Proposal for a new Department of Infrastructure

marno21

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/simon-harris-backs-business-leaders-in-call-for-infrastructure-minister/

Simon Harris is proposing to make the creation of a Department of Infrastructure part of Fine Gael's next election manifesto.

Would be a very meritorious idea given the commonality of delivery issues across Government.

Pete_Cavan

Would be interesting to see what such a department would consist of. There is already a Department of Transport but it currently has a shared minister also overseeing Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Transport already covers a lot of what could be considered for the Department of Infrastructure (Roads, Public Transport, Maritime, Aviation, etc.) but also includes things which aren't Infrastructure (Coast Guard, Air Accident Investigation, Motor Tax, etc.).

The big item which faces the same problems in terms of delivery as infrastructure and is a similar constraint on the economy is housing. That could potentially be split from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and put into Infrastructure.

Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications also contains a large element of what could be considered for Infrastructure. Plus NDP Delivery, which is largely infrastructure delivery, is under Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058360693/proposal-for-a-new-department-of-infrastructure

What would it do? Take over the planning system?

Rail, roads, electricity grid, water, ABP, transport - a long list.

Seth Brundle

Would the OPW be brought in under this department?

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122406424#Comment_122406424

Apart from Garda stations, I don't think the OPW portfolio could be considered infrastructure.

csirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122406496#Comment_122406496

OPW owns/leases the vast majority of State buildings in all central government sectors.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058360693/proposal-for-a-new-department-of-infrastructure

Simon Harris didn't propose this though - Michael OLeary did and Harris jumped on the bandwagon.

Its a long overdue proposition mind, but Harris deserves little credit for this.

Augme

Is there any developed policy proposal on this? As above, sounds like a election cote getting policy that very likely hasn't been properly thought out at all.

Sam Russell

It would make sense to me if it came under the Dept of Expenditure.

An awful lot of money has been spent of infrastructure plans that never proceeded, like M20 and Metro North - both getting the nod from ABP.

It would hopefully cut down such activity and such a waste of funds.

Ireland trains

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122408189#Comment_122408189

You can’t really link the structure of departments to the cancelling of these projects - the country was virtually bankrupt.

The department for expenditure is already quite a large department.

The danger of a department for infrastructure is that it could end up being too large, and hence ineffective, in some ways similar to how Eamon Ryan’s portfolio is so large some have said he’s stretched too thin.

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122408189#Comment_122408189

Thorton Hall, voting machines…

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122406728#Comment_122406728

I don't think buildings, particularly office buildings, should fall under infrastructure. The private sector developes buildings which the state can choose to use if they wish, that isn't the case for most of what is commonly considered infrastructure.

As an aside, I'm not even sure that OPW owns/leases the vast majority of State buildings when you consider that Health and Education buildings are not under OPW, same for prisons, local authority buildings, etc. Then you have the commercial semi-State companies which are also separate (DAA, An Post, Bord na Móna, CIÉ, Coillte, EirGrid, ESB and Gas Networks Ireland, etc.).

Bringing lots of things under one department wouldn't make sense. For specialist sectors such as Health, you'd lose the connection to people on the ground who will use the buildings and the knowledge of the latest technology advances in the sector. There is a clear logic in having a motorway planned and overseen by experts in motorways, but other things are different and you don't stay an expert for long if you are siloed away from what is happening at the coalface.

A Department of Infrastructure should be focused on delivering national infrastructure, not some unnecessarily broad, unwieldy home for everything and anything construction related. That is a recipe for getting little done. It should have a limited and defined remit based on something, preferably the NDP. It shouldn't be open to the minister of the day messing with order or priority.

Another area where a Department of Infrastructure could be very beneficial would be in strategic utilisation of state assets across multiple agencies for a common purpose. For example, the state owns multiple duct networks across several agencies including TII, IÉ, ESB, Waterways Ireland, etc. AFAIK, each use their network for whatever commercial gain they can get. Ideally, a coordinated approach under the Department of Infrastructure would see the network as a whole in line with national policies (for example, removing/minimising access charges on the basis that user companies continually invest in latest technology and robust broadband for the country, and ensure competition).

ArcadiaJunction

This paralysingly mediocre simpleton is only interesting in making more accommodation for the passport-bereft arrivals and I doubt if any form of public transport agenda has even entered his consciousness. We already have all this stuff in place and do not forget this monumental moron is the prime suspect in the Children's Hospital farce.

Personally I would see this as one more bureaucratic inhibitor to delivering transport infrastructure. More cushy jobs for insiders and that's about it.

Economics101

Another Department? There are a few Departments which are important for Infrastructure: Energy, Transport, Housing ,etc. There are also specific bodies dealing with infrastructure such as Transport Infrastructure Ireland. How many more decision making bodies do we need when the situation is already full of bodies which have to consult, co-iordinate, delay etc. ad nauseam? And that's before we even get to the Planning mess.

The only role I can see is where there are interactions between different areas, e.g. Housing and Transport, then maybe we need some sort of oversight body which makes sure that these interactions are taken into account. Should this be a full Department? Not necessarily.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122412162#Comment_122412162

The premise is that we have many departments who need to progress large scale infrastructure progress, each of which has their own staff doing similar roles.

A unified Dept of Infrastructure may lead to better sharing of knowledge and best practices - however an even better solution would be to have a state body responsible for large projects but not the remit of a govt department. Similar to how TII progress infrastructure on behalf of Dept of transport, but beefed up & less need for consultants.

Then this state body could go through all stages up to construction tender in house and progress large projects for Dept of Health, housing, transport, energy etc.

As ever the devil is in the detail and right now we have no detail other than a soundbite from Michael O leary and a soundbite from Simon harris

Bodan

If this speeds up infrastructure projects in this country, then it cant come soon enough. I would like to see it take state projects planning approval away from ABP and keep it in house.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122412162#Comment_122412162

It would have to require the removal of an existing Department; or share a Minister - as there is a constitutional max on Ministers, and we're at it

Could even reduce the total number by doing this:

• Have Infrastructure replace Transport effectively entirely and move its remnants elsewhere as appropriate, likely whether you end up putting Local Government. Most of the regulatory stuff is done by the NTA so just needs a line Minister to sign off on it, rather than the Department having the staff and functions.
• Take Housing from Housing, Heritage and Local Government - put Heritage in to Tourism etc etc; but Local Government in Environment, Climate and Communications and you've eliminated another. (A Dept of Infra will likely take some functions from ECC and from the Local Government function anyway)
• Tourism etc etc now has too many functions, take Gaeltacht out and put in to Community & Rural Development; reunite Media with Communications.

KrisW1001

Housing and public transport are not infrastructure, even if they require it. Transport regulation is not infrastructure either.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122412997#Comment_122412997

What???!!!

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122413029#Comment_122413029

Pretty clear as written. Strictly speaking, Housing is not infrastructure. Public transport is not infrastructure. Regulation of transport is not infrastructure.

"Infrastructure" covers the things that are needed to support housing, transportation, and so on. Fibre optic networks are infrastructure, broadband and TV services are not. Electrified railways are infrastructure, commuter train services are not. Roads are infrastructure, buses are not. The water, electricity distribution and sewage systems that make land suitable for building on are infrastructure, but houses, offices and schools are not.

Yes, from a policy standpoint, you can claim that schools are part of the necessary infrastructure for education, but unlike the things I mentioned above, a school isn't something that underlies many different services in the way that a paved road, or a water supply or a data communications link does.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122412997#Comment_122412997

There are and have been several large public housing projects procured as PPPs which could and should come under a Department of Infrastructure. Local Authority or AHB housing projects should not. DCC have a few big landbanks which have been earmarked for public housing for a long time which should be taken off them as councillors veto everything. The LDA would ideally be under the Department of Infrastructure too.

As I said previously, there are plenty of things under the current Department of Transport which couldn't be part of Infrastructure; RSA, Air Accident Investigation, Motor Tax collection, etc. Finding other homes for them shouldn't be difficult.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122413408#Comment_122413408

I'm sorry Kris, but no, public transport is absolutely infrastructure!!

MetroLink will be arguably the largest Infrastructure project the state has ever undertaken (arguably Ardnacrusha per GDP at the time). DART+ not far behind, new BusConnects routes, etc.

I mean Transport Infrastructure Ireland literally builds, maintains and manages the operation of the Luas and look at their name!

Even buses involve lots of infrastructure, Bus Depot, electric chargers going into depots, bus routes, etc. Hell even the buses themselves would be considered part of the infrastructure.

The EU would broadly define the following as infrastructure:

• Roads and motorways, including bus lanes, cycle paths and footpaths
• Railways, including trams and Metros
• Airports
• Ports
• Waterways (canals, etc.)
• Water infrastructure (waste and fresh water)
• Electricity generation and distribution
• Gas networks
• Telecoms Infrastructure like Broadband, 5G towers, etc.

I'm not saying these should all be under one department or not, but public transport infrastructure is definitely infrastructure. in fact it is some of the most important.

bk

On the OPW, the issue would be less about the buildings they maintain and more in relation to the parks they maintain and how that impacts public transport.

Take Phoenix Park, the OPW wouldn't allow the NTA operate the N2 through the park, all the while building loads of car parking in the park and letting cars use the park as a rat run! Never mind the ridiculous issues with bike rentals there.

Or the time Dublin Bus had to build a weird angled bus stop from the road in front of the footpath at Stephens Green because the OPW wouldn't allow DB put it on the footpath they controlled!

Or look at the OPW's objections to Metrolink.

If they were under the same department, the minister could make them work with TII/NTA on these projects and if they didn't play ball, replace the head of the OPW.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122415603#Comment_122415603

Is AirCoach infrastructure?

You're confusing the services with the infrastructure that they require. MetroLink is the only thing that your argument sounds alright for, because it's a vertically integrated system, but even there, there's a difference between the tracks, signalling stations and rolling stock (the infrastructure) and the number and frequency of trains that are run (the service). The latter is limited by infrastructure, but is not a decision that should be made by any "infrastructure" agency.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122416524#Comment_122416524

The motorways Aircoach travels on is certainly infrastructure.

The Bus Stations that the likes of BE and Citylink (in Galway) use is infrastructure. Depots are infrastructure. Bus Lanes are infrastructure.

You are the one confused of the difference between the service and the infrastructure. Public transport services can't exist without Public Transport Infrastructure. Railway lines, tram lines, Motorways, roads, bus lanes, etc.

What you are saying is that Dublin Airport isn't infrastructure, because it is used by Ryanair, Aerlingus, etc. or that Dublin Port isn't infrastructure because it is used by Irish Ferries, etc.!

Are you saying Motorways aren't infrastructure because cars drive on it!

The vast majority of the money we will spend on infrastructure over the next 20 years will be on infrastructure for public transport. Metrolink, Dart+, All Island Rail review outcomes, BusConnects infrastructure. Not including PT in such a department would be madness.

If you want, you don't have to include the PSO licensing and operations side in such a department. Though it really isn't unusual to include operations within such a department.

A Department of Infrastructure doesn't have to be just building new infrastructure, it wouldn't be unusual to also maintain and license the services using the infrastructure.

Take TII, they build new Motorways, maintain existing motorways (repairs, etc.) and operate them via licensed toll operators.

TII, build new Luas lines, maintain the existing lines and operate the Luas via their contractor.

Irish Rail builds new rail lines, maintains the existing lines and operate the services.

Dublin Airport (DAA) build new terminals and runways, maintain those and operate the airport.

In the end when you think about it is all just Transport Infrastructure, infrastructure to move people and goods. Roads, rail, trams, Airport, ports.

KrisW1001

@bkI'm not confused at all. I made a very clear distinction between what is a service and what is infrastructure, and after telling me I'm wrong I think you then agreed with me. Did you misread my post?

I never mentioned Dublin Airport, but of course air and sea ports are infrastructute, because they facilitate services. That doesn't mean the regulation of passenger air travel should be under a "Department of Infrastructure".

I never claimed motorways are not infrastructure, only that AirCoach isn't. That example just reiterated my point: just because something requires a particular kind of infrastructure, it does not follow that it should be brought under a putative department that manages that infrastructute. Public transport uses roads, so does freight, so do private cars. We still need the roads in good order even if one of those uses stopped tomorrow.

Some infrastructure, however, is so closely tied to a service that it makes no sense to seaparate it: look at the UK trying to split railways into track and trains to see how bad things can be.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122417956#Comment_122417956

I’d largely see this as simply a rebranding of the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications to DoI.

The DoT already covers most of this, roads, rail, maritime, air and of course they own CIE and NTA and TII are under the DOT.

DECC already covers the rest, energy infrastructure and telecom’s infrastructure.

Pull ABP under them and maybe some other bits of other departments.

The two biggest areas I see us spending on infrastructure over the next 30 years are:

• Transport infrastructure, Metrolink, DART+, new Luas lines, AIRR, etc.
• Energy infrastructure, think all the offshore wind farms, solar, interconnectors, AD, etc.

Most of these are already under the remit of the DoT and DCEE, this would just be a consolidation and rebranding of them, with ABP and a few other bits pulled in.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122418604#Comment_122418604

But you would also be removing the non-infrastructure stuff like much of CIE and NTA, and the majority of Environment, climate & communications.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122419149#Comment_122419149

Why would you?

CIE and NTA are both heavily involved in building new infrastructure.

But I also think folks here are missing the point that a DoI wouldn't just be responsible for building new infrastructure, but also maintaining it, operating and regulating it's use.

So even the operating/regulatory side of CIE/NTA could easily still fall under this department, as could Comreg, etc.

KrisW1001

Pulling so many disparate functions into one mega-department sounds like a recipe for confusion and delay.

I wouldn't object to one department to oversee and manage the fixed infrastructure provided by the state (ports, roads, rail, communications, power and water/sewage), but the idea that such a department should become a service regulator simply because those services use that infrastructure is silly.. on that logic, nothing escapes the reach of the department.

Ronald Binge Redux

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122423267#Comment_122423267

I am suspicious of any change. Why ABP was put in charge of infrastructure beggars belief, unless parts of Official Ireland want to perceived as doing something, while in fact doing nothing.

Gusser09

An absolute idiotic and silly idea. Merely a populist idea.

We see what happens when we bring various depts in under super dept. I give you the HSE.

scrabtom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122424343#Comment_122424343

In what way is it a populist idea? You may not agree with the idea which is fine but I don't understand why it would be populist.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122424343#Comment_122424343

All bodies which formed the HSE were already under one department.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122423267#Comment_122423267

But the vast majority of what we here have suggested could fall under a DofI is already under one department (Transport), plus a whole load of stuff which falls under the general "transport" heading but wouldn't be under a DofI. It would be far from a mega department, Health, Education, Foreign Affairs, Justice, etc. would be bigger beasts and face more unexpected challenges from one day to the next.

The rest of what is suggested for DofI is under Environment, Climate and Communications (ironically ECC also shares its minister with Transport). Communications does not sit naturally with the other areas there and seems like it was stuck there because there was nowhere else to put it (i.e. no DofI). Communications industry regulation would have to go to another department, not DofI. Cyber security also wouldn't go to DofI, it probably should go to a revamped Department of Defence. What goes to DofI wouldn't be huge.

Basically, DofI wouldn't necessarily be a mega-department, it could certainly be a standard size department. Use Transport as the baseline and move various functions around from there. A review and rationalisation of departments would be no harm anyway.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122426627#Comment_122426627

Exactly. Frankly when they put both the DoT and DCEE under the same minister they already went half way there, this would just be completing the job.

BTW DCEE includes things like the electricity grid, ESB, off shore wind farms, Corrib, etc. Basically most of our energy infrastructure.

I'd also say communication regulations would sit fine in this department. Most of what Comreg do is regulate the communications infrastructure. Phone lines, fibre lines, phone masts, other broadcasting masts and the frequencies they use. It is all infrastructure.

KrisW1001

As a thought exercise, could either of you list the functions you'd put under this new department. Unless you're very strict with your definition of "infrastructure" it will quickly get out of hand…

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427053#Comment_122427053

I’ve already said, everything that is already under the DoT and DCEE and probably just add in ABP.

Those two departments are already under the same Minister and work closely together, so it would barely be a change for them. Really just ABP would be really the only new bit.

Nothing at all out of hand about the above!

I will tell you the part that would be “controversial”, would be some of the senior staff. You would have only one general secretary, rather than two now, etc. This sort of thing always ruffles some feathers and is probably the only reason they haven’t already been merged.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427053#Comment_122427053

We have a Department of Public Expenditure, NDP and Reform.

Take away the current spending aspect of this Department and put it back with the Department of Finance so current spending can be aligned with current revenue as it should be.

Remove the infrastructure elements of Health, Transport and Higher Education and place with the rump D/PENDER.

Rename as the Department of Infrastructure.

Voila!

Bodan

Michael O'Leary is onboard ,he mentioned it a few weeks ago in an Oireachtas Transport Committee

https://youtu.be/-cfq5Vl7gwg?si=zxdyKeTKkZC6RZcl&t=232

ArcadiaJunction

I just watched a Transport for Ireland advertisement and as usual they show public transport as something other than communting. It's only to get oldies off the roads and to counter drunk driving. Clear example that the people who run public transport in this country do not see it as commuting as these government spooks don't use public transport themselves to commute.

gjim

The term "infrastructure" covers such a disparate range of topics (metrolink to local sewage schemes, school buildings to cycleways, etc) at so many different scales, that combining all aspects of "infrastructure" into one department seems unlikely to provide much in terms of synergy.

You'd have the same problem if you decided to have a department of "services" - it's too broad a category in terms of government functions to get any benefit from combining under one department, I feel.

It also strikes me as doing anything just to be seen to be doing "something" - a solution looking for a problem - how exactly/specifically will this address issues infrastructure delivery? Generally, I prefer the unglamorous approach of precisely identifying specific problems and bottlenecks and then eliminating them. But that's hard work… "I know, let's create a Dept of Infrastructure" sounds like an idea dreamt up by marketing.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122424333#Comment_122424333

Two reactions to this.

1. Putting ABP in charge of even running a sweetshop would be a recipie for disaster
2. More seriously, you need a body which takes a critical look at development proposals (infrastructural and otherwise). This is quite separate from having a body build or even maintain infrastructure.

Any body which does both planning approval, also designs, builds and maintains infrastructure would be hopelessly conflicted.

riddlinrussell

Northern Ireland currently has a Department of Infrastructure, what roles and responsibilities does it have there that the DoT doesn't and what doesn't it have that DoT does?

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122465104#Comment_122465104

Good point, largely it seems to be the same as DoT, but interestingly also includes Planning, so ABP!

Highlights include:

• Roads
• Public Transport
• Rail
• Active Travel
• Waterways
• Water and Sewage
• Airports and Sea Ports
• Planning
• Rivers and Flooding

So a lot of what DoT cover, but also planning (ABP), Water and Sewage (Irish Water) and Waterways and flooding.

quokula

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122436809#Comment_122436809

More that they don't need to advertise commuting and are signalling some of the other benefits. It's not commuters that they need to convince.

In the same way that Kellogs ran a marketing campaign a while back to try and position cereal as a dinner item. It wasn't because those out of touch execs at Kellogs aren't aware that breakfast exists, just that they know they're already in a strong position there and they want to expand awareness of their product to other situations (whether you agree with that is a whole other and irrelevant argument of course)

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122465944#Comment_122465944

Depends on what you mean by "commuters", those who already commute by PT know the benefits, but what about those commute by car. Surely you want to try and encourage them out of their car and onto PT.

While it is less so in Dublin, down in Cork there is very much already the feeling that buses are only for the elderly, teenagers and students without a car. Once you "grow up" you get a car commute to work that way.

I feel that this sort of advertising doesn't dispel that myth. Perhaps Dublin based execs not getting what it is like in the rest of the country.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122466009#Comment_122466009

Anyone commuting to Dublin by car will have already looked at any possible alternative to that nightmare. If public transport met their requirements they would already be using it.

I would expect to see advertising aimed at commuters whenthe service offerings change to the point where previously unaddressable journeys can now be accommodated; in other words, after BusConnects and the DART+ projects.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122466065#Comment_122466065

Two points:

• First of all I wouldn't assume that at all. Plenty of people who just default to their car in their drive way without thinking about it. I see posts over on the C&T forum all the time from people with very outdated views on PT in Dublin. It is clear to me from their comments many of them haven't taken a bus or train in 20 years and don't know how much it has improved since then (obviously still more to do).
• Such advertisements are national, not just aimed at Dublin. In Cork, the public transport modal share is just 10%, most people drive, it is the same for the rest of the country. You absolutely have to show these people the improvements in PT and sell it to them for commuting and not just elderly/students.

bk

Or I'd put it another way, the elderly/students don't need to be told about the benefits of public transport as they mostly don't have any choice but to use it as they don't have a car or can't drive (maybe walk/cycle).

It is the people who already have a car that need to be convinced on the benefits of public transport.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122464986#Comment_122464986

The term "infrastructure" may covers a disparate range of topics but for a Department, you can define it as you wish. For such a department, it's likely that schools would remain under Education and health/care facilities would remain under Health.