Budget changes for transport in 2011

dynamick

27% net cut overall in transport dept budget (623m)


4% cut in CIE subvention (€12 million cut)
36% cut in public transport capital spend (€221m cut)
44% cut in regional airport supports (€10m cut)
8% less for public transport agencies (€1m cut)
24% cut in roads programme (€394m cut)
13% cut in road safety (€4m cut)
93% increase in smarter travel (€9m extra)

http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Estimates%20Budget%202011.pdf

edit...
Dept of Transport press release give more details

Metro North enabling works for 2011 (NTA has said these will cost 75m)
Integrated ticketing and RTPI to finally complete.
Luas citywest to complete, marlborough bridge to start, planning for other projects only.

What road projects will proceed in 2011?

NRA will go ahead with the planned 2011 starts and have adequate money for rehabilitation and minor works.
Starts include Belturbet / N5 Longford/ Tralee bypasses and the Cork Southern Ring Road junctions.
Two PPP projects will also start in 2011 - the M17/18 Gort – Tuam PPP and M11/Newlands Cross PPP bypasses.
Purchase of land for service areas and expressions of interest from developers

There will be no major road schemes starting in 2012 or 2013

JHR gets his bypass. Good man Jackie.

Sponge Bob

Minister Dempsey announces €2.12 billion budget for Transport in 2011
07 - 12 - 2010
Back to Press Releases



Today the Minister for Transport Mr Noel Dempsey T.D. announced the 2011 Estimates provision for his Department:


* €1.438 billion for capital investment;
* €681 million for current expenditure.


The provisions reflect the commitments included in the recently announced National Recovery Plan.

The following are the principal features of the 2011 Estimates for Transport:

Public Transport - €670 million

Capital Expenditure: €394 million
The capital provision for public transport investment in 2011 is €394 million. This will enable the completion of the Luas extension to Citywest and the continuation of advance works on Metro North. It also provides funding for planning and design work on other Transport 21 projects with a view to the earliest possible delivery as financial resources become available.

Funding is also being maintained for a number of important public transport programmes, including railway safety, accessibility, integrated ticketing and traffic management/bus priority.

Current expenditure: €263.2
The public transport subvention provision payable to CIE is €263.2m a reduction of €13m or 4.5% on the 2010 provision of €276.2. The CIE companies will seek to minimise the impact by continuing their work to reduce costs and increase efficiency.


Rural Transport Scheme: €10.6m
The provision for the Rural Transport Programme is only slightly reduced at €10.6m in recognition of the important role it plays in combating rural isolation, particularly for older people.


Green School Programme: €1.9 million
This programme is aimed at teaching primary school children lessons for life on sustainable transport. The programme works with schools to promote walking to school, cycling, mixed travel modes i.e. park and stride and increased use of public transport. Currently the programme is underway in approx 680 schools covering about 170,000 pupils.

Roads - €1.227 billion

Capital Expenditure: €990 million
The 2011 capital provision for national roadsis €720 million, €394 million down on 2010. This allocation will fund new projects, including the Belturbet, N5 Longford and Tralee bypasses and the Cork Southern Ring Road junctions. Two PPP projects will also commence in 2011; the M17/18 Gort – Tuam PPP and the M11/Newlands Cross PPP bypasses and there also will be funding for rehabilitation and minor works.

The 2011 provision for the maintenance and improvement of regional and local roads will be €270 million, down €30 million on 2010. This funding will be used almost exclusively to maintain the fabric of the extensive network of some 90,000 kilometres.

Current expenditure: Road maintenance €147.5m

PPP Operational Payments €89.7
This funding will be used to make annual payments to remunerate PPP financing for road projects where the private investment is not remunerated by tolls. The expenditure involved reflects contractual commitments that have already been entered into.


Aviation - €19.1 million

Current expenditure: €17.1 million
The 2011 provision is €14.7m, compared with €22.6 million in 2009. This funding principally supports the provision of essential air services at regional airports as well as providing operational subvention. The reduced funding represents a curtailment of public service contracts for air services – the present contracts are due to expire in July, 2011. Provision is also included for payments to the Irish Aviation Authority for the provision of air navigation services to categories of air traffic that are exempt from charges.

Capital Expenditure: €2m
The capital expenditure provision provides funding for essential capital works at regional airports The provision for capital works will be €2m rather than the €3m 2010


Maritime Transport and Safety - €54 million

Capital Expenditure: €15 million
The 2011 capital provision will be €15 million, compared with €13 million in 2010. The principal item of capital expenditure is the provision of a search and rescue helicopter service (€8 million). Also included is expenditure on the Irish Coast Guard, maritime safety and remedial works at regional harbours.

Current Expenditure: €39 million
The 2011 provision will be €39 million unchanged from 2010 for current expenditure. The principal item of expenditure is the provision of a search and rescue helicopter service (€27m current expenditure). Also included is expenditure on the Irish Coast Guard and maritime safety.


Smarter Travel €19.9million
The capital provision for carbon reduction measures is being decreased from €25 million to €19.9 million in 2011. This will provide continued funding for sustainable transport projects and for other measures to encourage sustainable travel.


Road Safety €27.9 million
The 2011 provision for road safety is €27.9m, compared with €33.3m in 2010. The reduced expenditure is being achieved through administrative savings and increasing self-financing in the Road Safety Authority. As of today’s date 202 people had lost their lives in road accidents, down 24 on this date last year. The number of fatalities in 2009, at 239, was itself the lowest on record.

Administrative Expenditure €34.2 million
The administrative budget of the Department of Transport is being reduced by €2.4 million (6.5%) in 2011. Savings are also being made to the administrative allocations to the Road Safety Authority and the Railway Procurement Agency.


Miscellaneous capital expenditure €3.2 million
Other capital funding includes provisions for road safety and vehicle and driver licensing expenditure as well as a provision for the Department of Transport’s administrative capital budget.


ENDS
Department of Transport Press Office: (01) 604 1090 / (01) 604 1091.

liammur

dynamick wrote: »

27% net cut overall in transport dept budget (623m)


4% cut in CIE subvention (€12 million cut)
36% cut in public transport capital spend (€221m cut)
44% cut in regional airport supports (€10m cut)
8% less for public transport agencies (€1m cut)
24% cut in roads programme (€394m cut)
13% cut in road safety (€4m cut)
93% increase in smarter travel (€9m extra)

http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Estimates%20Budget%202011.pdf

edit...
Dept of Transport press release give more details

Metro North enabling works for 2011 (NTA has said these will cost 75m)
Integrated ticketing and RTPI to finally complete.
Luas citywest to complete, marlborough bridge to start, planning for other projects only.



There will be no major road schemes starting in 2012 or 2013

JHR gets his bypass. Good man Jackie.

Well i don't blame healy-rae for once, nothing would be done for places like tralee if were totally dependent on the government.

Did the car tax system get changed in the budget?

DWCommuter

From the DOT release;

We will continue to spend on vital public transport programmes such as railway safety, traffic management, accessibility and real time passenger information across the country. The planning and procurement processes for Metro North will progress in 2011 and enabling works will also begin next year. In Dublin the Luas extension to Citywest will be complete in 2011 and a new public transport bridge at Marlborough Street will commence construction. Planning will continue on a range of other public transport projects including Luas BXD, the cross-city link, Luas extensions to Lucan and Bray, and Metro West. Funding is available to commence construction on the Navan Line in 2013. Money will also be provided for the purchase of new buses for PSO services. Some initial planning and design for Phase 2 of the Western Rail Corridor will also happen next year.

trellheim

Does any of that apply to cycle tracks or are they DOE funded ?

spacetweek

dynamick wrote: »

There will be no major road schemes starting in 2012 or 2013

Where did it say that?

Also, when you say no major schemes, I presume this means that minor ones will still take place?

dynamick

liammur wrote: »

Well i don't blame healy-rae for once, nothing would be done for places like tralee if were totally dependent on the government.

I'm only slagging JHR. I don't know if the Tralee bypass is a good scheme to prioritise. Maybe it is.

Did the car tax system get changed in the budget?

No. Only change seems to be that they will eliminate the exemption from tax where a vehicle is off the road and they're going to further automate the motor tax system: perhaps they will get people to print their own discs like Ryanair boarding passes or perhaps they will make the system fully web-based or a hefty fee to do it manually. commercial VRT went from 50 to 200 euro. Petrol up 4c, diesel up 2c

trellheim wrote: »

Does any of that apply to cycle tracks or are they DOE funded ?

Good question. I think cycle tracks are funded from local authority budgets, although some schemes seem to be funded by the smarter travel budget in DoT. This is going up to 20m in 2011.

spacetweek wrote: »

Where did it say that? (no major schemes)

In the press release from DoT. Here: http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=266

Transportuser09

DWCommuter wrote: »

From the DOT release;We will continue to spend on vital public transport programmes such as railway safety, traffic management, accessibility and real time passenger information across the country. The planning and procurement processes for Metro North will progress in 2011 and enabling works will also begin next year. In Dublin the Luas extension to Citywest will be complete in 2011 and a new public transport bridge at Marlborough Street will commence construction. Planning will continue on a range of other public transport projects including Luas BXD, the cross-city link, Luas extensions to Lucan and Bray, and Metro West. Funding is available to commence construction on the Navan Line in 2013. Money will also be provided for the purchase of new buses for PSO services. Some initial planning and design for Phase 2 of the Western Rail Corridor will also happen next year.

Sounds reasonable all things considered. It will have been three years since Bus Éireann got any new vehicles. The Navan and Tuam-Athenry rail projects are probably the more viable of the heavy rail projects (apart from DU obviously), wouldn't hold my breath for WRC phase 3. Good to see other Luas extensions still on the agenda, though I'd question the need to retain the Bray extension. I know much of this is only planning but at least they haven't been completely shelved.

DWCommuter

Transportuser09 wrote: »

Sounds reasonable all things considered. It will have been three years since Bus Éireann got any new vehicles. The Navan and Tuam-Athenry rail projects are probably the more viable of the heavy rail projects (apart from DU obviously), wouldn't hold my breath for WRC phase 3. Good to see other Luas extensions still on the agenda, though I'd question the need to retain the Bray extension. I know much of this is only planning but at least they haven't been completely shelved.

WRC north of Athenry should not be considered on the basis of viability in terms of whats affordable. This kind of thinking continues the trend of not planning coherent public transport projects. Divert the spend to other operating railways if its there to spend. WRC phase "WOT" is dead anyway. Claremorris is not Clapham Junction.

The extension to Navan is pure folly and representative of the excess times we used to live in. The M3 is there now and the population doesn't justify it. The extension to PACE is hardly successful. During the recent bad weather IE had not problem shutting it down and all without any public discourse.

Luas? Bray should be buried. I agree with that. Unfortunately much of T21 was based on the grandiose plans of Fianna Fail developer buddies. Those days are gone, just like Fianna Fail. The time has come to rework T21 and this time do it on the basis of need and sensible planning.

spacetweek

DWCommuter wrote: »

WRC north of Athenry should not be considered on the basis of viability in terms of whats affordable. This kind of thinking continues the trend of not planning coherent public transport projects. Divert the spend to other operating railways if its there to spend. WRC phase "WOT" is dead anyway. Claremorris is not Clapham Junction.

The extension to Navan is pure folly and representative of the excess times we used to live in. The M3 is there now and the population doesn't justify it. The extension to PACE is hardly successful. During the recent bad weather IE had not problem shutting it down and all without any public discourse.

Luas? Bray should be buried. I agree with that. Unfortunately much of T21 was based on the grandiose plans of Fianna Fail developer buddies. Those days are gone, just like Fianna Fail. The time has come to rework T21 and this time do it on the basis of need and sensible planning.

Agreed fully on WRC; not on Navan. Navan is very important and Dunboyne hasn't been successful because it's too short and assumes everyone trying to get to Dublin has a car. There's a rule of tranport: once people get into their cars, they generally won't get back out of them and switch to another mode; they'll continue driving the whole way. Having to leave your car behind is expensive, awkward and difficult. Railway the whole way is badly needed.

Also agreed on Bray (and Lucan! Don't get me started!) but not for the reason you give. The line is needed, but the maddeningly twisty routing seems designed to be as slow as possible. We need to stop designing railways to take in as many places as possible. We also need to stop working railways around existing development and start pushing straight routes through. It's not like Bray housing estates are full of 19th century beaux arts apartment blocks or something.

We need to start putting journey times first. Bray-Stephens Green luas will probably take nearly an hour. Unacceptable. Saggart to the Point Village will probably take an hour ten. No point in building it if that's the case.

spacetweek

dynamick wrote: »

In the press release from DoT. Here: http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=266

Thanks for the link. From that article, seems sure enough that when they said no major schemes they meant that there'd be minor ones. I anticipate maybe 3 minor schemes in 2012 and yearly thereafter. Pretty gutted, though, to see that Enniscorthy/New Ross is put back to a 2015/2016 start date. Ouch. And whence the M20?

DWCommuter

spacetweek wrote: »

Agreed fully on WRC; not on Navan. Navan is very important and Dunboyne hasn't been successful because it's too short and assumes everyone trying to get to Dublin has a car. There's a rule of tranport: once people get into their cars, they generally won't get back out of them and switch to another mode; they'll continue driving the whole way. Having to leave your car behind is expensive, awkward and difficult. Railway the whole way is badly needed.

Also agreed on Bray (and Lucan! Don't get me started!) but not for the reason you give. The line is needed, but the maddeningly twisty routing seems designed to be as slow as possible. We need to stop designing railways to take in as many places as possible. We also need to stop working railways around existing development and start pushing straight routes through. It's not like Bray housing estates are full of 19th century beaux arts apartment blocks or something.

We need to start putting journey times first. Bray-Stephens Green luas will probably take nearly an hour. Unacceptable. Saggart to the Point Village will probably take an hour ten. No point in building it if that's the case.

I was originally a big supporter of the Navan line until I realised that 1. it has no real supporters and 2. Its bonkers in the scheme of things when you look at it in the cold light of day.

Point 1. refers to the constant Government bull**** and the fact that it developed as a commuter town against the realm of sustainable and decent planning. It has no justifiable right to a reopening of its rail line. Navan is a mirage of the celtic tiger years. It got a Motorway thats over the top and now we want to spend around 500 million on a railway that the motorway disected enroute. Sorry. I don't see the sense in it anymore.

Point 2. is related to the points I made under point 1. It is pure nonsense to reopen this rail line. Its bottom line placing on the PFC document was based on nothing more than a local minister,an alignment more or less in place and congestion on the old N3. It is folly. The PACE line was the compromise and only exists because of the insane desire for the line to Navan. Its a mess.

There was never a real commitment to building the Navan line. The facts speak for themselves and they are widely documented. While I'll happily point out these facts, I'll also accept that Navan is yet another example of our grandiose sense of entitlement borne out of the boom years. We are talking about a rail line through fields to a relatively small town connected to a motorway.

Transportuser09

I don't think that the presence of a motorway alone is an impediment to the success of a rail link to Navan. That's going back to the 1960s attitude.

I think there is some viability (well as far as rail can be viable) in reopening Tuam-Athenry given the commuter market into Galway itself, but fail to see the viability of Tuam-Claremorris.

DWCommuter

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I don't think that the presence of a motorway alone is an impediment to the success of a rail link to Navan. That's going back to the 1960s attitude.

I think there is some viability (well as far as rail can be viable) in reopening Tuam-Athenry given the commuter market into Galway itself, but fail to see the viability of Tuam-Claremorris.

A 1960s attitude was about the car/bus on poor roads and its social and economic impact as it replaced railways. In the 21st century the Navan situation is very far removed from the one that existed in the 1960s. Considering that the original financial case for the reopening was weak (and brought trouble to an IE manager for the "not with a barge pole" remark), the existence of a motorway along the same corridor will inevitably reduce the railways effectiveness. Why? Because the population figures aren't there to justify it. Meath County Council didn't plan housing with the railway in mind. For example the main housing area in Dunshaughlin is on the opposite side of the town to the rail alignment. I firmly believe that the Navan reopening is now as bad as the WRC case. This is a massive u-turn on my part, because over the years Ive learned a lot. We must move on from the mindset that just because an old rail line or alignment is there, that it has to be reopened to serve bad planning mistakes and carelessness or green fields and tiny towns. We spent money on the M3. Like it or not, its there with its toll and has transformed the car/bus journey between Navan and Dublin despite all the negative publicity. A railway would be great, if it was justified or never closed in the first place. What really annoys me more is the states neglect of the alignment and the extra costs they heaped on a future reopening by having absolutely no regard for it when building the M3.

oharach

The M3 has done a lot for journey times, but journey times within the M50 pretty much cannot be reduced, as there is no space and no plan to upgrade the inner-city road network. Once things start picking up again, the traffic in Dublin will become as intolerable as it was in the early 2000s, and hopefully figures will pick up on the M3 Parkway commuter at least.

DW, what was the original cost-benefit ratio on re-opening the Navan line?

DWCommuter

oharach wrote: »

DW, what was the original cost-benefit ratio on re-opening the Navan line?

Phase 1 or Phase 2?

I assume you mean the next stage to Navan so this tells the tale nicely;

Tom Finn from Iarnród Éireann told councillors that 85 per cent of the projected population growth would be needed to justify the development and "even the slightest drop in population could have a very significant impact on the rate of return." He acknowledged that "financially, you would not touch it with a barge pole because of the costs".

Chris_5339762

And yet the WRC managed to get past this guy?

oharach

DWCommuter wrote: »

Phase 1 or Phase 2?

I assume you mean the next stage to Navan so this tells the tale nicely;

Thanks, that speaks volumes.

In future, the cost-benefit ratio needs to be at the centre of everything we build. No more duplication of motorway routes to please every one-horse town, no more steam-age railways because they look nice on the map.

It's no use arguing that this doesn't take account of the social contribution of infrastructure – the social benefits need to be quantifiable like everything else, and go into the same equation. The same goes for future proofing – if the growth in traffic is realistic, then it can go into the equation.

What we would be left with is a published list, ranking all infrastructure projects in order of benefit. To put it very simply: the things at the top get built first. [The only exception is in times when money is tight, when expensive projects can legitimately be passed over in favour of cheaper, slightly less beneficial, ones.]

Would the 'social benefits' and 'future needs' be open to 'influence' by TDs, trying to get their project to the top of the list? Almost certainly – but with outside auditing, I see no reason why it wouldn't be objective. There would be no more bypasses sold for votes, because the auditors don't rely on TDs for their survival, unlike the government, and have no reason to fudge anything.

DWCommuter

oharach wrote: »

Thanks, that speaks volumes.

In future, the cost-benefit ratio needs to be at the centre of everything we build. No more duplication of motorway routes to please every one-horse town, no more steam-age railways because they look nice on the map.

It's no use arguing that this doesn't take account of the social contribution of infrastructure – the social benefits need to be quantifiable like everything else, and go into the same equation. The same goes for future proofing – if the growth in traffic is realistic, then it can go into the equation.

What we would be left with is a published list, ranking all infrastructure projects in order of benefit. To put it very simply: the things at the top get built first. [The only exception is in times when money is tight, when expensive projects can legitimately be passed over in favour of cheaper, slightly less beneficial, ones.]

Would the 'social benefits' and 'future needs' be open to 'influence' by TDs, trying to get their project to the top of the list? Almost certainly – but with outside auditing, I see no reason why it wouldn't be objective. There would be no more bypasses sold for votes, because the auditors don't rely on TDs for their survival, unlike the government, and have no reason to fudge anything.

You'll have to forgive me as Ive just come in from work, but all of what you have said is correct and relevant. However I'd like to address it in more detail over the coming days and look forward to it. A wider debate needs to take place and Navan is only a small part of it.

DWCommuter

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

And yet the WRC managed to get past this guy?

He was subsequently removed from the Navan project. In fact he has gone somewhat underground in Irish Rail since his comments. In fairness he was right in his comments, but it appears he got "punished" for saying it.

The WRC phase 1/2 had a much lower construction cost despite it being equally futile. Thats why it slips under the radar. If he was to stand over the rest of the WRC, he'd be in the very same boat.

All of this comes back to politics. FF and transport 21 is a bad joke and we do actually need to start all over again from a realistic base.

Pete_Cavan

oharach wrote: »

Thanks, that speaks volumes.

In future, the cost-benefit ratio needs to be at the centre of everything we build. No more duplication of motorway routes to please every one-horse town, no more steam-age railways because they look nice on the map.

It's no use arguing that this doesn't take account of the social contribution of infrastructure – the social benefits need to be quantifiable like everything else, and go into the same equation. The same goes for future proofing – if the growth in traffic is realistic, then it can go into the equation.

What we would be left with is a published list, ranking all infrastructure projects in order of benefit. To put it very simply: the things at the top get built first. [The only exception is in times when money is tight, when expensive projects can legitimately be passed over in favour of cheaper, slightly less beneficial, ones.]

Would the 'social benefits' and 'future needs' be open to 'influence' by TDs, trying to get their project to the top of the list? Almost certainly – but with outside auditing, I see no reason why it wouldn't be objective. There would be no more bypasses sold for votes, because the auditors don't rely on TDs for their survival, unlike the government, and have no reason to fudge anything.

What you say is true but there should be no need for outside auditing. At the root of the problem is our political system. We vote for national TDs based on local issues and thats why Donegal VEC is untouched while bigger VECs are merged. We should tackle this problem first before we start paying more people to produce reports which can be swept under the carpet by wasteful governments.

loyatemu

this is way off the original topic - but Navan to the Dublin quays via the M3 and the Port Tunnel is 60K - would a Swords Express type service be a runner, would there be sufficient demand ?

Navan really is a long way out, its madness that it has been developed as a commuter town, but I suppose the same goes for Gorey, Carlow, Portlaoise etc - thank you once again FF...

spacetweek

loyatemu wrote: »

this is way off the original topic - but Navan to the Dublin quays via the M3 and the Port Tunnel is 60K - would a Swords Express type service be a runner, would there be sufficient demand ?

What do you mean, 60K?

mgmt

60km.

c_donno

Is this whole Dublin to Navan Phase two rail link going to be pushed through by the Minister before he gets ousted and leaves politics in late March early April?

Ultimately who does the decision lie with?? The minister? as there seems to be testing and information gathering being undertaken at present for the railway order and the EIS / EIA which to me indicates that it hasnt been blown out of the water yet. Emphasis on the Yet..

Judgement Day

c_donno wrote: »

Is this whole Dublin to Navan Phase two rail link going to be pushed through by the Minister before he gets ousted and leaves politics in late March early April?

Ultimately who does the decision lie with?? The minister? as there seems to be testing and information gathering being undertaken at present for the railway order and the EIS / EIA which to me indicates that it hasnt been blown out of the water yet. Emphasis on the Yet..

The 'great man' is not standing at the next election so why would he be bothered giving the extension to Navan the nod? :rolleyes:

c_donno

Judgement Day wrote: »

The 'great man' is not standing at the next election so why would he be bothered giving the extension to Navan the nod? :rolleyes:

Just to set the record here Im not a fan of his or his party..

But to me it looked like Dempsey got made a liar out of by Cowen and Lenihan in regard to alot of the Bailout talk and he came on national television and looked to me to be misinformed or possibly not informed at all with what was going on in regard to the Bailout, either that or hes just as big a liar as the rest of them which im not ruling out...

The railway was something that Dempsey has been harping onto people of Meath about for the last twenty years and It would be very typical if the last kick of the dying horse was signing the thing to go ahead...

What I was wondering was, ultimately who has the say on what projects get priority over others and what projects get the green light... If its just one persons decision, favor would fancy the second phase of the Navan rail link as it would leave a Minister at ease among his own old constituents...

Just a thought!!!

DWCommuter

c_donno wrote: »

Just to set the record here Im not a fan of his or his party..

But to me it looked like Dempsey got made a liar out of by Cowen and Lenihan in regard to alot of the Bailout talk and he came on national television and looked to me to be misinformed or possibly not informed at all with what was going on in regard to the Bailout, either that or hes just as big a liar as the rest of them which im not ruling out...

The railway was something that Dempsey has been harping onto people of Meath about for the last twenty years and It would be very typical if the last kick of the dying horse was signing the thing to go ahead...

What I was wondering was, ultimately who has the say on what projects get priority over others and what projects get the green light... If its just one persons decision, favor would fancy the second phase of the Navan rail link as it would leave a Minister at ease among his own old constituents...

Just a thought!!!

Dipstick Dempsey is retiring from politics so he can sit back and tell his loyal constituents in the pub that he did all he could for the Navan rail project and it was the new Government that torpedoed it. It will not happen and on reflection, it should not happen. Many of us got suckered into the madness of the Celtic Tiger years and its rail projects that were demanded just for the sake of it. When a rail company cannot operate the DART on St. Stephens day because they cannot afford a potential "loss maker" due to decreased subvention, then it really sums up the state of things in CIE land. Think about it lads and be honest with yourselves.

oharach

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

What you say is true but there should be no need for outside auditing. At the root of the problem is our political system. We vote for national TDs based on local issues and thats why Donegal VEC is untouched while bigger VECs are merged. We should tackle this problem first before we start paying more people to produce reports which can be swept under the carpet by wasteful governments.

I completely agree that the political system is broken.

I probably didn't express myself clearly enough re. auditing. It needn't be a public inquiry-style review done by expensive third-party consultants, completely separate from the planning system.

It should be an integrated part of the system – just as we'd never build a road without an EIS for example, we should never build a road without an impartial cost-benefit analysis.

Importantly, the form and transparency of cost-benefit analyses would be improved and standardised, for ease of comparison between projects.

Then it would be absolutely blatant when a TD was pandering to their constituents by allowing a local project to jump the queue – and it might just start to become a virtue to put the national interest first.

DWCommuter

oharach wrote: »

I completely agree that the political system is broken.

I probably didn't express myself clearly enough re. auditing. It needn't be a public inquiry-style review done by expensive third-party consultants, completely separate from the planning system.

It should be an integrated part of the system – just as we'd never build a road without an EIS for example, we should never build a road without an impartial cost-benefit analysis.

Importantly, the form and transparency of cost-benefit analyses would be improved and standardised, for ease of comparison between projects.

Then it would be absolutely blatant when a TD was pandering to their constituents by allowing a local project to jump the queue – and it might just start to become a virtue to put the national interest first.

Brilliant point! But I think the political system really does need to change first. PR does not work in the national interest.

keithcan

Maybe I'm wrong on your thinking, but it appears you'd seek to apply a cost-benefit-analysis with population density being a key factor, alongside cost. Where does that leave less populated regions? No public transport provision at all? All investment to greater Dublin area? Bits for other urban centres? There needs also imo to be regional balance and we elect TDs to elect a Govt to take those issues into account. The collective responsibility of Govt should mean no individual Minister gets an unjustified, vanity project through. That system to me is ok. Where it goes to cock is when it's the wrong people and they're retained in power far too long. But that's democracy.

c_donno

DWCommuter wrote: »

When a rail company cannot operate the DART on St. Stephens day because they cannot afford a potential "loss maker" due to decreased subvention, then it really sums up the state of things in CIE land. Think about it lads and be honest with yourselves.

I wasnt saying that it was going to be a profitable venture running a train to Navan I agree that it would probably be a complete loss maker in fact. Im not under the opinion that its going to be a needed service we allready paid enough money on the M3 and now are paying on the double with a tole for the privilege....

I also agree with the other statements in relation that things need to change from the top and we need to get a fairer system free from corruption and brown bags and the likes. Hopefully not to far away in the future....

Im still not sure that the other major capital investments outlined under transport 21 are real flyers either nor do we have the money for them...

Im sure well have an answer by march though either way.....

I was just making the point even though it shouldnt be, it is open to a personal (and probable vested interest influence) from the minister..

oharach

keithcan wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong on your thinking, but it appears you'd seek to apply a cost-benefit-analysis with population density being a key factor, alongside cost. Where does that leave less populated regions? No public transport provision at all? All investment to greater Dublin area? Bits for other urban centres? There needs also imo to be regional balance and we elect TDs to elect a Govt to take those issues into account. The collective responsibility of Govt should mean no individual Minister gets an unjustified, vanity project through. That system to me is ok. Where it goes to cock is when it's the wrong people and they're retained in power far too long. But that's democracy.

You're right that a strict cost-benefit analysis will primarily benefit the urban centres, even if social benefits are taken into account.

For that reason, I have no problem with a residual 'social infrastructure scheme', ensuring that rural communities are not left behind. Quite like a social welfare net, this would mean a basic level of service for everyone, e.g. a safe, good-quality single carriageway N-road to every town over x population, and a reasonable bus service.

However, almost all of the projects we discuss on this forum, and on the roads forum, are not providing a 'basic' level of service. They are expensive investments in new railways, and new motorways/DCs. This kind of scheme should quite properly be subject to a full cost-benefit analysis.

As regards regional balance, I have no problem with infrastructure investment in the urban centres, especially Cork, Galway and Limerick. However, it needs to provide for expected future growth; we simply cannot afford more motorways or railways in the vague hope that one day they will pay for themselves.

keithcan

oharach wrote: »

As regards regional balance, I have no problem with infrastructure investment in the urban centres, especially Cork, Galway and Limerick. However, it needs to provide for expected future growth; we simply cannot afford more motorways or railways in the vague hope that one day they will pay for themselves.

I suppose this is what the National Spatial Strategy is about: http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/PlanningDevelopment/NationalSpatialStrategy/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,24144,en.pdf Its lack of impact since the original Strategy was published in 2002 is, yet again, down to the political direction we got under mostly FF, this time their councillors. But again, this is what we get through people democratically electing them. Perhaps the update of that Strategy will have a better chance in a changed political climate with greater commitment to intelligent planning, in lieu of developer-led.

I'd still be emphasising the value of regional development as an important part of (re)growing the national economy. This is a decent easy-to-read document: http://www.wdc.ie/wp-content/uploads/reports-WDC-Policy-Briefing-Why-care-about-regions-July-2010.pdf