south.

Possibly because, for a car driver in the 1980s, it was much easier to drive through the city - less traffic, no bus lanes, no cycle lanes, less one way systems, less 'no right turns' etc.

markpb

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Possibly because, for a car driver in the 1980s, it was much easier to drive through the city - less traffic, no bus lanes, no cycle lanes, less one way systems, less 'no right turns' etc.

Also in the early 80s, the north and south circular roads were still serving the same function that the M50 is now.

darkman2

DWCommuter wrote: »

Straight forward question. When it came to construction, why didn't the Government of the day not apply for European Structural funds to build it, instead of farming it out to so called private enterprise?

Your talking about a time when the likes of Liam Lawlor and Ray Burke where in high places.

strassenwolf

Hagar wrote: »

Cynics might think that there was some some jiggery pokery with the handing out of the contract for this particular little goldmine. Not me, I have total faith in our leaders. They have never abused their office to line their, or their cronies, pockets. No sirree, not one single cent. Never. Nope. Definitely not.

I quite agree, Hagar.

Indeed, I would add that, as FF's Padraig Flynn was the Minister at the time of the deal, it makes the possibility of any jiggery pokery even more remote.

DWCommuter

darkman2 wrote: »

Your talking about a time when the likes of Liam Lawlor and Ray Burke where in high places.

Thats more like it.:D

It definetly received no EU funding. The European structural fund as we know it today was not created until 1988. Too late for the Westlink. But it would have qualified under its predecessor, the European Regional Development fund, which was meant to finance the DART until the Government changed its mind.

I put this out to you. Did the Government of the day deliberately award the bridge contract to a private company as some sort of "favour", thereby ignoring EU funding. Or alternatively did the Government use EU funding in a careless fashion and ignore transport infrastructure?

Greece joined in 1981 and under EU structural funding built more miles of non tolled motorway/national route roads between 1990 and 1999, than Ireland did. From a quick look across the poorer EU members, as listed in 1988, (Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland) Ireland is the worst performing of the poorer nations in transport infrastructure. What went wrong? How have we ended up with PPP roads after billions in funding from the EU?

murphaph

DWCommuter wrote: »

Greece joined in 1981 and under EU structural funding built more miles of non tolled motorway/national route roads between 1990 and 1999, than Ireland did. From a quick look across the poorer EU members, as listed in 1988, (Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland) Ireland is the worst performing of the poorer nations in transport infrastructure. What went wrong? How have we ended up with PPP roads after billions in funding from the EU?

I've often asked myelf the same quetion. I suppose land aquisition costs might have been higher here all along? I'd say (given our use of the blasted english common law) that legal eagles swallowed up vast chunks of any and all projects. We should have drafted the critical infrastructure bill 30 years ago. Why didn't we? FoFF with vast land banks being upset maybe?

U-Turn

DWCommuter wrote: »

Straight forward question. When it came to construction, why didn't the Government of the day not apply for European Structural funds to build it, instead of farming it out to so called private enterprise?

I think you may have answered that yourself already... however if memory serves me correctly. I remember, was it P Flynn, had a plan to toll the M50 and not just the bridge but his plans where shot down. It was discovered you couldn't toll a road built with EU structural funding (possibly a Public campaign was involved here). You would think the Government would have known this themselves... maybe they forgot to inform the public.

I was only a kid at the time but i vaguely remember this controversy. Its hard to find link to it as it pre-internet.

minikin

archaeologists brought in to survey the median area of the m50 have unearthed flat paper-like containers with sealable flaps among the original foundations... they appear to be manilla or 'brown' in colour but are unsure as to the cause of this discolouration.

minikin

on a completely unrelated matter...

AlekSmart

Now we are seeing a little curtain lifting on this entire sordid little piece of politically inspired crookery.....:)

The present sorry situation whereby citizens are lining up to offer the descendants of these original figures full unfettered access to their bank accounts and detailed info on their movement patterns is directly related to the list of names now being quoted...the likes of Burke,Redmond,Lawlor,Flynn,Dunlop et al.

It must be borne in mind also that in order for these types to operate they HAD to have an intricate system of supporters and fellow travellers in place and well placed to dot the i`s and cross the t`s for them.

The essential point is that the West Link should NEVER have been a Tolled crossing in the first instance.

Strassenwolf,Dwcommuter and murphaph all post very lucidly on the essential facets of what is by now a seriously out-of-control scam being operated in every bit as effective a method as a gang of card skimmers at an ATM :mad:

It should be recalled that the very existance of the NRA is due to the Politicians of the day..the Flynn`s,Tully`s and Barretts of the era suddenly being faced with a major problem with imposing Tolls on the M50 as planned.

The damn local authorities had ideas on that aspect for themselves which led to the impasse which saw Toll Booth Plinths sitting unfilled for over a decade on every M50 on ramp....oh yes,these lads had plans alright..it`s just taken them a lot longer to get them in place :eek:

There was NO mistake about traffic flow projections etc etc...there were always accurate projections available for those that wanted to see them....however a need to "get things in place" ensured that the "Roadstone" faction were well placed to be in the right place at the right time and the rest is history...of the most sordid kind.

As for Minikin`s theory...I would seriously doubt that a single shred of brown,white or any other colour paper relating to that "Original" contract will ever be found.....anybody want to try the FOI and see how much thick black marker lines they can find !!! :P :P :P

serfboard

AlekSmart wrote: »

anybody want to try the FOI and see how much thick black marker lines they can find !!!

Drawn in to protect "commercial confidentiality" :P