State paid two million euro in 2015 for white elephant

Banjoxed

Today's Irish Times runs a piece without comment on the boondoggle that has been the M3. Not content with providing massive outdoor relief at the construction phase, the Government paid out €2m in shadow tolls to the private operator in 2015 alone.

I don't see an Irish Times editorial fulminating that this shady little scheme should be ripped up and turned into a greenway, but hey, this is Ireland and snouts in the trough are fine if they are private ones.

Ker-Ching!

Carawaystick

I'm sure building a railway line from Dunboyne to Navan would be cheaper for the state ... :rolleyes:

Banjoxed

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm sure building a railway line from Dunboyne to Navan would be cheaper for the state ... :rolleyes:

It would have been, but bear in mind that the railway was almost certainly going to be on a predictable route that couldnt be fundamentally changed for political reasons. Motorways are a blank slate and consequently a godsend for lobbying.

Carawaystick

I'm sorry, do you reckon a railway would cost the state less to subvent than the road? Given that the road subvention is split between the M3, and the N3 to Kells

Banjoxed

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm sorry, do you reckon a railway would cost the state less to subvent than the road? Given that the road subvention is split between the M3, and the N3 to Kells

We would have to see just how much was chunked out in construction and land purchase costs first. What is the ongoing financial commitment for the taxpayer? I'm not going to pull figures out of my bum, but nor am I going to do the job of an investigative journalist either, if we had any willing to buck the national consensus of predict and provide roads to service sprawl.

dixiefly

The new road layout at Blanchardstown are fantastic addition and I darent think what the traffic would have been like without them.

I said at the time and still believe that the motorway really only needed to be brought as far as the Trim / Fairyhouse junction. There is enough traffic leaving there to allow an enhanced N3 to function just as well. By That I mean to include bypasses of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells.

The above changes would have been sufficient imho.

Regarding the train, I just dont know the finances of a Navan link. However, the train from Dunboyne needs to get into town quicker to make it worth peoples while. I think it takes over 40 minutes. When you add an initial drive, a wait for the train and a final journey on the other side then the time is cranking up.

Banjoxed

dixiefly wrote: »

The new road layout at Blanchardstown are fantastic addition and I darent think what the traffic would have been like without them.

I said at the time and still believe that the motorway really only needed to be brought as far as the Trim / Fairyhouse junction. There is enough traffic leaving there to allow an enhanced N3 to function just as well. By That I mean to include bypasses of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells.

The above changes would have been sufficient imho.

Regarding the train, I just dont know the finances of a Navan link. However, the train from Dunboyne needs to get into town quicker to make it worth peoples while. I think it takes over 40 minutes. When you add an initial drive, a wait for the train and a final journey on the other side then the time is cranking up.

A quick look at the timetable online at irishrail.ie says 33 mins from Dunboyne to Docklands. Not bad going considering how snarled up the bus gets.

Idbatterim

two million LOL. I cant wait to hear, what loses some of the rail lines are losing...

Banjoxed

Idbatterim wrote: »

two million LOL. I cant wait to hear, what loses some of the rail lines are losing...

Classic double standard. Spaff money on ill-advised road schemes that line pockets? Yeah, I'm breaking my swiss laughing all right. A few more have laughed all the way to the bank on the back of that, but that's acceptable.

Carawaystick

Is the 300 million plus a year IÉ get just burnt? or does that go to peoples pockets too?

Idbatterim

Classic double standard. Spaff money on ill-advised road schemes that line pockets? Yeah, I'm breaking my swiss laughing all right. A few more have laughed all the way to the bank on the back of that, but that's acceptable.

hang on, I am assuming the usage is below forecast? the government or NTA or whoever drew up the contract. The private operator hasn't exactly put a gun to their head for the two million...

Logue no2

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is the 300 million plus a year IÉ get just burnt? or does that go to peoples pockets too?

I'm struggling to understand the connection between IÉ and a bad PPP deal on a Motorway. What is known is that several FF donors and Chums did well out of the Motorway programme.

I'm sure there is more to tell about the deals done behind the scenes on these developments. Ireland is after all a small place and there are a lot of vested interests to satisfy. Perhaps that's one reason railways are so unpopular in some quarters. Not much cash in them to get rich by.

Carawaystick

Logue no2 wrote: »

Not much cash in them to get rich by.

There's loads of money in railways. Irish rail get 300,000,000 euros per anum from the state
They got a hundred million to open the line between Ennis and Athenry, and then run no trains if it rains too much...

If we're looking at white elephants...

Banjoxed

Logue no2 wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand the connection between IÉ and a bad PPP deal on a Motorway. What is known is that several FF donors and Chums did well out of the Motorway programme.

I'm sure there is more to tell about the deals done behind the scenes on these developments. Ireland is after all a small place and there are a lot of vested interests to satisfy. Perhaps that's one reason railways are so unpopular in some quarters. Not much cash in them to get rich by.

Well said.

Charles Babbage

This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.

Logue no2

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.

I agree. There's already a zoo thread on the board where all the WRC haters and greenway campaigners can pat themselves on the back.

_Kaiser_

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.

Whatever about railways, it is ridiculous that an agreement was made whereby the State (ie: us!) would compensate the toll company for any shortfall on their projected revenue.

As with the financial crisis and "bailout", Ireland Inc sure is great when it comes to all reward and no risk.. because even if it fails, the taxpayers will cough up anyway!

Infini

Logue no2 wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand the connection between IÉ and a bad PPP deal on a Motorway. What is known is that several FF donors and Chums did well out of the Motorway programme.

I'm sure there is more to tell about the deals done behind the scenes on these developments. Ireland is after all a small place and there are a lot of vested interests to satisfy. Perhaps that's one reason railways are so unpopular in some quarters. Not much cash in them to get rich by.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.

To put this into perspective for you, Rail Line was meant to go to Navan however the line was only built to the M3 parkway park and ride. This park and ride facility is located on the Dublin Side of the toll plaza rather than located on the Navan side. As a result people have to pay a toll and then pay for parking charges to use public transport into the city. The kicker of course is that the operator gets free money for non existent traffic off the state. Thus we have the biggest joke where a private operator gets paid for non existent traffic and people get triple charged by both a toll AND having to pay for parking and a rail ticket.

If this had been designed properly and there was common sense the toll booth would have been located past M3 parkway which would encourage people to leave their car there and travel into Dublin on the train. If it had been built properly the whole line would have been restored to Navan itself and with a bit of modification would have created a loop line via Drogheda
through Navan. Alas the legacy of rip off ireland continues thanks to your local former TD's.

Carawaystick

Infini2 wrote: »

To put this into perspective for you, Rail Line was meant to go to Navan however the line was only built to the M3 parkway park and ride. This park and ride facility is located on the Dublin Side of the toll plaza rather than located on the Navan side. As a result people have to pay a toll and then pay for parking charges to use public transport into the city.

There is no parking charge at the M3 Parkway station.
The toll is 1.40 for a car, if you've just 2 occupants, that's 1.40 per day. It'd cost more than that per day to get a train from Navan to M3Parkway.


I wonder what the useage numbers are like on the M3 vs the train line from Ennis to Athenry, to compare white elephants...

end of the road

Post Reply
Unfollow


Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread
Yesterday, 08:34 #1
Banjoxed
Registered User

Banjoxed's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a house.
Posts: 1,595
Adverts | Friends

State paid two million euro in 2015 for white elephant
Today's Irish Times runs a piece without comment on the boondoggle that has been the M3. Not content with providing massive outdoor relief at the construction phase, the Government paid out €2m in shadow tolls to the private operator in 2015 alone.

I don't see an Irish Times editorial fulminating that this shady little scheme should be ripped up and turned into a greenway, but hey, this is Ireland and snouts in the trough are fine if they are private ones.

Ker-Ching!
Banjoxed is offline Report Post
(5) thanks from:
glued, Grandeeod, Logue no2, Losty Dublin, lucernarian
Yesterday, 09:09 #2
Carawaystick
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: exiled in North Co. Dublin
Posts: 7,503
Adverts | Friends

I'm sure building a railway line from Dunboyne to Navan would be cheaper for the state ...
Carawaystick is offline Report Post
Thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road
Yesterday, 09:14 #3
Banjoxed
Registered User

Banjoxed's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a house.
Posts: 1,595
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carawaystick View Post
I'm sure building a railway line from Dunboyne to Navan would be cheaper for the state ...
It would have been, but bear in mind that the railway was almost certainly going to be on a predictable route that couldnt be fundamentally changed for political reasons. Motorways are a blank slate and consequently a godsend for lobbying.
Banjoxed is offline Report Post
(2) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road, Logue no2
Yesterday, 09:22 #4
Carawaystick
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: exiled in North Co. Dublin
Posts: 7,503
Adverts | Friends

I'm sorry, do you reckon a railway would cost the state less to subvent than the road? Given that the road subvention is split between the M3, and the N3 to Kells
Carawaystick is offline Report Post
Yesterday, 09:27 #5
Banjoxed
Registered User

Banjoxed's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a house.
Posts: 1,595
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carawaystick View Post
I'm sorry, do you reckon a railway would cost the state less to subvent than the road? Given that the road subvention is split between the M3, and the N3 to Kells
We would have to see just how much was chunked out in construction and land purchase costs first. What is the ongoing financial commitment for the taxpayer? I'm not going to pull figures out of my bum, but nor am I going to do the job of an investigative journalist either, if we had any willing to buck the national consensus of predict and provide roads to service sprawl.
Banjoxed is offline Report Post
Thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road
Yesterday, 09:36 #6
dixiefly
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,490
Adverts | Friends

The new road layout at Blanchardstown are fantastic addition and I darent think what the traffic would have been like without them.

I said at the time and still believe that the motorway really only needed to be brought as far as the Trim / Fairyhouse junction. There is enough traffic leaving there to allow an enhanced N3 to function just as well. By That I mean to include bypasses of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells.

The above changes would have been sufficient imho.

Regarding the train, I just dont know the finances of a Navan link. However, the train from Dunboyne needs to get into town quicker to make it worth peoples while. I think it takes over 40 minutes. When you add an initial drive, a wait for the train and a final journey on the other side then the time is cranking up.
__________________
The older you get, the more it means (Bruce, KIlkenny, July 2013)
dixiefly is offline Report Post
Yesterday, 09:43 #7
Banjoxed
Registered User

Banjoxed's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a house.
Posts: 1,595
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixiefly View Post
The new road layout at Blanchardstown are fantastic addition and I darent think what the traffic would have been like without them.

I said at the time and still believe that the motorway really only needed to be brought as far as the Trim / Fairyhouse junction. There is enough traffic leaving there to allow an enhanced N3 to function just as well. By That I mean to include bypasses of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells.

The above changes would have been sufficient imho.

Regarding the train, I just dont know the finances of a Navan link. However, the train from Dunboyne needs to get into town quicker to make it worth peoples while. I think it takes over 40 minutes. When you add an initial drive, a wait for the train and a final journey on the other side then the time is cranking up.
A quick look at the timetable online at irishrail.ie says 33 mins from Dunboyne to Docklands. Not bad going considering how snarled up the bus gets.
Banjoxed is offline Report Post
Yesterday, 10:28 #8
Idbatterim
Registered User

Idbatterim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 8,771
Adverts | Friends

two million LOL. I cant wait to hear, what loses some of the rail lines are losing...
Idbatterim is offline Report Post
Yesterday, 11:32 #9
Banjoxed
Registered User

Banjoxed's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a house.
Posts: 1,595
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idbatterim View Post
two million LOL. I cant wait to hear, what loses some of the rail lines are losing...
Classic double standard. Spaff money on ill-advised road schemes that line pockets? Yeah, I'm breaking my swiss laughing all right. A few more have laughed all the way to the bank on the back of that, but that's acceptable.
Banjoxed is offline Report Post
(2) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road, Logue no2
Yesterday, 14:47 #10
Carawaystick
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: exiled in North Co. Dublin
Posts: 7,503
Adverts | Friends

Is the 300 million plus a year IÉ get just burnt? or does that go to peoples pockets too?
Carawaystick is offline Report Post
Yesterday, 15:25 #11
Idbatterim
Registered User

Idbatterim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 8,771
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Classic double standard. Spaff money on ill-advised road schemes that line pockets? Yeah, I'm breaking my swiss laughing all right. A few more have laughed all the way to the bank on the back of that, but that's acceptable.
hang on, I am assuming the usage is below forecast? the government or NTA or whoever drew up the contract. The private operator hasn't exactly put a gun to their head for the two million...
Idbatterim is offline Report Post
Yesterday, 15:34 #12
Logue no2
Registered User

Logue no2's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 33
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carawaystick View Post
Is the 300 million plus a year IÉ get just burnt? or does that go to peoples pockets too?
I'm struggling to understand the connection between IÉ and a bad PPP deal on a Motorway. What is known is that several FF donors and Chums did well out of the Motorway programme.

I'm sure there is more to tell about the deals done behind the scenes on these developments. Ireland is after all a small place and there are a lot of vested interests to satisfy. Perhaps that's one reason railways are so unpopular in some quarters. Not much cash in them to get rich by.
Logue no2 is offline Report Post
(6) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
Banjoxed, Del.Monte, end of the road, Grandeeod, J.pilkington, lucernarian
Yesterday, 20:00 #13
Carawaystick
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: exiled in North Co. Dublin
Posts: 7,503
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logue no2 View Post
Not much cash in them to get rich by.
There's loads of money in railways. Irish rail get 300,000,000 euros per anum from the state
They got a hundred million to open the line between Ennis and Athenry, and then run no trains if it rains too much...

If we're looking at white elephants...
Carawaystick is offline Report Post
Yesterday, 21:12 #14
Banjoxed
Registered User

Banjoxed's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a house.
Posts: 1,595
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logue no2 View Post
I'm struggling to understand the connection between IÉ and a bad PPP deal on a Motorway. What is known is that several FF donors and Chums did well out of the Motorway programme.

I'm sure there is more to tell about the deals done behind the scenes on these developments. Ireland is after all a small place and there are a lot of vested interests to satisfy. Perhaps that's one reason railways are so unpopular in some quarters. Not much cash in them to get rich by.
Well said.
Banjoxed is offline Report Post
Thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road
Yesterday, 22:25 #15
Charles Babbage
Registered User

Charles Babbage's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 715
Adverts | Friends

This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.
Charles Babbage is offline Report Post
(3) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road, J.pilkington, Logue no2
Yesterday, 22:41 #16
Logue no2
Registered User

Logue no2's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 33
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Babbage View Post
This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.
I agree. There's already a zoo thread on the board where all the WRC haters and greenway campaigners can pat themselves on the back.
Logue no2 is offline Report Post
(3) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road, J.pilkington, lucernarian
Yesterday, 23:23 #17
_Kaiser_
Registered User

_Kaiser_'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 15,751
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Babbage View Post
This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.
Whatever about railways, it is ridiculous that an agreement was made whereby the State (ie: us!) would compensate the toll company for any shortfall on their projected revenue.

As with the financial crisis and "bailout", Ireland Inc sure is great when it comes to all reward and no risk.. because even if it fails, the taxpayers will cough up anyway!
_Kaiser_ is offline Report Post
(2) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road, Logue no2
Yesterday, 23:48 #18
Infini2
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 875
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logue no2 View Post
I'm struggling to understand the connection between IÉ and a bad PPP deal on a Motorway. What is known is that several FF donors and Chums did well out of the Motorway programme.

I'm sure there is more to tell about the deals done behind the scenes on these developments. Ireland is after all a small place and there are a lot of vested interests to satisfy. Perhaps that's one reason railways are so unpopular in some quarters. Not much cash in them to get rich by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Babbage View Post
This thread is complete nonsense. A motorway was built, which is partly paid for by tolls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with railways.
To put this into perspective for you, Rail Line was meant to go to Navan however the line was only built to the M3 parkway park and ride. This park and ride facility is located on the Dublin Side of the toll plaza rather than located on the Navan side. As a result people have to pay a toll and then pay for parking charges to use public transport into the city. The kicker of course is that the operator gets free money for non existent traffic off the state. Thus we have the biggest joke where a private operator gets paid for non existent traffic and people get triple charged by both a toll AND having to pay for parking and a rail ticket.

If this had been designed properly and there was common sense the toll booth would have been located past M3 parkway which would encourage people to leave their car there and travel into Dublin on the train. If it had been built properly the whole line would have been restored to Navan itself and with a bit of modification would have created a loop line via Drogheda
through Navan. Alas the legacy of rip off ireland continues thanks to your local former TD's.
Infini2 is offline Report Post
(3) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road, Logue no2, markpb
Today, 00:49 #19
Carawaystick
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: exiled in North Co. Dublin
Posts: 7,503
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infini2 View Post
To put this into perspective for you, Rail Line was meant to go to Navan however the line was only built to the M3 parkway park and ride. This park and ride facility is located on the Dublin Side of the toll plaza rather than located on the Navan side. As a result people have to pay a toll and then pay for parking charges to use public transport into the city.
There is no parking charge at the M3 Parkway station.
The toll is 1.40 for a car, if you've just 2 occupants, that's 1.40 per day. It'd cost more than that per day to get a train from Navan to M3Parkway.


I wonder what the useage numbers are like on the M3 vs the train line from Ennis to Athenry, to compare white elephants...
Carawaystick is offline Report Post
Today, 03:10 #20
end of the road
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 14,162
Adverts | Friends

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carawaystick View Post
There is no parking charge at the M3 Parkway station.
The toll is 1.40 for a car, if you've just 2 occupants, that's 1.40 per day. It'd cost more than that per day to get a train from Navan to M3Parkway.[/quote]

but then again getting the train from navan may not cost more. either way the fact people are tolled while on their way to use public transport is more irish nonsense that couldn't be made up.

Banjoxed

Carawaystick wrote: »

There is no parking charge at the M3 Parkway station.
The toll is 1.40 for a car, if you've just 2 occupants, that's 1.40 per day. It'd cost more than that per day to get a train from Navan to M3Parkway.


I wonder what the useage numbers are like on the M3 vs the train line from Ennis to Athenry, to compare white elephants...

Or, put another way, don't look at the boondoggle aspects of the M3 project, because Ireland is run in a particular way and 'we' have no intention of ever challenging that. Also, I forgot that running a car is a cost free exercise compared to the iniquity of paying a fare to Iárnrod Eireańn. Thanks.

Logue no2

Banjoxed wrote: »

Or, put another way, don't look at the boondoggle aspects of the M3 project, because Ireland is run in a particular way and 'we' have no intention of ever challenging that. Also, I forgot that running a car is a cost free exercise compared to the iniquity of paying a fare to Iárnrod Eireańn. Thanks.

There are no doubt plenty of vested interests who would rather we didn't discuss the stich up that was the M3 Motorway, the land purchase process and it's unique tolling arrangements.

No, it's clear from this thread that some people would rather we didn't discuss the M3 at all.

Losty Dublin

Logue no2 wrote: »

There are no doubt plenty of vested interests who would rather we didn't discuss the stich up that was the M3 Motorway, the land purchase process and it's unique tolling arrangements.

No, it's clear from this thread that some people would rather we didn't discuss the M3 at all.

Sure, the only bad road is a railroad.

PeadarCo

_Kaiser_ wrote:

Whatever about railways, it is ridiculous that an agreement was made whereby the State (ie: us!) would compensate the toll company for any shortfall on their projected revenue.

What the state did was when it went looking for private investmen/loans to part fund the road, they said they'd guarantee a certain return on investment. The tolls ideally would cover that return and may eventually over the life time of the toll road/loan. The government could have not decided to guarantee a certain return but you probably would have been looking at higher toll fees to cater for the increased risk to private investors who part funded the road.

It's nothing unusual or underhand. You'd imagine given the long life of the loans and steady if unspectacular returns that the ultimate beneficiaries of that money would be private pension funds. Which would mean at least some of the money will end up back in people's pockets.

Wanderer78

I've always liked American economist Ellen Browns take on ppp projects, whereby the private entity bags the profit and public bags the risk!

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

I've always liked American economist Ellen Browns take on ppp projects, whereby the private entity bags the profit and public bags the risk!

There was nothing stopping the government putting out an offer that would have seen the private sector take the risk but naturally a greater return I.e. higher toll fees would have been required to get the same level of funding. By getting private sector funding it meant the government didn't have to spend as much of its own money and the money saved could be put towards other uses.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

There was nothing stopping the government putting out an offer that would have seen the private sector take the risk but naturally a greater return I.e. higher toll fees would have been required to get the same level of funding. By getting private sector funding it meant the government didn't have to spend as much of its own money and the money saved could be put towards other uses.

good point alright but we have to start rethinking money, i.e, its creation, its distribution and ultimately its control. handing this over to a largely privately owned system is not working.

end of the road

PeadarCo wrote: »

There was nothing stopping the government putting out an offer that would have seen the private sector take the risk but naturally a greater return I.e. higher toll fees would have been required to get the same level of funding. By getting private sector funding it meant the government didn't have to spend as much of its own money and the money saved could be put towards other uses.

so let the users of the road pay. how many trucks for example use it. the money being spent on a form of subsidy to the toll company could have been spent on something else.

Zebra3

Toll company donates money to main government party.

Government gives aforementioned toll company contract that guarantees it can't lose money.

Nothing to see here folks. :rolleyes:

Sam Russell

I think that the scenario you are thinking of is :

Toll company builds a bridge for IR£10 million. Bridge is not connected to anything.

Government builds the M50 to cross the bridge at IR££££££££££.

Toll company collects tolls from millions of cars forcing them to queue for hours because of their inefficient collection system.

Government is forced to buy out the toll franchise for €500 million because of the delays and traffic congestion. Gov must continue tolling to try to recoup the €500 million.

Not sure who gained but I know who lost.

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

good point alright but we have to start rethinking money, i.e, its creation, its distribution and ultimately its control. handing this over to a largely privately owned system is not working.

The thing is no one makes money on this per say. Even the private company who loan out the money can still make a loss if the return they get is lower than their cost of capital for the funds they lend. The return is macro as in improvements in the quality of life for the people living in the towns and villages on the old road due to reduced traffic volumes and additional investment generated in the areas near the motorway.



The loan is reputablely 30 years(I'm open to correction on how long the tolls will last for). I don't see the big deal with private companies lending money and getting a return. Based on the longevity and the relatively low but consistent above inflation return at least some of that money will be going back into people's pension funds. Pension funds generally have the capital to invest and also would be interested in the long loan life.

The question I have is which is cheaper for the taxpayer. If its cheaper with private sector involvement/frees up money for other projects I don't see why you'd get bogged down in ideology. Given the large amounts of money these type of projects require you'd hope and imagine that all funding options would be analyzed on a project by project basis.

PeadarCo

end of the road wrote:

so let the users of the road pay. how many trucks for example use it. the money being spent on a form of subsidy to the toll company could have been spent on something else.

Ye but remember if private sector money wasn't provided the government who have had to take money away from other projects to make up the shortfall. There's going to be an opportunity cost if you do that. So you can't look at the tolls or the 2 million on their own you also have to look at the cost of the alternatives to work out which was better value.

Wanderer78

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is no one makes money on this per say. Even the private company who loan out the money can still make a loss if the return they get is lower than their cost of capital for the funds they lend. The return is macro as in improvements in the quality of life for the people living in the towns and villages on the old road due to reduced traffic volumes and additional investment generated in the areas near the motorway.



The loan is reputablely 30 years(I'm open to correction on how long the tolls will last for). I don't see the big deal with private companies lending money and getting a return. Based on the longevity and the relatively low but consistent above inflation return at least some of that money will be going back into people's pension funds. Pension funds generally have the capital to invest and also would be interested in the long loan life.

The question I have is which is cheaper for the taxpayer. If its cheaper with private sector involvement/frees up money for other projects I don't see why you'd get bogged down in ideology. Given the large amounts of money these type of projects require you'd hope and imagine that all funding options would be analyzed on a project by project basis.

id disagree with you to a point there, even though you do make some good points. i suspect the private financial institutions backing the funding for these large projects are nearly always winning no matter what the outcome, as they can engage in high risk activities such as derivatives trading on the back of the debts created from these projects. a lot of these derivatives can be extremely dangerous for society as a whole, as noam chomsky puts it, the externalities of these systems are never taken into account, which could potentially crash the whole system. we have to start taking back control of these complex financial systems before the system as a whole collapses. having the majority of our money supply being created by private financial institutions really isnt working, these systems are too volatile. ultimately i feel the true cost ends up on the backs of the end users, in this case, in toll charges or even bailouts from the public in all its formats.

i think id much rather see these projects publically funded, even if they remain to be tolled, at least we the people would own the infrastructure and could make gains from the projects if they make a profit. these profits can be directed back into the upkeep and/or expansion of the infrastructure for the benefit for all. theres certainly nothing wrong with private companies making a profit from these ventures, but i feel many are simply cash cows that ultimately end up simply costing the end user all round as explained above. privatisation of our monetary systems has some advantages but i feel its disadvantages are extremely dangerous, and have the potential to crash our financial and economic systems with its high risk approach.

the cheaper game is a potentially dangerous game, as from my own experiences in life, the cheapest options arent always the best. id have to agree with critics of neoliberal and free market economic policies, we re being pretty much led down the garden path here. theres growing consensus that these policies are extremely dangerous and are leading to growing inequality amongst other complex problems. i think many of our policy makers have been duped with all these theories, or what american economist michael hudson says, 'junk economics'!

you do make some good points though and these issues are very complex with no clear solutions, but i feel our current monetary systems are simply not working. i do fear we ll end up in serious trouble if we dont get on top of these issues soon.

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

you do make some good points though and these issues are very complex with no clear solutions, but i feel our current monetary systems are simply not working. i do fear we ll end up in serious trouble if we dont get on top of these issues soon.

I appreciate you've written a lot but how does all what you've written to the thread topic? Its a fairly boilerplate/generic criticism of the monetary system that I've seen plenty of times on lots of different threads on boards.

How much cheaper do you thing public funding would have been. Remember we're looking at the cost of funding the the project and managing of the project is a separate discussion. A different funding option could still have the same overall cost but not include the 2 million that was paid out. The length of a loan and the interest rate all affect the cost of funding. A good example would be the differences between a credit card or a mortage. Depending on what your looking to fund one may be more suitable than the other. You have to look at the opportunity cost of the government using its own money and any alternative funding options without a toll/higher/lower toll fees. Would you have any idea of the costs of the alternatives?

I'm not interested in getting bogged down in a discussion on ideology thats more suited to the economics or politics forums.

Sam Russell

What is wrong with PPP funding is that the income generated is tied to the Consumer Price Index rather than a Cost of Funding index. Currently, cost of funds is at an all time low and is unrelated to the CPI.

Because CPI is used to index many prices, it causes built in inflation even where it is inappropriate as in this model.

Bray Head

I simply do not understand the public anger on this.
One of the things that a PPP does is make explicit when a project has fallen short of demand expectations. This is just an artifact of the accounting treatment. There are lots of fully Exchequer funded roads where demand has fallen short and no one really notices (most of M9 for example).
If the WRC had been set up as a PPP it would be highly obvious at this point that we were paying for a project that had fallen short of demand projections. Instead this cost is just part of the big amorphous blob of subvention that I gets from the taxpayer every year. I 's annual report is (deliberately) silent on the cost of various routes.

Banjoxed

Bray Head wrote: »

I simply do not understand the public anger on this.
One of the things that a PPP does is make explicit when a project has fallen short of demand expectations. This is just an artifact of the accounting treatment. There are lots of fully Exchequer funded roads where demand has fallen short and no one really notices (most of M9 for example).
If the WRC had been set up as a PPP it would be highly obvious at this point that we were paying for a project that had fallen short of demand projections. Instead this cost is just part of the big amorphous blob of subvention that I gets from the taxpayer every year. I 's annual report is (deliberately) silent on the cost of various routes.

What isn't an artifact of the accounting treatment were the land purchase issues. Without going down the route of Indymedia's coverage, the Meath Chronicle gives a flavour of what was termed on another, much smaller scheme in Kildare "delicate negotiations". http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/navan/articles/2009/12/03/3993235-onefifth-of-m3/print

The position of a red line on a map is surely the equivalent of a landowner winning the lottery, but without the scrutineer from PWC overseeing the draw.

afatbollix

Sure 2 million wouldn't even cover the maintenance on that road for a year. Bargain.

jackofalltrades

Banjoxed wrote: »

Today's Irish Times runs a piece without comment on the boondoggle that has been the M3. Not content with providing massive outdoor relief at the construction phase, the Government paid out €2m in shadow tolls to the private operator in 2015 alone.

And? How is this small payment thread worthy?
And how is the M3 a white elephant?

That payment is a drop in the ocean compared to the taxes revenue paid by motorists every year.

Logue no2 wrote: »

I agree. There's already a zoo thread on the board where all the WRC haters and greenway campaigners can pat themselves on the back.

"WRC haters":rolleyes:

Banjoxed

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Whatever about railways, it is ridiculous that an agreement was made whereby the State (ie: us!) would compensate the toll company for any shortfall on their projected revenue.

As with the financial crisis and "bailout", Ireland Inc sure is great when it comes to all reward and no risk.. because even if it fails, the taxpayers will cough up anyway!

Yup. Free pass.