The Irish motorist - being shook down time and time again

veryangryman

Is it just me or is it the driving folk who are bailing out this country yet again? Cant the government think of 1 original idea to raise revenue without tolls, petrol increases ,the works.

I know we have a thread on tolling, but the general topic of overburdening the motorist, i feel needs discussing.

Irish and Proud

veryangryman wrote: »

Is it just me or is it the driving folk who are bailing out this country yet again? Cant the government think of 1 original idea to raise revenue without tolls, petrol increases ,the works.

I know we have a thread on tolling, but the general topic of overburdening the motorist, i feel needs discussing.

Of course mate - that's the way it always was - motorists have being paying far too much in this country for decades - I would regard the recent motorway developments as the start of reparation on the part of the state.

It's now time to cease the motoring racket in Ireland - everything from VRT to excise on petrol should be reviewed, and a new roads programme should be made a priority, with a view to eliminating accident black spots and traffic pinch points such as Newlands Cross and Dunkettle. Of course, we can't build roads as if there's no recession, but we need to see schemes that would ensure that things are kept ticking over - that includes proper maintenance of road surfaces and furnishings. In fact, a fixed proportion (50% maybe) of what motorists pay in taxes should go into roads and their upkeep - it's only fair!

Another important issue IMO is that cyclists should have to make a reasonable contribution for the provision and upkeep of cycle tracks - motorists should not have to foot the bill - this is simply unfair. Cyclists seem like a loud minority to me, and seem to be getting far too much in political leverage - why should motorists have to slow to 30kph in cities when cyclists pay not a cent for the use of roads? BTW, I saw some pictures of Copenhagan (cyclist oriented city) and was horrified - lines of bikes forming a barrier along the streets as well as large areas of public space taken up - what about pedestrians let alone motorists? Here's some pictures I just found - is this the way we want Dublin to look? Is this good for pedestrians and wheelchair users? - I for one don't think so! I'd rather trams!

As soon as the economy picks up again, the M11, M17, M18, M20, M40 (CNRR)* etc should be top priority. I think it's time for a very robust motoring lobby in Ireland!

Regards!

seamus

Irish and Proud wrote: »

It's now time to cease the motoring racket in Ireland - everything from VRT to excise on petrol should be reviewed, and a new roads programme should be made a priority, with a view to eliminating accident black spots and traffic pinch points such as Newlands Cross and Dunkettle. Of course, we can't build roads as if there's no recession, but we need to see schemes that would ensure that things are kept ticking over - that includes proper maintenance of road surfaces and furnishings. In fact, a fixed proportion (50% maybe) of what motorists pay in taxes should go into roads and their upkeep - it's only fair!

So you want motorists to pay less, but you want more roads built. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

We have a small population in a country that's big, relatively speaking. And we want to drive everywhere. So motoring is going to be expensive in Ireland and it's going to remain expensive in Ireland in order to maintain a road network which is huge, relative to our population.

Another important issue IMO is that cyclists should have to make a reasonable contribution for the provision and upkeep of cycle tracks - motorists should not have to foot the bill - this is simply unfair.

For a start, despite all the text above, motorists don't foot any bill. All of the revenue taken from motorists goes into a central pot. So your €500 motor tax paid every year, goes into the same pot that the cyclist pays his VAT into, and they both then contribute towards the roads programme. Motorists do not "pay" for the roads and they are not more "entitled" to the roads.
If you're going to get technical about it, the VAT that cyclists pay on bikes and cycling-related items far outweighs their overall impact on the roads. So cyclists in essence subsidise the motorist. Get off the road.

In addition to that, a straw poll that we took showed that about 80% of cyclists already pay motor tax. In order words, we pay the full blast of motor tax, but then don't use our cars as often as non-cyclists, effectively paying more motor tax than non-cyclists. Again, subsidising everyone else. Those bastard cyclists!

It's quite clear that if you want to improve the roads, encouraging more people onto bikes would not only decrease traffic congestion and road maintenance costs, but it would increase the revenue available to the road building programme...

On the topic of cycle tracks and cycle lanes, if I had a choice between paying for them and not having them, get rid of them. I don't use them anyway because the road is safer.

BTW, I saw some pictures of Copenhagan (cyclist oriented city) and was horrified - lines of bikes forming a barrier along the streets as well as large areas of public space taken up - what about pedestrians let alone motorists?

What about pedestrians? They can cross where it's safe to do so. I've been in Copenhagen. Everybody obeys the rules, and nobody is inconvenienced. The next time you're sitting in a line of traffic, think about how much easier your life would be if just 10% of the cars around you were people on bikes, moving inconsequentially along the side.

The sooner Irish people get over this ridiculous sense of entitlement we have about driving around, the better. The only person who's forcing you to drive a car is you, by the way you have structured your life around it.

veryangryman

Sorry dude but the amount of tax on fuel alone defeats any argument you can have about cyclists paying anything.

As a cyclist as well as a driver, i can tell for sure that value for money is definitely in the cyclists favour (we pay feck all, we get feck all). The motorist gets feck all for ALOT. Picture any journey that doesnt involve an inter urban if you dont believe me. *

* And by inter-urban, i of course mean to or from Dublin. EVERY motorway in Ireland now leads to Dublin. Even the M18 is used by majority of Gort-Dublin travellers now.

oharach

veryangryman wrote: »

Is it just me or is it the driving folk who are bailing out this country yet again? Cant the government think of 1 original idea to raise revenue without tolls, petrol increases ,the works.

I know we have a thread on tolling, but the general topic of overburdening the motorist, i feel needs discussing.

This is an oft-repeated complaint, and one I'm particularly interested in.

I know there is no ring-fencing of motor tax and VAT on petrol, but is there any proof that motorists are paying more than it costs to build and maintain the roads system? I would strongly suspect that the State is still massively subsidising the network. Of course, there are other benefits to mobility, which can justify some state contribution.

Without concrete figures, I predict that this thread will quickly fill with unquantifiable assertions.

invinciblePRSTV

veryangryman wrote: »

Sorry dude but the amount of tax on fuel alone defeats any argument you can have about cyclists paying anything.

As a cyclist as well as a driver, i can tell for sure that value for money is definitely in the cyclists favour (we pay feck all, we get feck all). The motorist gets feck all for ALOT. Picture any journey that doesnt involve an inter urban if you dont believe me. *

* And by inter-urban, i of course mean to or from Dublin. EVERY motorway in Ireland now leads to Dublin. Even the M18 is used by majority of Gort-Dublin travellers now.

Riiighhht.....so apart from the near two decade long motorway construction campaign, practically every major urban area getting a bypass, every Co.Co getting a large lump sum for R & L roads maintenance (even in these fiscally challenging times), car scrappage schemes (which are really subsidies), successful campaigns for the reduction in cost of car insurance reduction, then you say the motorist gets "feck all"?

LOL!

Do us a favour love, compare and contrast the amount of money lavished on car based transport options over the past few decades, then compare this with outlays on the various types of public transport and see for yourself how massively weighted public spending is in favour of car based transport options.

The real problem here is too many Irish people have unrealistic expectations of how their lifestyle choices should be subsidised by the state. Granted the Irish state, with its poor planning policies have meant the car-reliant Irish public think it's perfectly logical to commute over 100km a day and clog up bypasses to get to a shopping centre, but then cry like babies when the state tries to claw back some monies in the form of tolls and fuel taxes.

As always, the real solution is to have people living close to where they work and live with access to comprehensive public transport options, the kind of which could have been built if the state didn't piss all it's boom monies away on white elephant motorways duplicating themselves across the Irish countryside to appease the always whinging Irish motorist:rolleyes:.

Cookie_Monster

oharach wrote: »

I know there is no ring-fencing of motor tax and VAT on petrol, but is there any proof that motorists are paying more than it costs to build and maintain the roads system? I would strongly suspect that the State is still massively subsidising the network.

+1

the impact in lost time due to traffic, accidents, emmisions, building and maintaining an ever larger road network, loss of health benefits (in comparison to walking / cycling to school/work etc) all far outweighs any tax input from motorists.

Owning and running a private car is a luxury, many people tend to ignore that and see it as a necessity. If you want to do it you have to pay for it.

popebenny16

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Owning and running a private car is a luxury, many people tend to ignore that and see it as a necessity. If you want to do it you have to pay for it.

not outside big towns it isnt, and even then, with government services being cut everywhere you need to drive to places. my car was not a luxury when i had to get my six year old to a hospital 44 km away at 3am on monday night. the social welfare office for my area is twenty km away. the only bus that BE ran through our town was cut last year and it only ran once in each direction anyway.

a car is very much a necessity in this country.

veryangryman

popebenny16 wrote: »

not outside big towns it isnt, and even then, with government services being cut everywhere you need to drive to places. my car was not a luxury when i had to get my six year old to a hospital 44 km away at 3am on monday night. the social welfare office for my area is twenty km away. the only bus that BE ran through our town was cut last year and it only ran once in each direction anyway.

a car is very much a necessity in this country.

I think that anyone with a family or dependants (be they children, dogs, whatever) does need the car.

Single people living near cities/public transport can live handy without them - witness any college around the country (the students who have cars generally have more money than sense)

seamus

popebenny16 wrote: »

not outside big towns it isnt

Then if you don't want or can't afford a car, don't live outside big towns.

I'm not being facetious and I am aware that it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario, but when deciding where you should live, transport should be right up there in terms of "How am I going to get around".

Unfortunately a lot of people by default just go, "Ah sure I can drive", without considering the possible long-terms implications of that choice.

For many people driving is a necessity because they have made it a necessity. If you have no other option except to drive, then that's because at some point you knew that driving was the only option available to you, but you chose to live there anyway.

That's not me justifying any increases in costs, or saying that motorists should just shut up and put up, but most Irish people seem to forget that they are the ones who at some point made a decision to restrict their choice of transport to car only, and the government doesn't have a responsibility to them to prioritise that choice above all others.

In fact, it's this restriction of choice which has given the Government the power to continually squeeze the motorist - because we've left ourselves no option except to pay.

Cookie_Monster

@ Seamus: exactly, in general terms you've summed it up well, obviously not applicable to all...

Cars are only a necessity cos people choose to make them so. I'm not saying that's right or wrong by the way, I drive everywhere but it is a choice you make at some point and one that our society continually makes.
Rather than looking at better ways of living the private commute is usually the easiest option for many regardless of the massive long term cost to them. I've tried my best to date to avoid it and thankfully it's mostly worked out, I can walk, bike, PT or drive to my current job and all of my previous ones but that's because I made the concious decision to take that into account when looking at jobs & apartments, which many people don't seem to want to do these days.

eia340600

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Here's some pictures I just found - is this the way we want Dublin to look?

Did you even read the link you posted??Within the first few lines it states that, the pro-cycling stance makes for "a remarkably pleasant city"...Gives your whole argument a right kick in the jewels..

popebenny16

seamus wrote: »

Then if you don't want or can't afford a car, don't live outside big towns.

For many people driving is a necessity because they have made it a necessity. If you have no other option except to drive, then that's because at some point you knew that driving was the only option available to you, but you chose to live there anyway.

Ok i will tell my wifes family that they should up sticks from where they have lived since 1821 to the nearest big town? Along with everyone else who lives in the country? a car is not a luxury. it is also not a necessity because it has been made such. if it has been made such then it has been by the decisions of government, both local and national. Prior to the introduction of the motor car as the dominant form of transport there were such things as local offices and local small hospitals, local courthouses, local garda stations, local post offices. You could be a cycle, a walk or a horse and cart ride away. With the car, all of these are closing or have closed. When they have closed you must drive a long distance to get to where you once had a local service.

The vast majority of people who have built in rural areas are directly related to those who already live there. They are actually living where they were born and grew up. Under your idea - one which i have had before on the roads sub forum - they should all up sticks and move to a town? I am sure under your notion that a hundred years ago having an ass and cart was a similar luxury. Perhaps we should just walk everywhere and hope for the best, eh?

invinciblePRSTV

popebenny16 wrote: »

Ok i will tell my wifes family that they should up sticks from where they have lived since 1821 to the nearest big town? Along with everyone else who lives in the country? a car is not a luxury. it is also not a necessity because it has been made such. if it has been made such then it has been by the decisions of government, both local and national. Prior to the introduction of the motor car as the dominant form of transport there were such things as local offices and local small hospitals, local courthouses, local garda stations, local post offices. You could be a cycle, a walk or a horse and cart ride away. With the car, all of these are closing or have closed. When they have closed you must drive a long distance to get to where you once had a local service.

No one is saying you can't live in the countryside or small villages. Just don't expect the kind of services you've listed to be readily available in every hamlet and square as the costs required to do so would be enormous.

popebenny16 wrote: »

The vast majority of people who have built in rural areas are directly related to those who already live there. They are actually living where they were born and grew up. Under your idea - one which i have had before on the roads sub forum - they should all up sticks and move to a town? I am sure under your notion that a hundred years ago having an ass and cart was a similar luxury. Perhaps we should just walk everywhere and hope for the best, eh?

In my rural locale - situated approximately 35km south west of Cork city and a mecca of one off housing- the vast majority of people live and work in the towns and city, far from the local area but choose to commute long distance. If even a basic planning regime had been in place restricting housing development to the villages in the area, then there would be more then enough critical mass required for decent public transport connections, half decent roads and other services achieved through economies of scale.

But, like you, the locals consider themselves to have a god given right to build wherever they like, resulting in dilapedated villages with no services, hideous one off houses dotting the landscape for miles around and, above all, long drives to any thing worthwhile.

That's the end product of the attitude you and others on here espouse and which has been reinforced by delinquent planning policy for decades. Nothing will change for the better till attitudes like yours change.

seamus

popebenny16 wrote: »

a car is not a luxury.

For most people it is. In a wider sense, motorised transport is an essential part of the modern world, but for the individual, a personal motorised vehicle is a luxury. It only becomes a necessity when they make it so.

The vast majority of people who have built in rural areas are directly related to those who already live there. They are actually living where they were born and grew up. Under your idea - one which i have had before on the roads sub forum - they should all up sticks and move to a town?

Irrelevant where they've lived or for how long, or why they're living in the area. "Under my idea"? I'm simply stating the fact.

At some point they had a choice - build/buy near to my family and be utterly reliant on a car for transport, or move to somewhere where I would not be completely reliant on a car. Nobody forced anyone to live where they live.

The picture of the behaggard motorist is one that's always painted of unfairness and picking on the little guy, but it's rarely addressed that the motorist chose to be one. You always had a choice.

Of course I feel sorry for people who are being squeezed now and actually don't have a choice because they can't move. But by and large most people can still afford it and are simply bellyaching about the fact that they're paying more now for a choice that they freely made howsoever many years ago.

antoobrien

seamus wrote: »

Then if you don't want or can't afford a car, don't live outside big towns.

I'm not being facetious and I am aware that it's not a one-size-fits-all scenario, but when deciding where you should live, transport should be right up there in terms of "How am I going to get around".

Unfortunately a lot of people by default just go, "Ah sure I can drive", without considering the possible long-terms implications of that choice.

For many people driving is a necessity because they have made it a necessity.

It's a necessity in Galway because of the utter crapness of the PT network where a single bus route manages to carry 33% of the passengers out of the 9 routes in Galway city. It happens to be the route nearest to me and I try to take it when going into town but very often (about 75% of the time) for various reasons it's not practical to take the bus.

My choice has nothing to do with long term reasons or affordability of where I'm living - even though many people have been forced away from areas with any PT coverage because of this very issue - but practical things like, I'm bringing/getting something bulky (ever tried carrying a goal net on a bus), have kids with me (automatically makes the bus more expensive) or have I have travel on somewhere else etc ad nauseum.

You claim no facetious intent but your reasoning doesn't tally with reality for many people across the country.

seamus

antoobrien wrote: »

for various reasons it's not practical to take the bus.

Agreed. It's often not as practical to take the bus as it is to drive. Driving gets you directly where you want to go, along with all of your bags and baggage and all the kids in toe.

But if you found yourself carless tomorrow, you'd figure it out, right? So a car is not a necessity. A necessity is something that, "If I didn't have it, I can't go to the shop to get food", or "My kids can't get to school".

Things like electricity are necessities (in a modern world anyway) because it's actually impossible to carry out your day-to-day activities without them. You can't light a fire in the middle of your kitchen to cook dinner and heat water for a shower.

A car simply makes everything a million times more convenient, but for those in urban areas it's far from impossible to survive without a car. Lots of people do.

KevR

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

compare and contrast the amount of money lavished on car based transport options over the past few decades, then compare this with outlays on the various types of public transport and see for yourself how massively weighted public spending is in favour of car based transport options.

I really have a problem with this.

You can't say that road spending doesn't also benefit public transport. The M6/4, for example, has radically improved public transport between Galway and Dublin. There is a fast, frequent and reliable bus service now in place, made possible by......wait for it......wait for it......the motorway.

Some people cannot grasp the fact that building good roads can greatly imrprove public transport; it doesn't just benefit evil private motorists.

invinciblePRSTV

KevR wrote: »

I really have a problem with this.

You can't say that road spending doesn't also benefit public transport. The M6/4, for example, has radically improved public transport between Galway and Dublin. There is a fast, frequent and reliable bus service now in place, made possible by......wait for it......wait for it......the motorway.

A tenuous example. Yes the motorways may mean slightly quicker inter city journeys for coach services, but PT needs serious investment in the urban areas, and whilst it new buses and some new routes were implemented during the bubble years, it was the motorways which took the lions share of the funding available, not the railways or buses.

KevR wrote: »

Some people cannot grasp the fact that building good roads can greatly imrprove public transport; it doesn't just benefit evil private motorists.

Again express coaches between the cities certainly benefited, but necessary infrastructure such as bus and cycle lanes, railway line upgrades and the like within and between the the state's urban areas all took secondary concern to the motorways.

veryangryman

KevR wrote: »

evil private motorists.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sorry couldnt resist!

Cookie_Monster

popebenny16 wrote: »

Ok i will tell my wifes family that they should up sticks from where they have lived since 1821 to the nearest big town?

however did they survive before the car then?:p

popebenny16

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

No one is saying you can't live in the countryside or small villages. Just don't expect the kind of services you've listed to be readily available in every hamlet and square as the costs required to do so would be enormous.



In my rural locale - situated approximately 35km south west of Cork city and a mecca of one off housing- the vast majority of people live and work in the towns and city, far from the local area but choose to commute long distance. If even a basic planning regime had been in place restricting housing development to the villages in the area, then there would be more then enough critical mass required for decent public transport connections, half decent roads and other services achieved through economies of scale.

But, like you, the locals consider themselves to have a god given right to build wherever they like, resulting in dilapedated villages with no services, hideous one off houses dotting the landscape for miles around and, above all, long drives to any thing worthwhile.

That's the end product of the attitude you and others on here espouse and which has been reinforced by delinquent planning policy for decades. Nothing will change for the better till attitudes like yours change.

no, the locals would live to have the right to live where they have grown up, where their families have grown up, where their community is. It is exact same as those who could not afford to do likewise in the larger conurbations of this state - they would have rather stayed in their localities but instead had to live in dormitory towns like newbridge or portlaoise and then had to commute to their home city to work. The fact is that the long fdrives to anything worthwhile is due to the withdrawal of many local services and having them being concentrated in the larger towns in the first place, a point i made above and which you have not addressed.

popebenny16

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

As always, the real solution is to have people living close to where they work and live with access to comprehensive public transport options, the kind of which could have been built if the state didn't piss all it's boom monies away on white elephant motorways duplicating themselves across the Irish countryside to appease the always whinging Irish motorist:rolleyes:.

as always, those who espouse such views fail to understand that this has been, since human beings first arrived on this island, a predominantly rural commuinity. lets put your paragraph into practice where I live in Tipp. What comprehensive public service transport options exist - or ever existed?? How can you provide one for the way that the population of rual ireland is structured? of course, the solution of your ilk is simple, just get people to move into towns and cities and several links with their existing communities and social and enviromental history? The motorways in Tipp mean jack **** to the local population, we do not use them for point to point daily routine stuff like going to the shops for example or even going to work. You cannot do either without a car.

popebenny16

seamus wrote: »

Agreed. It's often not as practical to take the bus as it is to drive. Driving gets you directly where you want to go, along with all of your bags and baggage and all the kids in toe.

But if you found yourself carless tomorrow, you'd figure it out, right? So a car is not a necessity. A necessity is something that, "If I didn't have it, I can't go to the shop to get food", or "My kids can't get to school".

this is the sort of smart-ass comment that i love reading on boards. Sure, instead of driving to work I can always walk. I can always likewise tell my kids to walk to the local school a few miles (i know - miles!!!!:eek:) away in all weathers with all the books and other stuff they need on their back in darkest winter. I can - somehow - walk to and fro to the local shop to get whats needed for a family of five every week. It a lot of walking, sure, but, hey, i'll figure it out, right? Next time one of my kids cant breath at 3 am in the morning and the nearest Ambulence is an hour away, well, we can jog to the local hopsital 40 km away, cant we? Or figure something out.

I said the other day that a car is not a luxury, it is a neccesity. As you have now copped on, regarding what you say at the end of your quoted smart ass post, it is indeed a neccessity.

yermanoffthetv

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

A tenuous example. Yes the motorways may mean slightly quicker inter city journeys for coach services, but PT needs serious investment in the urban areas, and whilst it new buses and some new routes were implemented during the bubble years, it was the motorways which took the lions share of the funding available, not the railways or buses.

Again express coaches between the cities certainly benefited, but necessary infrastructure such as bus and cycle lanes, railway line upgrades and the like within and between the the state's urban areas all took secondary concern to the motorways.

Like the western rail corridor that cost over 100m and still needs a subvention to opperate? Its slower and more expensive than a bus, is half empty most of the time, timetable doesnt favour working commuters and is still liable to flood in moderate weather. Limerick-Dublin by train can cost up to €50 one way.The greater Dublin area should focus on public transport certainly, and in time so should the regional cities AFTER the road network is finished.

invinciblePRSTV

popebenny16 wrote: »

no, the locals would live to have the right to live where they have grown up, where their families have grown up, where their community is. It is exact same as those who could not afford to do likewise in the larger conurbations of this state - they would have rather stayed in their localities but instead had to live in dormitory towns like newbridge or portlaoise and then had to commute to their home city to work. The fact is that the long fdrives to anything worthwhile is due to the withdrawal of many local services and having them being concentrated in the larger towns in the first place, a point i made above and which you have not addressed.

The fact is popebenny that it's uneconomical to provide the range of services you desire to every minor settlement with a large hinterland of one-off housing in the country. You can talk about how it's unfair this and not right that, but that's the way it is, rural dwellers can't expect to have the same level of services available in larger settlements.

popebenny16 wrote: »

as always, those who espouse such views fail to understand that this has been, since human beings first arrived on this island, a predominantly rural commuinity.

Ireland is a predominantly urban country popebenny, afair nearly 2/3 of the population live in urban settlements. I know, i know, the glut of one-off housing that pollutes this fair isle would make you think otherwise but nope.

popebenny16 wrote: »

lets put your paragraph into practice where I live in Tipp. What comprehensive public service transport options exist - or ever existed?? How can you provide one for the way that the population of rual ireland is structured?

To link small villages and towns it wouldn't be too difficult to provide decent PT options, if the economies of scale were there. for one-off housing it's nigh-on impossible, if you want the right to build wherever you like then you have to accept the trade-off of there being little in the way of the provision of services you so desire.

popebenny16 wrote: »

of course, the solution of your ilk is simple, just get people to move into towns and cities and several links with their existing communities and social and enviromental history? The motorways in Tipp mean jack **** to the local population, we do not use them for point to point daily routine stuff like going to the shops for example or even going to work. You cannot do either without a car.

You're ranting now benny lad, take it easy.

invinciblePRSTV

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

Like the western rail corridor that cost over 100m and still needs a subvention to opperate? Its slower and more expensive than a bus, is half empty most of the time, timetable doesnt favour working commuters and is still liable to flood in moderate weather. Limerick-Dublin by train can cost up to €50 one way.The greater Dublin area should focus on public transport certainly, and in time so should the regional cities AFTER the road network is finished.

Hey you won't find me disagreeing about the WRC. But let's be realistic here, the Motorway next to it will also have fairly small AADTs for most of it and will also require subvention from the Irish taxpayer in the form of shadow tolls, are you going to complain about that subvention as well?

Similarly why should the state's urban areas wait for the road network to be finished before PT options for them can be considered? From what i can tell the road network is substantially finished, Beyond bits of the the Atlantic corridor(which have dubious merit) and a few other projects. Let's not forget its the urban area's where the majority of the state's population live and where most of its tax money is collected, and we've already spent the best part of 2 decades building duplicating blue lines in rural Ireland whilst PT investment has lagged far behind.

In short, investment in PT should take precedent in any future spending plans, with IMF approval of course.

veryangryman

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

bits of the the Atlantic corridor(which have dubious merit) .

Limerick-Cork M20 badly needs doing. 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest cities in Ireland connected with this. Also to stretch this point, Sligo and the northwest served by this link also.

Gort-Oranmore also is a big need.

If we only got those 2 schemes done, we get the links needed for a good urban corridoor. Knock airport becomes increasingly viable, Shannon too. And (as someone who would rarely use either, but still sees the economic benefits of this) i would be ok with the recent tax increases.

invinciblePRSTV

veryangryman wrote: »

Limerick-Cork M20 badly needs doing. 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest cities in Ireland connected with this. Also to stretch this point, Sligo and the northwest served by this link also.

Gort-Oranmore also is a big need.

I'd argue the Northern M20 project is the only one out of the ones you've mentioned which should be pressed ahead with in the short term, yes the southern section and Gort-Oranmore would be nice, but i don't think they're necessary, particularly with the prospect of the poor taxpayer having to subsidise it. In fact i'd put a Galway City BP ahead of both of them.

veryangryman wrote: »

If we only got those 2 schemes done, we get the links needed for a good urban corridoor. Knock airport becomes increasingly viable, Shannon too. And (as someone who would rarely use either, but still sees the economic benefits of this) i would be ok with the recent tax increases.

Meh, Knock & Shannon are small fry. Btw this is all off topic, feel free to address the rest of the my post which deals with this threads topic rather then selecting one minor point which is better suited for other threads.