Greens demand improved public transport take priority over Cork/Limerick motorway

LeinsterDub

My M20 comprise. Make it 3 lanes but one is ANPR controlled bus lane, bus will have priority at all exits.

McGiver

rossie1977 wrote:

As others have said our public transport and roads pale in comparison with countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Austria or Switzerland.

Even Italy actually...

markodaly

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly! Why not taking it of the M8? Must be cheaper for sure!

As it has been already pointed out, it isnt, due to the geographical terrain.
Even if you did, you still need to build bypasses of Mallow and Charleville.

efanton

McGiver wrote: »

Even Italy actually...

Well to be honest the slower those roads are the longer it takes for them to get here. Not a bad thing under present circumstances.:eek:

timsey tiger

Prioritising public transport over road transport I can understand that there is a discussion to be had. But, how on earth was a motorway built from Limerick to Galway and on to Castlebar before this one? This I cannot understand, drove on an empty motorway last November eerie.

The Tetrarch

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In fairness SF have committed to balancing their cuts with increases.So do tell where have the Greens a less realistic view of how much can be spent?

Now you are stretching our belief.
Sinn Fein said their proposals were costed, and their manifesto says this:
Additional current spending measures: 12.249 billion a year
Additional capital spending measures: 9.852 billion
Giving workers and families a break – tax spend: 2.4 billion
Funding real change and a better future – tax revenue: 3.8 billion

You say SF balances their cuts with increases
Net extra spend 12.249+2.4-3.8 = 10.849 billion extra every year or 54.245 billion extra over a Dail term,
plus the 9.852 extra capital spend gives an extra unfunded 64.097 billion to add to the national debt.
That is Sinn Fein balancing, an extra 64 billion unfunded spend.

There is a big difference between proposals being costed, and proposals being realistic and fundable.
I could get a quote on a new Ferrari. That would be costed.
Could I afford it? No. Would it be practical? No.

You ask people to tell you "where have the Greens a less realistic view of how much can be spent".
If, in fairness, you think the SF manifesto is realistic the we must assume the Green arithmetic is similar.

efanton

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Now you are stretching our belief.
Sinn Fein said their proposals were costed, and their manifesto says this:
Additional current spending measures: 12.249 billion a year
Additional capital spending measures: 9.852 billion
Giving workers and families a break – tax spend: 2.4 billion
Funding real change and a better future – tax revenue: 3.8 billion

You say SF balances their cuts with increases
Net extra spend 12.249+2.4-3.8 = 10.849 billion extra every year or 54.245 billion extra over a Dail term,
plus the 9.852 extra capital spend gives an extra unfunded 64.097 billion to add to the national debt.
That is Sinn Fein balancing, an extra 64 billion unfunded spend.

There is a big difference between proposals being costed, and proposals being realistic and fundable.
I could get a quote on a new Ferrari. That would be costed.
Could I afford it? No. Would it be practical? No.

You ask people to tell you "where have the Greens a less realistic view of how much can be spent".
If, in fairness, you think the SF manifesto is realistic the we must assume the Green arithmetic is similar.

You do realise how capital expenditure works?

SF would pend 6 billion in addition to existing budgets for home building.
That does not mean they take 6 billion out of one of the governments accounts and hand over a cheque for 6 billion.
Capital expenditure is amortised. They would borrow the 6 billion and repay it back over 25 years. Even with interest added that would cost the country less than 250 million a year for that period.

And your sums are completely wrong. Their capital expenditure is the TOTAL for the entire period of government, not every year.
They would use the 6 billion over 5 years to build homes, not 6 billion every year.

In the mean time FG are spending close to 1 billion a year to rent private property for social and emergency housing.
Thats 5 billion (nearly what SF wish to spend building homes) over a government term and not one brick to show for it. Hardly the model of fiscal prudence now is it?

Xertz

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Galway is a the perfect city for public transport , small and compact for lots but due to nearly 0 bus lanes, cycle lanes or walking priority its a traffic nightmare. Buses are going to be stuck in traffic regardless of building the bypass or not due to induced demand. If you don't build for PT you get crap PT , we don't need to spend 600-700 on yet a other failed bypass in Galway.

So is Cork when you look at it.

Compact, walkable city centre that is quite a lot denser in many respects than Dublin and the majority of new build outer suburban was relatively well planned and clustered in defined satellite towns like Ballincollig, Carrigaline, Glanmire, Midleton etc.

The city’s suburbs are also not that sprawling. Overall it’s better planned than Dublin - it just has lousy public transit.

I could see everything stopping now though. Covid 19 has likely caused a fairly abrupt recession.

The Tetrarch

efanton wrote: »

You do realise how capital expenditure works?

SF would pend 6 billion in addition to existing budgets for home building.
That does not mean they take 6 billion out of one of the governments accounts and hand over a cheque for 6 billion.
Capital expenditure is amortised. They would borrow the 6 billion and repay it back over 25 years. Even with interest added that would cost the country less than 250 million a year for that period.

And your sums are completely wrong. Their capital expenditure is the TOTAL for the entire period of government, not every year.
They would use the 6 billion over 5 years to build homes, not 6 billion every year.

In the mean time FG are spending close to 1 billion a year to rent private property for social and emergency housing.
Thats 5 billion (nearly what SF wish to spend building homes) over a government term and not one brick to show for it. Hardly the model of fiscal prudence now is it?

It would help if you read my post (and not invent a fiction that you then refute).

I took the additional annual current spending and extended that for five years
then
I added the additional capital expenditure.
(12.249 current x 5) + (9.852 capital).

As a qualified accountant I know how revenue income and expenditure, and capital income and expenditure works.
Your talk about amortisation, 25 years, "cost the country less than 250 million a year", sounds great, but I do not see that in the SF manifesto.

Nowhere did I take the proposed SF capital expenditure and multiply it by five years.
Nice try.

Xertz

I wonder if some of these big infrastructure products could potentially be useful injections of activity into the economy after this COVID-19 scenario does eventually end.

We will need to keep some of these things on the schedule and also so will the EU. I foresee a very serious need for jump starting the economy probably this autumn or into 2021 and 2022.

efanton

The Tetrarch wrote: »

It would help if you read my post (and not invent a fiction that you then refute).

I took the additional annual current spending and extended that for five years
then
I added the additional capital expenditure.
(12.249 current x 5) + (9.852 capital).

As a qualified accountant I know how revenue income and expenditure, and capital income and expenditure works.
Your talk about amortisation, 25 years, "cost the country less than 250 million a year", sounds great, but I do not see that in the SF manifesto.

Nowhere did I take the proposed SF capital expenditure and multiply it by five years.
Nice try.

Why would SF NOT amortise capital spending being that is standard practice?
Especially when they separate government spending from capital expenditure in their manifesto.

At no point did SF commit to spending 30 billion on capital expenditure for housing during the election campaign, but the were very clear they would spend an additional 6 billion. So it would follow that the figures for capital expenditure were for a full term of office

ADDITIONAL CURRENT SPENDING MEASURES 12,249*

ADDITIONAL CAPITAL SPENDING MEASURES 9,852

I do agree that they made a hames of laying out the costs of their proposed manifesto by not clearly stating what might be a yearly spend and what might be a government term spend.

In the normal sized print they do say
"These allocations are in addition to what has already been pre-committed for the period 2021 -2025"
indicating that the above figures are BOTH over a full term of office.

The way I read it is they would spend an average 2.45 billion a year (12,249 billion / 5) in government spending, and an average of 1.9704‬ billion a year (9.852 billion / 5)in capital expenditure.
To try calculate in in any other way (as you have done) could not possibly allow for the surplus they promise.

efanton

Xertz wrote: »

I wonder if some of these big infrastructure products could potentially be useful injections of activity into the economy after this COVID-19 scenario does eventually end.

We will need to keep some of these things on the schedule and also so will the EU. I foresee a very serious need for jump starting the economy probably this autumn or into 2021 and 2022.

The problem will be the people losing their jobs the moment due to the virus outbreak will have no skills required for construction projects.
I would imagine many construction sites will still be in operation because the nature of the work means it relatively easy for construction workers to keep a 2 metre distance from others.

I am hoping the government releases enough money to keep small businesses currently closed solvent enough so that those jobs are available once restrictions can be lifted.
If that's not the case the this country is screwed. It will be worse than the last crash and more like the 1980's where unemployment levels were through the roof.
We simply cannot afford for that many businesses to go bankrupt and cease trading at the same time.