Proposal for a new Department of Infrastructure

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.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122475565#Comment_122475565

I think major projects, like the proposed National Maternity Hospital would come under the new dept. As would large education projects.

In fact, any large projects should come under it.

gjim

I fail to see what problems with infrastructure delivery would be solved by shuffling civil servants around and changing reporting lines and assigning new titles and such?

If there isn't something specific then such a reorganization would just constitute a load of wasteful civil servant busywork.

The biggest issue for infrastructure was/is the bottleneck in planning - the solution was to increase ABP head-count (nothing to do with the civil service) and the setting up of the Planning Court (also independent of the civil service except for the tiny number of civil servants of the state).

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122475638#Comment_122475638

I think it is a terrible idea to put major health (in particular) and education under a different department. Take the National Children's Hospital, medical equipment will have changed between the design and fit out stages. You need people with knowledge of this heavily involved, you can't just hand these things over to those with successfully built a metro but with no clue of medical requirements.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122475753#Comment_122475753

Well, for a major hospital, the infrastructure element is the building plus the facilities. The health aspects are dealt with by the HSE or dept of Health.

Just as the HSE are not expected to be great at the construction of a major hospital (as in a National Children's Hospital) then they should be restricted to the elements that are covered by their expertise.

I would think a new Dept would not want to repeat the NCH saga.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122475784#Comment_122475784

Yo can't just build a hospital and let the health care lads figure out how to use it later. You need to understand how particular treatments are carried out, what size of machines/equipment they need, which ancillary facilities that needs beside it (labs, specialist storage, etc.). For a big hospital, these things can change from when the building is being laid out at design stage to when it is actually being built. The pace of development in medical science is such that things can change in 5+ years and you need people who understand the changes directly involved.

beachhead

Late to this discussion but yes we do need another quango to fight with all the other quangos whether its called a department or not

Geuze

This is interesting:

https://x.com/Ben_A_Hopkinson/status/1824369797729227095

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122515370#Comment_122515370

Not just interesting, but pretty devestating, assuming the source of the cost comparisons is trustworthy.

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122515418#Comment_122515418

Back on Track report:

https://www.createstreets.com/projects/10562/

https://www.createstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Tram_Report_Digital.pdf

KrisW1001

The cost graph is not great as a comparison. Most of the cost of installing a tram line is in preparing the ground under the tracks: moving service ducts and access hatches out from under the path of the tracks. Actually putting down the tracks is straightforward. That means that the most expensive place to lay a new tram line is in a city centre; the cheapest is greenfield. City centre lines also have more curves and junctions than suburban ones and that additional complexity pushes the cost up.

Germany and Finland have low costs per km for new tramlines because the majority of their new lines are suburban extension of networks that already have dense urban cores in place. Ireland is high because almost all of its recent builds have been in the centre of Dublin. Luas Finglas will bring that average cost down.

I'm surprised at Australia, but I think a state by state breakdown would show the same effect: cheap in Victoria (Melbourne) where there's a mature network, more expensive in NSW (Sydney) which is still building new city-centre routes.

France is worth talking about though, because French urban planners really do take a long view, and in most cities there is a transport plan that designates certain corridors as future light rail routes: this allows service relocation to be done gradually as those services are maintained, thus lessening the work needed when the line eventually does get started.

We, by contrast, are great at making plans, but bad at sticking to them (e.g. from the BusConnects thread, allowing permission for a filling station to be built on a road that it was known would become bus-only; or not protecting the alignment of DART Tallaght from the original Dublin rail transport plan, etc..)