New Minister for Transport

thomasj · 02-06-2016 3:16pm

Sadly we are one of the few European countries that lobbyists who argued that buses were the better option were taken seriously . And we're paying for it now.

BoatMad · 02-06-2016 3:21pm

thomasj wrote: »

Sadly we are one of the few European countries that lobbyists who argued that buses were the better option were taken seriously . And we're paying for it now.

we also baulk at billon euro rail projects because we have to assuage rural politicians and so we open the WRC

thomasj · 02-06-2016 3:24pm

Oh yeah forgot about that !

Idbatterim · 02-06-2016 4:06pm

jesus the excuses here are pathetic, dublins transport system is pathetic. We are a rich country, dublin economy generates tens of billions a year. Billions to spend on motorways in the middle of nowhere or backwaters. Not enough to spend on an economic powerhouse of over a million people that is bursting at the seems though :rolleyes:

Once the economy doesnt collapse again, I cant see how the snakes will get off the hook with RMN. What do you do, go come up with original scheme, lie, say its over capacity, come up with cheaper scheme to kick can down the road, then what, cancel the cheaper scheme and go for another option. The cheaper scheme as proposed, is already not fit for purpose (60m platforms) I dont think its possible, even for our morons here (short of another great escape route for them, i.e. another recession)...

Sadly we are one of the few European countries that lobbyists who argued that buses were the better option were taken seriously . And we're paying for it now.

a friend the other day when luas was striking didnt realise they were on strike and when he realised it at the station, walked from windyarbour to city centre before he would take a bus. I would be the same, I wont take a bus... I drive or I take luas...

n97 mini · 02-06-2016 4:19pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Perhaps. I was very frustrated when I wrote it after all. But I stand by my point about benchmarking. Why can't our transport minister make visits to some of these countries, meet with transport ministers abroad? It doesn't sound like an unreasonable suggestion. Thinking outside the box and trying to take some elements (not all are possible) which are successfully implemented abroad).

I don't disagree with any of that, but the current minister is not going to get any major projects sign off on, let alone started... the govt won't last full term and he's unlikely to be there all that long, and he's non-party. Better of focussing on small stuff that can be done quickly and/or cheaply.

n97 mini · 02-06-2016 4:24pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

jesus the excuses here are pathetic, dublins transport system is pathetic. We are a rich country

We're not that rich as we're carrying a lot of areas that don't cover their costs, let alone generate a surplus. All in, we're still borrowing to keep te lights on.

Idbatterim wrote: »

dublin economy generates tens of billions a year. Billions to spend on motorways in the middle of nowhere or backwaters. Not enough to spend on an economic powerhouse of over a million people that is bursting at the seems though

That's certainly true. WRC above was a good example. Electrifying the Maynooth line and opening one or two more city centre stations would have cost less and would have benefited tens of thousands of citizens.

Idbatterim · 02-06-2016 4:31pm

things are on the up, unemployment is down below 8% now, they have a choice with what they now plan to do with the extra billions that will become available. Infrastructure and housing should be area number 1 in my opinion. Forget squandering it on more benchmarking or welfare increases or other wastes...

In reports, infrastructure is constantly what we are bottom of the heap on and areas that they highlight, that need addressing...

I read a quote in the Irish Times earlier, a developer saying construction inflation is running at 8%. Now I am not sure how this would correspond with infrastructure works, but if that figure is accurate and we can now borrow for as good as nothing. In 5 years, the inferior new RMN scheme and potentially DU will be more expensive and inferior to what was planned & the reason to shelve them and do a re-design was to save money!!!!!!!

Chivito550 · 07-09-2016 1:38pm

So Shane Ross saying that transport is a doddle in comparison to sport. A doddle? Decades of neglect in public transport investment, a system 60 years behind that of comparable sized European cities like Oslo and Amsterdam, one of the most traffic congested cities in the world, single occupant cars clogging up the city centre, and strikes every 5 minutes! Yep that's definitely a doddle in comparison to his free trip to Rio to watch a load of sports he knows nothing about. Can't even get Thomas Barr's name right. Who is Thomas Barry?

MJohnston · 07-09-2016 1:44pm

It's a doddle because **** all will be done by his department in the next few years, presumably.

BoatMad · 07-09-2016 1:58pm

n97 mini wrote: »

We're not that rich as we're carrying a lot of areas that don't cover their costs, let alone generate a surplus. All in, we're still borrowing to keep te lights on.

That's certainly true. WRC above was a good example. Electrifying the Maynooth line and opening one or two more city centre stations would have cost less and would have benefited tens of thousands of citizens.

we are one of the wealthiest western nations , even our borrowings to GDP is falling before many other Eurozone countries

we should be investing billions in infrastructure at this time , money is at its cheapest ever, however EU stability rules are now a major issue , because in effect the hit smaller countries far harder then larger countries which have far larger absolute amounts of budget to play with

end of the road · 07-09-2016 3:07pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

strikes every 5 minutes!

where. they're are certainly no strikes every 5 minutes in dublin.

07-09-2016 3:14pm

BoatMad wrote: »

we are one of the wealthiest western nations , even our borrowings to GDP is falling before many other Eurozone countries

we should be investing billions in infrastructure at this time , money is at its cheapest ever, however EU stability rules are now a major issue , because in effect the hit smaller countries far harder then larger countries which have far larger absolute amounts of budget to play with

Strategic investment should not be part of those rules. Capital budgets and capital spending are very different from current account deficit issues and we should be fighting tooth and nail to have this assessed fairly and the infrastructure deficit plugged asap if that distinction is not accurately recognized by the S&G Pact at the moment.

It's criminal that no fuss has been kicked up about this considering the effects that it would have on a number of Irish Issues at present. Making Dublin more commutable would ease housing pressures (as more areas became viable, land prices would drop). It would get some builders and engineers back to work. It would offer us the chance to plan to better serve the needs of the people for the coming 30 years instead of constantly working 10 years in arrears.

Will Ross be the man for that though? :rolleyes:

BoatMad · 07-09-2016 3:16pm

Strategic investment should not be part of those rules. Capital budgets and capital spending are very different from current account deficit issues and we should be fighting tooth and nail to have this assessed fairly and the infrastructure deficit plugged asap if that distinction is not accurately recognized by the S&G Pact at the moment.

They are when such investment is funded by state borrowing ( which it almost inevitably is )

Chivito550 · 07-09-2016 3:19pm

end of the road wrote: »

where. they're are certainly no strikes every 5 minutes in dublin.

A figure of speech. That surely was obvious!

07-09-2016 3:22pm

BoatMad wrote: »

They are when such investment is funded by state borrowing ( which it almost inevitably is )

Which is nonsense. Even just on the level of pointing out that the borrowing is not unsecured (like the borrowing that is used to plug current deficits in Ireland/Greece etc has always been). At the very least there is a tangible asset delivered by it which can be valued (and if the project is viable, the asset's projected value {to the Economy - direct and indirectly} is usually many times the cost of delivery) and offset even as a Work-in-Progress.

If the S&G Pact and other rules prevent Capital Investment and consider it akin to Current Expenditure, then it renders projects above a certain level (€3/4bn in our case) almost impossible to achieve. A Government proposal for a "One-Off" tax increase and probably also spending decreases elsewhere would be required for us to open the fiscal space up that would offer us the opportunity to start work on anything of such a scale. Politically impossible imo.

cgcsb · 07-09-2016 3:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Strategic investment should not be part of those rules. Capital budgets and capital spending are very different from current account deficit issues and we should be fighting tooth and nail to have this assessed fairly and the infrastructure deficit plugged asap if that distinction is not accurately recognized by the S&G Pact at the moment.

It's criminal that no fuss has been kicked up about this considering the effects that it would have on a number of Irish Issues at present. Making Dublin more commutable would ease housing pressures (as more areas became viable, land prices would drop). It would get some builders and engineers back to work. It would offer us the chance to plan to better serve the needs of the people for the coming 30 years instead of constantly working 10 years in arrears.

Will Ross be the man for that though? :rolleyes:

That's not really what Europe wants though. If Dublin had the infrastructure of, say Amsterdam + Irish corp tax, multinationals wouldn't bother their bums locating anywhere in Europe other than Dublin.

Idbatterim · 07-09-2016 4:01pm

cgcsb, what we spend our annual 60,000,000,000+ on is totally the irish governments choice. they choose to spend a fortune on welfare for example. Nothing stopping them cutting that and spending it on infrastructure, other than short term political considerations here...

2RockMountain · 07-09-2016 4:10pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

they choose to spend a fortune on welfare for example. Nothing stopping them cutting that and spending it on infrastructure, other than short term political considerations here...

And the minor issue of people dying for lack of food/heat if they have no money.

BoatMad · 07-09-2016 4:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is nonsense. Even just on the level of pointing out that the borrowing is not unsecured (like the borrowing that is used to plug current deficits in Ireland/Greece etc has always been). At the very least there is a tangible asset delivered by it which can be valued (and if the project is viable, the asset's projected value {to the Economy - direct and indirectly} is usually many times the cost of delivery) and offset even as a Work-in-Progress.

If the S&G Pact and other rules prevent Capital Investment and consider it akin to Current Expenditure, then it renders projects above a certain level (€3/4bn in our case) almost impossible to achieve. A Government proposal for a "One-Off" tax increase and probably also spending decreases elsewhere would be required for us to open the fiscal space up that would offer us the opportunity to start work on anything of such a scale. Politically impossible imo.

This is the situation at present under the stability pact, Irelands borrowings ( to be used for any activity ) is aggregated together and must be maintained below a certain limit.

we can of course raise taxes !! and fund it that way, we just cant borrow it

its a major issue for small states , as typical infrastructure projects are a big proportion of GDP , an issue that does not affect larger states in the same way

BoatMad · 07-09-2016 4:41pm

2RockMountain wrote: »

And the minor issue of people dying for lack of food/heat if they have no money.

we live in a society where you need some money or has that escaped you :P

BoatMad · 07-09-2016 4:41pm

cgcsb wrote: »

That's not really what Europe wants though. If Dublin had the infrastructure of, say Amsterdam + Irish corp tax, multinationals wouldn't bother their bums locating anywhere in Europe other than Dublin.

I dont think Europe is that clever

Idbatterim · 07-09-2016 4:46pm

we can of course raise taxes !! and fund it that way, we just cant borrow it

yeah or just not increase spending on other areas. Why do you always have to borrow more? why not just freeze welfare for example, the proposed rise by €5 in the oap, will cost €150,000,000 welfare xmas bonus another god knows what...

the notion that borrowing is the only option is laughable... ok politically cutting welfare rates may be problematic, but freezing them offers a number of benefits...

another example, the LPT. the returns for that will be swelling, as soon as the freeze on them is over. Yet councils can choose to cut them by 10-15%, why let them do this, there isnt enough currently being spent on infrastructure and services...

ALL THESE IDIOTS HAVE TO DO TO SORT OUT SOME OF OUR ISSUES...

IS DO NOTHING!

2RockMountain · 07-09-2016 5:23pm

BoatMad wrote: »

we live in a society where you need some money or has that escaped you :P

That's kinda my point. If you choose to cut welfare from those who have no income, people start dying - look at what is happening in the UK under the Tories. No government has a mandate to do this here, given that both the PDs and Renue got their respective asses kicked by the electorate.

Chivito550 · 04-02-2017 10:56am

I got a reply to the email I sent the minister (posted on page 3 of this thread) back in mid July, which was 2 months after I emailed him. I wasn't sure whether I'd post it, but after seeing how utterly useless he is, I don't care at this stage. He clearly didn't write it himself, and he didn't address any of my questions. I got a half respectable reply off the CEO of the National Transport Authority (which still ignored most of my questions) but it's in PDF so I can't seem to copy it.

Thank you for your email regarding the provision of Public Transport in Dublin. Please forgive the delay in replying, I have been battling quite a backlog of correspondence.

The Government's Capital Plan - Building on Recovery: Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2016-2021 allows for appropriate levels of investment to be made in public transport to maintain and improve the existing network. It also allows for the growing problem of urban congestion to be addressed and for the sustainable transport agenda to be supported. €3.6bn is being provided for the public transport programme over the period of the Plan. The Plan can be viewed at the following link: http://www.per.gov.ie/en/capital-investment-plan-2016-2021/ .

It is also worth noting that the National Transport Authority (NTA) has statutory responsibility for the implementation and development of public transport infrastructure in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA). Their Transport Strategy for the GDA is available to download at the following link: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-policy/greater-dublin-areatransport-strategy-2016-2035/ and provides a framework for the planning and delivery of transport infrastructure and services in the Greater Dublin Area. The requirements of the Capital Plan were taken into account by the NTA when drafting their strategy.

Given the NTA's responsibility on these matters and the specific nature of the queries raised, I have forwarded your email to their Chief Executive for her attention and direct reply. I greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. If you require any further information going forward, or wish to bring any other matters to my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With best wishes,

Shane Ross
Minister for Transport Tourism and Sport

Idbatterim · 04-02-2017 11:13am

The government capital plan allows for adequate infrastructure spend. It starts off with a lie! Best thing is this, if a td is appointed a minister, if they fail in that roll, don't vote them in the next time. Watch them sit up and start to care then...

Idbatterim · 04-02-2017 11:17am

2RockMountain wrote: »

That's kinda my point. If you choose to cut welfare from those who have no income, people start dying - look at what is happening in the UK under the Tories. No government has a mandate to do this here, given that both the PDs and Renue got their respective asses kicked by the electorate.

The pd's and Renua would represent far more people than than the long term welfare spongers here

Also saying if they cut welfare people would die. Exaggerate much? At what € amount would they start dying? Seeing as people weren't dying on welfare before the boom and that was before massively above inflation welfare hikes kicked in?

end of the road · 04-02-2017 3:36pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

The pd's and Renua would represent far more people than than the long term welfare spongers here

well given that the amount of long term or any term "welfare spongers" are a very small amount, that is a given that both parties would represent more people. still though, they don't represent the majority of voters which is ultimately what matters.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Also saying if they cut welfare people would die. Exaggerate much? At what € amount would they start dying? Seeing as people weren't dying on welfare before the boom and that was before massively above inflation welfare hikes kicked in?

indeed. however, we must remember that wellfare cuts unfortunately mostly target people who are there through no fault of their own. for some of those people, things can become very difficult dispite cutting to the bone.