If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

The roads logjam

  • 20-04-2023 9:06am
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭

    I decided to start a thread to discuss this subject which at present is being discussed across several threads based on how it applies to individual schemes

    There are now a clear number of roads schemes which are being funding starved which is preventing them from clearing the next relevant hurdle.

    Schemes which are ready to go to construction but funding is preventing it:

    M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy (2024 start possible but funding will not allow start before 2026)

    N86 Tralee-Dingle (7km scheme cut back to 0.8km scheme due to funding restrictions)

    There are also a number of schemes which could be submitted to An Bord Pleanala this year, but it remains to be seen if sufficient funding will be allocated to do so:

    N2 Ardee-Castleblayney

    N2 Slane bypass

    M11/N25 Oilgate-Rosslare Harbour

    N13 Letterkenny relief road/DC upgrade

    N14 Letterkenny-Lifford

    N15 Ballybofey/Stranorlar bypass

    N70 Milltown bypass

    N72 Mallow Relief Road

    In addition to the funding issue, there are 3 projects currently held up in the courts subject to judicial review

    M6 Galway City Ring Road

    M21 Adare-Foynes

    N52 Ardee bypass

    As someone who follows the progression of roads schemes closely, the administration of the whole roads programme has been absolutely shocking since the middle of 2020. I won't apportion blame here but most of the roads schemes haven't moved forward since then. After all, of the 27 projects without planning announced in the NDP, ZERO have been submitted to ABP, let alone got planning permission. Only TWO projects (Listowel and the N5) have obtained planning permission since 2017.  (There were 45 projects in the NDP, by end 2023 11 will be complete, and 4 partially complete, with 1 under construction).



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan

    I don't think it is true to say that M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy is ready to go to construction but funding is preventing it. A multi-year enabling works programme was needed regardless of funding for the main contract. Consultants are being procured now for the delivery stages, hopefully the tender package can be ready next year at which point it comes down to funding being available to progress.

    I have previously highlighted the issue of spending so much money on design and not enough on delivery. A lot of people seem happy with projects being in the early design stages in the expectation that they will be delivered in the not too distant future. The reality is that many of those projects won't be delivered for a long time.

    The best thing for those early stage projects would be actually delivering the projects ahead of them. Unfortunately funding is being pulled from the more advanced projects, leaving them in a "holding pattern" while millions are being spent on bringing more projects to that same stage. If the goal is to actually deliver projects, that is not the way to go about it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    The costs of the Covid-19 pandemic are the biggest reason for postponements in the roads programme. I know you would like to pin the blame on the Green Party, but the money says otherwise. All capital projects, not just those under Eamon Ryan’s watch, that were not already in progress have been delayed or reduced since 2020. The only exception to this reduction in capital spending is housing, which has seen budget increases to try fix the mess around accommodation costs in this country - and that increase is coming at the expense of other capital spending, and smaller roads projects are the least contentious to cut (your other options are hospitals and school buildings). But housing is hitting the same problems that road projects face: a slow planning process that’s too easy for unaffected parties to block or derail.

    Under legislation currently working its way through the Dáil, an Bord Pleanála is to be replaced with a new Planning Commission before the end of this year. That legislation will also tighten the rules around who is able to object to planning grants, and who can bring Judicial Reviews. The Judicial Review process in particular has been abused by people who know they have no chance of stopping a project but try to delay it for years in the hope of it being sidelined by spending cuts.

    I suspect there’s a stay on submission to APB until the new legislation comes into effect, as anything submitted now would be under the current rules, and could take far longer to get to a point of being ready to build than if they just hold on six months and submit it under the new legislation.

    There is a lot of benefit to designing ahead of time - it produces a more cohesive system, where projects can take account of other plans. It also allows the work to be parcelled out more flexibly into different sections when it comes to procurement..

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21

    I don't think it is true to say that M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy is ready to go to construction but funding is preventing it. A multi-year enabling works programme was needed regardless of funding for the main contract. Consultants are being procured now for the delivery stages, hopefully the tender package can be ready next year at which point it comes down to funding being available to progress.

    The first sentence of your post is indeed true. But from what I can tell, the project will not commence when it will be ready to do so (which will be in late 2024) because not enough funding is being committed to starting it when it'll be ready to go.

    Then again, there is an expected allocation of E145m next year spread across almost 40 projects. No way can the roads programme function effectively with that level of funding

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan

    I don't like to pin the blame on the Green Party, I'm not one who is always complaining about them here and actually quite often defend them.

    Covid is really not an issue in this regard, the issues have been buiding for a long time and pre-date Covid. There are projects which right now aren't receiving sufficient funding to allow them to process to ABP, that has nothing to do with Covid - they actually progressed through early stage design during Covid but arent allowed to move further now. It isn't an overall funding issue either, there are millions being spent on projects which are several years away from ABP, that funding could be diverted with little or no impact.

    I seriously doubt that there’s a stay on submission to APB until the new legislation comes into effect. Other projects are still being submitted. There are big question marks over whether the legislation you refer to is acceptable, it will be extremely contentious with lots of opposition and there will be lots of legal wrangling over it. It remains to be seen what will happen there, if it will be brought forward at all. Apart from DOB in Housing, I doubt any other Ministers or Departments are relying on it to solve any problems.

    We have done plenty of designing ahead of time, the problem is that projects are not moving from design into the planning approvals stage. Designing more projects doesn't help, those projects only end up in a queue behind other partially designed projects. The issue is not a failure to design, it's the failure to get into the planning system.

    The planning system isn't the problem either in that it isn't what is delaying these projects. It obviously has lots of issues too but you can’t blame that for the failure to adequately fund projects but to the stage that they can enter the planning system.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    I wasn’t replying to your post, but Marno’s. I think we both posted around the same time. Apologies for the confusion.

    Regarding Covid, it really is a big deal - the costs of the PUP, combined with lower revenues from VAT, etc were a major drain on government funds. It was the right thing to do, but it wasn’t free, and it’s only now that we’re seeing the effects. No project spending was reduced in 2020 or 2021 because a lot of that work was already allocated or actively underway. However, the spending demands from the pandemic meant that fewer projects needing work in 2022 and 2023 got the funds they needed. There is also a question of whether the agencies can spend the money: if a large sum is allocated to a project but not spent, then it’s less likely to get more in future.

    I cannot believe you can actually say the words “the planning system isn’t the problem” in relation to roads projects, when the first post in this thread lists three projects which have each been delayed for years in planning. It needed three years and the involvement of the Supreme Court to get permission to build M28, replacing a road that everyone who uses it acknowledges is dangerous! If planning can take so long and be subject to such arbitrary delays, it acts as a deterrent to bringing a project further than final design. Once a project hits ABP there’s no longer any certainty of when it will be ready to tender, and it’s that uncertainty that is the major cause of delays between programme start and construction.

    The legislation I referred to has spent over a year being reviewed by the Attorney General’s office, and it would be a brave opposition that would argue against a more efficient planning system when the number one barrier to meeting the current housing targets is delays in obtaining planning (mind you, the number 2, and not far behind, is a labour shortage, and that’s a place where the opposition can have a justifiable field-day).

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan

    Lack of funding isn't the problem so Covid, PUP, etc. are irrelevant. The state will post a huge surplus this year so more money can be made available if required. Funding is there, its just being spent in a way that doesn't allow projects to progress in the way that they should. It makes no sense to fund further projects for early stage design while refusing funding for projects which can progress from design to planning. The logjam is everything is getting stuck in design stage. This could be resolved by funding some projects to progre system isn’t the problem in relation to the logjam referred to in the thread title.

    The planning system may be a problem but it isn’t this problem. Projects aren't getting as far as the planning system, that is the problem. Projects getting delayed by Judicial Reviews also is a separate issue which is not helped by delaying projects at an earlier stage. At the end of the day, securing full planning approval will take as long as it takes. Delaying going to ABP only increases to time to full plplanning approval for absolutely no benefit.

    Clearly holding back projects which could go to ABP in the next 12 months or so will result in more delays at ABP in the future. There will be even more projects ready to go there in 24 months time and it will be a bigger bottleneck. The only other option will be to postpone the less advanced projects when they eventually get as far as to ABP and in that case, why give them so much funding now? By delaying them now, you could allow the more progressed projects to push ahead.

    You clear a logjam by allocating resourses to move along the things at the front of the queue. You can't clear it by devoting resources to adding more projects to the back of the queue while those at the front of the queue stay where they are - that just makes a longer queue and everything suffers.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    If the main complaint is that projects are not being pushed into the APB process, then lack of funding is the problem, but looking everywhere except the obvious place where that funding is needed isn’t going to help matters.

    The resources that you are talking about allocating “at the front of the queue” need to be allocated to An Bord Pleanála or its successor, not to the regional road design offices. Finalising a project design for approval is not an enormous task, and it’s not one that has been affected by cost inflation either, and would be easily done with relatively low amounts of money. But if the next step is to submit to an under-resourced planning department that cannot process many of these projects, then there’s no benefit to finalising the project quickly, and in fact there may be a cost if regulations change in the meantime, meaning that a previously planning-ready project needs to be re-done.

    There are issues elsewhere in the pipeline, but looking at what is happening, it’s clear to me that the low capacity of ABP to process large infrastructure projects is a major factor in slowing the rate of road construction projects getting to tender. I am interested in hearing evidence to the contrary, but given that housing projects are also struggling with the same issues, with many languishing in planning or not even getting that far, I can’t help but think that the biggest delaying factor is the inability of the planning system to process applications in a timely manner. This isn’t about dropping standards, it’s about having enough people on staff to evaluate planning applications for major projects.

    The Roads capital budget has declined as a share of the overall transport budget, but only because the transport budget has expanded to include major investments in public transport infrastructure (including a huge increase in rail spending) - the actual amount allocated to roads has actually increased slightly since 2019.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    ABP and the courts are understaffed and it's causing big problems. Housing, infrastructure etc.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan

    ABP will still be swamped in two or three years time if half a dozen large road projects get lobbed at them in a short space of time. It's not like housing applications will reduce, we need to be building the current level of housing units or more for the next decade. Waiting is a stupid policy, even if the planning situation has improved, you have a backlog of projects to get through so the system gets overloaded again.

    As things stand, there is only one major road project with planning approval, the M28. Depending on how the JRs go, three others could get the green light (although one of them is the M6 Galway City Ring Road and we all know it won't proceed as even if the Irish courts somehow approve it, it will be off to the European courts). AFAIK the Slane Bypass is the only other project right now with funding to get to ABP. Everything else is on hold for no good reason.

    As things stand, it is unlikely anything else will get to ABP before 2025. After averaging less than one road project adjudication per year for the last decade, ABP are seriously going to struggle if they get hit with half a dozen road applications in the space of a couple of years. The present policy is going to result in very few projects available to go to construction when funding increases in 2026. It looks like very little will be delivered in the second half of this decade, possibly even less than in the first half of the decade.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    My bet is the new Planning bill will pass and ABP will be replaced before the end of this year.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    I think if that new planning bill is passed, the EU will slap massive fines on Ireland.

    The new social housing planning amnesty is going to cause carnage with the backlog too.

    The solution is more resourcing of courts/judiciary and ABP (or its successor) and the government is basically doing almost anything to avoid that.

    New bills, planning amnesties, etc are like pouring petrol on flames. This is messing up the energy sector, transportation, housing, it's a really serious problem. I know we're looking at this from the perspective of roads on here but I'm willing to say this is actually way more serious than roads.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    I think you’re confusing the new bill, which will reform ABP, with the temporary amnesties. The bill enables greater resourcing of the planning body, as the current structure of ABP is not scalable. Better, stricter, faster and more accurate handling of planning applications will leave few avenues for court challenge - our current problem of people running to the courts is because the current system has produced so many permissions that were not legally sound.

    I don’t see how the new planning bill would cause difficulty from the EU. If anything, it brings our rules on objections more into line with that in use in other EU members, and would still leave us in the more permissive range of countries when it comes to filing objections. The idea that anyone, anywhere can file an objection to any application anywhere else would seem crazy in our neighbouring countries, but it’s what’s allowed now.

    But the purpose of restructuring ABP is not to sidestep or rush through the legal protections that are in place, but to deal with them more efficiently.

    I agree that the amnesty is not a good idea; but a new planning body and clearer rules are. The Irish planning system is not fit for purpose, as can be seen simply by reading the news. And I mean that from both a pro-infrastructure and pro-environment standpoint: what use is it for projects to spend a year being granted planning permission only for it to be discovered later that they are in breach of environmental laws?

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    Yep, they're two things: the new bill we're discussing is I think the Draft Planning and Development Bill 2022? It seems likely that the bill will be challenged in EU court due to the restrictions placed on even local groups from being allowed representation. From my (not-legal-expert, and not terribly detailed) reading of the points of some dissenting stakeholders, it seems it has a reasonable chance of becoming struck down by the EU courts for that reason.

    I don't think too many people have a problem with ABP reform though, and that would be a good thing.

    The planning system is definitely broken, but I don't think the amnesty will help.

    I also don't think that the parts of the bill that are an effort to limit the objectors are a good idea. I don't see the benefit of limiting geographical distribution of objections. I've seen dodgy approvals down through the years which I never objected to these because they "didn't affect me personally".

    Examples: large industrial facilities and large housing estates receiving planning in remote areas without suitable infrastructure. Fittingly enough, many of these become "ghost estates" and those "plans" for industrial sites never moved forward to construction (these seem to be efforts at "flipping", or else "creeping" piecemeal plans for larger facilities.

    The likes of Sweetman or whatever his name is, are not famous for "stupid frivolous objections" but rather because their objections win in court. The problem isn't that this guy is sitting at the other side of the country bringing objections, rather the problem is that the schemes are getting approval in the first place, and his objections are showing that they shouldn't be getting approval.

    The Galway City Ring Road is the case in point here, for me. The Council and ABP didn't even defend it in court. They just accepted that their approved plan shouldn't have been approved. But if nobody had brought an objection, then it would have just gone ahead. So what's the benefit of limiting objections then? Is it just to allow schemes which should technically not get approval, to go ahead?

    "Frivolous" schemes that don't get built are an issue because they're tying up the ABP resources. Limiting objections isn't the answer to that either.

    "Optimistic" and "marginal" schemes are an issue. Limiting objections isn't the answer to that either.

    Bad proposals and dodgy approvals are an issue. Limiting objections isn't the correct answer to that.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    Okay, a lot of people have got the wrong end of the stick with the new planning bill. It does not stop Judicial Reviews. All it does is enforce greater transparency around who exactly is seeking to have a project overturned, and it makes it harder for people to hide behind newly-formed “residents’ action committees”. Anyone openly requesting a review as an individual retains that right, so Mr Sweetman’s activities will be in no way impinged by this new bill.

    Here’s the official summary of the proposed Planning and Development Bill - Page 14 has the bit on Judicial Reviews.

    Note from that that individuals have had no limits placed on them, and are still permitted to bring Judicial Reviews of planning.

    The new restrictions are on organisations, and reading the conditions, you can see that they are specifically aimed at “astroturf” bodies trying to delay projects. The points on Page 14 make it very clear that groups like FIE or An Taisce will continue to be able to bring JR proceedings, as this is one of their stated purposes. The restrictions are on the likes of the “XYZ Area Concerned Residents Steering Group” which are opaquely funded, and often used as a front by people who’d rather keep their interactions with the planning system secret. A local resident can bring a JR, but like any other individual they will be named. Against that, court costs will now be controlled, except in cases of repeated frivolous or vexatious litigation (again, no threat to the likes of Mr Sweetman - a case you win can never be deemed frivolous or vexatious).

    There are some other things in there I also agree with, like strengthening the power of Local Authorities to CPO derelict properties - these are small in number in any city, but they can often block development of larger areas for the public good.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    Yep there's a lot in the bill that's necessary, but I think the blocking of residents groups or blocking of opaque organisations is an unnecessary step that leaves them open to challenge. It's a solution in search of a problem. I don't know of any instance of an "area concerned residents group" being nefariously funded to astro-turf planning. Rather the opposite, I know of very large numbers of opaquely-named planning applicants submitting ridiculous plans for approval.

    If they're making objectors be personally-named then they should make applicants be personally-named too. It's only fair :)

    The M28 project is the closest thing I can think of - where I strongly disagreed with the "concerned residents group" - and they lost their case. If they were instead mandated to register as named individuals it would simply have left them open to reprisals. If they were mandated to register individually, the only net benefit would be if something very bad happened to the objecting individual, and they couldn't continue their case. I don't really like the idea of that at all.

    Another one would be Mannix Flynn's various "concerned residents groups": they're failing in the courts just like anyone else. I don't see how they're considered the problem in the planning system, which is in need of more resources.

    Fining the ABP-equivalent body for not reaching decisions is another ridiculous thing included in the bill in my opinion. It appears to be just a big ball of random ideas to avoid resourcing ABP and the judiciary!

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    (10) Where leave is opposed under paragraph (b) of subsection (9), the court shall not grant an application for leave on any grounds pleaded in the statement required to ground an application for judicial review, unless it is satisfied that— (c) the applicant has a sufficient interest in the ground and for these purposes— (i) an applicant shall not be regarded as having a sufficient interest for the purpose of this section unless that applicant is or may be directly or indirectly materially affected by the matters to which the application relates

    Sweetman or whatever his name is would categorically not be able to access judicial reviews btw. Because he won't be directly or materially affected by the applications he objects to.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    ( Assuming you’re quoting from this document: )

    You’re correct about Sweetman, but it’s not difficult for him to set up an environmental charity or non-profit that meets that requirements and continue his work that way - it’s a low bar. The wording of the rest of that section is specifically to allow groups such as An Taisce, FIE or the various wildlife charities to seek judicial review of projects. What it does not do is give some kind of “corporate privilege” for JRs, as some of the more conspiracy-minded (not anyone on this thread though) have been saying.

    Legally, all non-profit campaigning organisations, including charities, are registered companies (An Taisce is Company number 12469 at CRO; FIE is 326985), which is why it has to say “company” there. The stuff about incorporation time and charters is to prevent companies of convenience being set up to submit JR requests, and to prevent other kinds of commercial enterprise gaining a right to interfere in the planning process that they should not have.

    (Companies which will be directly affected by the planning retain the right to submit a JR request, regardless of their business, as do individuals who are affected)

    The JR thing is something of a red herring, though: it is only an effective tool because the initial planning process doesn’t take full account of the law. That is happening now because of understaffing and high workload at ABP. The new structures proposed by this act should make that problem easier to fix.

    A fast planning process can be a thorough one, if the resources are put in place to make it so. At the moment, we’ve a slow process that isn’t thorough. I want planning grants to happen quickly, transparently, fairly and in accordance with the strictest environmental conditions; right now we’re getting none of those things.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

    You're 100% right. We have slow process that isn't thorough and that the understaffing and high workload at ABP is the bottleneck. And you're right that provisions in the bill should address this. But I don't see how limiting who can make an objection does anything but cause problems, personally.

    On whether the example of Sweetman works (I really hope I'm not getting his name wrong) I believe he would need to set up an organisation with a minimum of 10 people, in order to proceed with the route you mention, right? And again, I'm just not seeing the "win" there for anyone other than those trying to get bad designs approved.

    It's much worse than "a solution in search of a problem" because it will likely expose the bill to legal challenges.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    Yes, his name’s Peter Sweetman. Examiner interview here: “The perpetual appeal of Peter Sweetman”

    He could set up an organisation: it’s not like he isn’t already one; he basically does nothing else but challenge these planning permissions, and already has assistants who work with him – or he could work through an existing environmental organisation. However, from that interview, I will say that he comes across as surprisingly pragmatic in how he approaches the cases he takes: “Some [cases] we would take on because we believe we’re going to win,” he says. “Some we take on because we believe we can make very good law by winning them.”

    The other quote, which backs up what I was saying about better planning making JRs less useful, is this one: “Any case I won was because [An Bord Pleanála] got it wrong.” That is the big point. JRs aren’t the problem, they’re a symptom of the problem.

    He has of coursed pledged to challenge the new planning bill, but I suspect they’ve left just enough avenues for appeal for it to pass challenge.

  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011

    Sweetman briefly had an account here. It was... interesting.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl

  • Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭cartoncowboy

    If I were Leo, Micheal and Eamonn, I'd be looking at the extra surpluses and saying, right we need to double or triple the size of ABP, put in the staff it needs to work effectively and take 1-2B of that extra revenue to properly fund everything in flight right now. Because as it stands right now, they are heading for the exit and they know it. If they want to have any chance of staying in power they need to be seen to be spending some of that surplus to deliver infrastructure projects. In the current climate, a project having the status "pending funding" is not a good look when we have the cash on hand. And still have loads left over for a rainy day fund or whatever. If they sit on all that money and don't reform ABP and everything stays delayed, they'll be out the door for sure. Clock is a ticking !

    Is there anything to be said for creating an ABP-Infra, which handles infrastructure only projects either as a sub divsion or new entity?

    Great thread, thanks for starting it :-)

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭KrisW1001

    ABP is being restructured and enlarged, but I think we need to look outside our own little area of interest, and be more honest: the only infrastructure that the electorate cares about is housing, with hospitals and schools filling out the top three. Nobody is going to turn their vote from the government parties to the opposition because a local road isn’t getting more lanes or there’s no double-track railway being built.

    The planning approval part of ABP already is what you’re describing as “ABP-Infra”. Commercial development does not apply to APB for permission. But the bulk of ABP’s workload is in handling appeals against planning decisions from local government.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    And just to reiterate, ABP were dealt a severe blow, by having to review "STRATEGIC" housing developments. The current backlog didn't happen in a vacuum.

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21

    Confirmed by TII yesterday in the Oireachtas Transport Committee that Ministerial direction for 2023 is to complete the current committed to phases of the following schemes and to not commence further stages:

    * N2 Ardee to Castleblayney

    * N2 Rath Roundabout to Kilmoon Cross

    * N3 Clonee to M50

    * N4 Mullingar to Longford

    * M4 Maynooth to Leixlip

    * M11 Junction 4 to Junction 14 upgrade

    * N17 Knock to Collooney

    * N22 Farranfore to Killarney

    * N40 Cork North Ring Road

    * N72/N73 Mallow Relief Road

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21

    The M20 hasn't been subject to Ministerial direction to not commence further stages in 2023.

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,285 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas

    The stoppage of the Kilmoon one is a disgrace, thats a bottleneck every morning for thousands of people getting to work.

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21

    In a very competitive constituency. Wouldn’t go down well with voters you’d imagine.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan

    I don't think not commencing further stages now is actually going to delay delivery of those projects. Not progressing them now might actually help other projects get through ABP a bit quicker rather than having double-digit large road projects clogging up the system. Going back to my earlier point, currently policy will see us build not enough this decade but designing more than we can deliver in the next decade.

    We really should be focusing on getting a particular set of projectsat least commenced before 2030 (and completd in some cases). Everything else can sit for a few years and still be delivered post 2030 (realistically they aren't going to be delivered before then anyway). I'd like to see focus on getting the following projects to construction before 2030;

    M28 Ringaskiddy

    M21 Adare-Foynes

    N2 Slane bypass

    N3 Virginia bypass

    M11/N25 Oilgate-Rosslare Harbour

    N13 Letterkenny relief road/DC upgrade

    N52 Ardee bypass

    Some part of N/M20 (ideally Cork - north of Mallow)

    The above list assumes N5 Ballaghaderreen to Scramoge is a given at this stage.

    There is obviously a lot which should be done before 2030 below the major project threshold. I also believe that there are smaller elements that can be done on some corridors which are currently down for a €0.5bn project which can be delivered much quicker and we considerable benefits for a fraction of the cost (particularly on the N4 and N17.

    Surprised to see M11 J4 to J14 on that list, it is another which should be on the priority list. It should include a few P&Rs and bus lanes north of Kilmac with the goal of encouraging modal shift. It should be framed as an integrated project though, not just a road upgrade.

  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21

    Two things TII said at that meeting stood out yesterday

    1. They are now forecasting it is a 15 year timeframe from project inception to completion.
    2. As it stands, capital investment in roads is scheduled to ramp up in 2026. As of now, they do not have enough projects with planning to actually use that money.

    I posted my list of what I expect them to at least get underway by 2030 here:

    My list is your 8.5 projects + 6 more (including the rest of the M20).

    Re: N4/N17 corridors. Both of these have had funding cut off as per above.

    Re: N11. Nothing near Glen of the Downs will progress while he's Minister.