Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Roads budget with the new gov

2

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Whether the source is reliable or not Transport needs to separated out from tourism and sport. There's way too much going on with both the PT megaprojects and roads for the Minister to be off dealing with far less important issues in tourism or sport.

    There are still plenty of stages in these projects that need either Minister or Cabinet approval. And there are a load of needed road projects that were defunded by Ryan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    The Transport ministry was only Transport in the last Government.

    Ryan also held a brief for Climate Change or some such, but he had nothing to do with Tourism (which was Catherine Martin) or Sport (Thomas Byrne).

    Shane Ross was Sport and Transport, although he only ever put effort into the former. DART+ and Metrolink were forced across his desk by FG.

    As for "defunded", the DoT budget had to shrink in line with other departments. We need the major PT projects that were kept far more urgently than the smaller road projects that were delayed.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    As for "defunded", the DoT budget had to shrink in line with other departments. We need the major PT projects that were kept far more urgently than the smaller road projects that were delayed

    Sorry, but this is nonsense. Government spending absolutely ballooned in the last number of years. The Govt couldn't burn through the corporation tax windfalls quickly enough. There was no increase in PT project delivery in the last Govt either.

    I've posted several times from Oireachtas commitee meetings, the media etc of what went on for the past number of years. The Minister wasn't happy with projects in the National Development Plan that didn't meet his personal preferences. He ordered TII not to fund these projects in 2022, 2023 and 2024, or to partially fund them based on the elements he liked himself (the N17 being an example where he explicitly only allowed work to progress on sections of the route bypassing Tobercurry and Charlestown). This defunding only applied to roads in the early phases of planning. Some projects were allowed to progress despite them going against his beliefs (the M20, and M6 Galway Ring Road being 2 examples). Some other projects got bogged down in Green tape introduced during his term (the M11, a strategic port motorway being delayed by a further 2 years to add cycling facilties in rural Co. Wexford is a good example).

    This could have been stopped by his Coalition partners but they decided that a major row over projects like this wasn't worth it and let him carry on with it, as was explained at a FF PP meeting in 2021. FF leadership did a complete U turn on this stance in September 2024 when the election was on the cards and Micheal Martin was suddenly troubled at the delaying of roads projects.

    All of the media coverage on this in local papers around the country has been quite negative since 2020 so I'm not surprised FF are now making a push for more positive coverage around their attitude to roads delivery. Whether that delivery actually happens or not is a different story altogether and one we can merrily watch for the next few years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Spending in general boomed, but only in certain departments. People really don't get how expensive the Covid pandemic was, but you can have a look at a graph of our debt since 2019 and you'll see it. It suited the government not to commit to large capital projects at a time when they were neck deep in paying first for Covid reliefs and then for energy supports. During 2022-23 you could barely get a tender in for a construction project, as the companies didn't know how much higher their costs were going to go.

    If Eamon Ryan didn't want roads projects to proceed, then it was great for him, because he didn't have to try: only the most reckless minister would have gone on a building binge in that environment.

    Ryan's pet projects didn't get bumped to the head of the queue either, all that happened was that everything was held back. FF are very good at deflecting blame, so of course they presented the financial problems with progressing projects as "the Greens holding things up". If that actually happened, it was a tiny contribution against the worst conditions for large projects since the crash.

    The changes requested to M11 are basically the same measures that were added to M20.. better facilities at junctions and, yes, a cycleway, but if you think that a cycleway through one of the most touristed counties in the country will be a waste of money, I really don't know what to say.

    But costs are stabilising now, and projects are finally emerging from design and planning. Let's see who gets blamed for this government's tardiness in building roads



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Nobody was asking for a building binge 🙄.

    Ryan stopped projects progressing through design and planning. These projects still need to be built, but will delayed further years because of his meddling.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    As said above, nobody wants a building binge. But there is a cross Government agreed National Development Plan with a number of named projects. Progressing them in line with what was proposed is all that most people would ask for.

    The changes requested to M11 are basically the same measures that were added to M20.. better facilities at junctions and, yes, a cycleway, but if you think that a cycleway through one of the most touristed counties in the country will be a waste of money, I really don't know what to say.

    The N11 from Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour is a fairly strategic route now with the port being so busy and there being a village 2km from the end of a lengthy motorway it does require upgrading. Back in 2021 there was angst about how long the new M11 would take to be developed in the context of the strategic nature of the M11 corridor and how important the new route was. There was reassurance provided that the project would be ready for planning in late 2022. It's now early 2025 and we learn of a 2 year delay to the project due to the MSA requirements and the cycleway. Wexford is a lovely county but surely wouldn't it be better to provide cycling facilities along the coast or along the population centres of the route rather than tacking them onto a HGV heavy motorway?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,692 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Can I correct the record and say that I for one definitely want a building binge. It is well overdue. The snail pace of delivery of national infrastructure is depressing.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42 neiljung


    Expect to see Farranfore-Killarney and Cork NRR move up the priority list for starters.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    I can see the Limerick Northern Distributor Road coming back on the cards too. Ryan had it removed from LSMATS before it was published and AFAIK it's still in the Clare CC development plan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,717 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Confirmation the Greens were acting the boll!x and obstructing on road infrastructure despite having agreed a 2:1 split in favour of public transport.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,408 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Ring roads for all our ring roads!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,309 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    That's one I really can't see being resurrected, very expensive for little benefit. It would go against all National and European policies as it would purely be to facilitate car commuting.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,692 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    What's the polite way to just say nope to that. Barring a metro is ever built in Limerick, you need a way around the place. North of city is mental these days. No train or bus service will fix this.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    To be fair, the only ring roads for ring roads being proposed are in Killarney, Cork North, Rathkeale, Wexford, Galway, Longford and Monaghan Town.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,417 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    One billion, was and is, an utter irrelevance pf a sum to our government, in the way that one euro is irrelevant to you... what's the cost of delaying all of these projects? Billions and billions...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,671 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Can't see Moyross to UL ever happening. Too many well healed NIMBY's in Parteen and around the back of UL.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,408 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    I'd just like to say that I appreciate the humour in this comment. I'm not sure if others will get the subtlety so I wanted to point it out.

    And back to being serious again, I'm not sure if FF really have a fully thought-out transport policy to be honest. I suspect they'll go wherever the votes are with local effects, rather than having transport as a core party all-island "ideology" per se. In that regard I'd nearly rather FG get Transport, because they seemed to have had a more comprehensive transport manifesto.

    We probably dodged the first bullet with Verona Murphy getting Ceann Comhairle though.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Seems from reading the media reports on coalition talks so far that there isn't going to be a substantial downgrade of any sort of PT related investment. FF have made strong gains in Dublin in the last election and they're not going to throw that away. Remember that the Govt have 21 TDs between them in Dublin and 10 in Kildare/Meath/Wicklow. It's a nice balance to have. The 2:1 ratio will hopefully be kept even if it's just symbolic.

    What will go out the window is futile urinating on the roads programme in the name of empty virtue signalling gestures.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,408 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Yep I think the same, maybe we're both being overly optimistic but I hope not.

    Transport is kind of in the sweet spot at the moment in that it's people's 5th or 6th priority, so people want money spent on it, but also it's not the very top priority, so people aren't heavily entrenched in ideology.

    I think the 2:1 will be kept too, and as you say that'll be symbolic.

    One big thing the last government did that people might not have noticed is that many LA roads departments and even the NTA and TII were upskilled massively on sustainable transport infrastructure design over the last few years. I'd be optimistic that means that the future proposed road future infrastructure is of good quality. Most designs we see nowadays are so much better than even 5 years ago. I still shudder to think of Little Island narrowing the footpaths, to fit in another general traffic lane, that was 2019 or something.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    If anything there's probably been a slight bit of a Streisand effect with the roads that Ryan held up. They'd have quietly gone nowhere had he just given lip service to them. There'll be a certain pressure to "undo the Green damage" now.

    The thing about transport is that most people never make the connection between transport and housing. Meeting our housing targets would be significantly easier if Metrolink, Cork Commuter rail, Galway commuter rail, DART+ were in place to service those lovely green fields the houses will be going in. For that reason alone, PT projects will continue to advance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,941 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Well that's the kind of short-termist thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. We need FOUR more lanes each way, and a three-lane frontage road either side!

    @marno21 , @hans aus dtschl - Agree completely with both points: FF having no transport policy (they never did), and the likely retention of the 2:1 ratio.

    Regarding the “Steissand Effect”, most of the publicity for those projects being deferred came from “sources” within county councils or the back benches of FF,FG and yes, even the Greens. There’s politicians of all parties who just can’t see a back without reaching for a knife.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,422 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    I suspect that the 2:1 ratio might be dropped because of it’s connection with the Greens, but effectively it will be maintained or even increased.

    I don’t see any appetite to actually drop any of the major PT projects (Metrolink/dart+), etc. and they are so much larger and more expensive then any of the remaining roads projects, that if they go ahead you’d effectively end up with that ratio or even much wider ratio.

    Other then the m20, the rest of the roads projects are relatively small and should be relatively affordable, at least compared to Metrolink, etc.

    The government coffers are awash with money and I think both FF and FG know that the public are feed up of seeing little or nothing being built over the last 10 years and that the next 5 years of government will need to be seen as a government of action and actually building projects, both roads and PT, if they want to get reelected in 5 years time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,309 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    The next government should announce a 3:1 ratio of PT:roads. Say they will deliver on climate change commitments while also investing in roads. That doesn't require doing anything different than what is already in motion but could broaden their support.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,820 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Great stuff. Now we see the nonsense the greens were at



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,717 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    The next government will be “ambitious on public transport and roads”, a figure involved in drafting the deal said. “There won’t be as many cycle lanes built, that’s for sure,” they added. “It’ll be about big picture stuff now.”

    https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/01/14/regional-independent-group-strikes-deal-with-fine-gael-and-fianna-fail-on-formation-of-next-government/



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Looks like Sean Canney will be a junior minister at Transport. Good news for schemes in Galway



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,717 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    The process for approving and building roads is to be overhauled according to the Programme for Government. The Irish Times says this is after the Greens were accused of intentionally abusing the system to stall projects.

    (hardly an accusation when it was obvious)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86 ✭✭Compo82


    Great stuff, hopefully some badly needed schemes will be progressed under this government.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Multiannual funding is on the way!

    Roads investment
    The Government will invest in all
    road projects in the current National
    Development Plan and consider additional
    important road projects as part of the NDP
    review.


    This Government will:


    • Provide multi-annual funding clarity for
    roads budgets so agencies can plan
    accordingly.
    • Increase funding for new roads as part of
    the NDP review and the maintenance of
    existing roads.
    • Increase funding for the protection and
    renewal of the road network to address
    maintenance backlogs.
    • Establish distinct budgets for road
    maintenance and new road construction
    starting in 2025 to ensure sustained
    investment in the network.
    • Fund a matching road maintenance
    catch up programme for local authorities
    with poor pavement surface conditions
    and utilise advanced imaging technology
    to expedite repairs.
    • Continue to progress construction of
    the Narrow Water Bridge and support
    the local authorities on both sides of the
    bridge in developing the new tourism
    opportunities it will bring.
    • Improve connectivity with the
    Northwest by working with the Northern
    Ireland Executive to deliver the A5
    road upgrade. Further enhance road
    connectivity to and from the North-West.
    • Provide additional funding for the Local
    Improvement Scheme and Community
    Involvement Schemes (CIS).
    • Progress the digital solution to replace
    the paper discs on vehicle windscreens.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,794 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    I hope this marks a new era in road building and the rest of the network crying out for bypasses and upgrading finally gets seen to- most of these projects have been talked about for decades and are basic “must haves” in terms of road safety and efficiency. I’m delighted this seems to be a big part of the new government programme



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭markodaly




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    A relief road of Claregalway wouldn't surprise me, Noel Grealish has been on about it over the years. My guess would be the Galway Ring Road above all others, with the Athenry-Claremorris railway and Claregalway relief roads following on. Probably a rapid end to the clownshow on the N59 west of Oughterard also.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,319 ✭✭✭Westernview


    It's seems very unclear to me what emphasis the government will have when it comes to infrastructure. A number of posters here are delighted that there will be a flurry of road building at the expense of the previous preference of the Greens for public transport. But we are signed up to major reductions in carbon reduction and we will get fined billions if we fail to meet this. I don't see the emphasis shifting as much as people think. And I say this as someone who would like to see a lot of road projects progressed that have been stalled or downgraded.

    Post edited by Westernview on


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Road building will not be at the expense of public transport. This is even stated in the Programme for Government. There's enough money budgeted for both. It's just we now have a Minister for Transport who isn't a) completely disinterested in his job (2016-2020) or b) has an ideological fixation against road construction regardless of merit (2020-next week).

    There will be no real shifting of emphasis. Public transport projects (that are hugely important - Metrolink, DART+, Cork ART, regional BusConnects) will proceed, as they should. Roads should also proceed, as outlined in the NDP. The sums required for PT projects will dwarf the amount spent on a number of regionally important road schemes.

    As for fines, good luck with that. A brief look at politics in Europe and the viability of any real enforcement of fines will appear quite fanciful.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,319 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Brushing off the threat of fines is nice tough talk but in reality isn't gonna cut it. Even if they were never paid (and I doubt that's a serious option) we have to make serious attempts at carbon reduction. We would lose a lot of credibility as a nation in terms of our obligations towards addressing climate change. Anyone thinking it's problem solved with the Greens removed is pretty naive. The climate doesn't care who is in charge.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    We do have to make serious attempts at carbon reduction, and we are. But we have to also accept that just because we set arbitrary targets, set by politicians who won't be in office to actually take the measures to meet them, doesn't mean we'll be able to successfully meet them. We have to be realistic about how we can achieve decarbonisation without causing economic damage or hurting peoples lives to the extent that they vote for right wing parties who end up undoing any measures to decarbonise.

    Not sure about our credibility. We're not standing out around the world for being bad at addressing climate change. We do have higher than average emissions in certain sectors but we also have world leading sectors in some high emissions industries (for example beef and dairy) where if we took drastic actions to remove those emissions they'd be substituted around the world with equivalent products from higher emission countries with bad side effects (e.g. Irish beef subsituted with Brazillian beef).

    I'm not sure what the comment about the Greens relates to. The PfG commits to substantial climate action. It commits to offshore wind, substantial PT + AT investment etc, all of which the Greens waxed lyrical about but didn't deliver a whole pile.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    If the PfG didn't specifically mention decarbonisation of the economy multiple times you might have a point.

    In transport alone it commits to all the major PT projects currently underway and promises more are on the way. It commits to continue the electrification of the rail and bus fleets.

    It promises the roll out of significant EV charging network, new incentives for the pruchase of EVs (something that Ryan had reduced and then denied it was the reason for the 25% reduction in new EV sales last year) and tax breaks on the import of second hand EVs.

    It promises increased investment in Active Travel, greenways and blueways.

    Increasing the roads budget is not in any way going to affect decarbonisation targets.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,319 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Your first paragraph suggests that the Green Party set a random target knowing they wouldn't have to deal with it which isn't true. They didnt run away, they were voted out. They would have fully intended returning to government to continue this push.

    Having to be 'realistic' is quite vague and often used as a counter argument to Green policy. Going back to my original point the situation will still have to be dealt with or without the greens. I don't see where the resources are to ramp up road construction so much that the greater emphasis on public transport can be maintained. To repeat I'd like to see more roads but the priority is supposedly to build houses and invest in public transport. From a manpower and carbon reduction commitment that seems incredibly challenging. I look forward to being proved wrong.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Your first paragraph suggests that the Green Party set a random target knowing they wouldn't have to deal with it which isn't true. They didnt run away, they were voted out. They would have fully intended returning to government to continue this push.

    I was referring to Leo Varadkar and his Cabinet back in 2019 when this was started.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,319 ✭✭✭Westernview


    The PfG can mention it as many time as it wants. I refer to my last reply to marno. Changing everyone over to EVs is what the Greens wanted but it won't be enough be enough without public transport investment. With an increasing population is only getting is only going to get worse. As I said I look forward to seeing it all done..rails, roads, houses but it's a huge challenge. The glib comment from the government spokesman that there will be less cycle lanes thats for sure this week was unnecessary but worrying. Sounds like road works are set to dominate again.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    re: your last line. Sounds like you need to properly read the Programme for Government.

    The spokesperson speaking about bike lanes was playing to the crowd and signalling a shift from the previous do nothing DoT where not a whole pile except bike lanes were actually delivered. Roads or PT.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Try actually reading the PfG. Transport starts on page 75.

    And it wasn't a government spokesman. It was a single TD spouting to a journalist.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,319 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Maybe a little less playing to the crowd and more explanation on what they are actually planning would be better for all concerned.

    Anyway I think we all want to see it all done. The new PfG will tell a lot.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Reducing the EV grant isn't the cause of the sales dip. The UK has had no grants for a long time, and its EV sales fell too. It's a lack of support infrastructure, plus some quite good PR campaigns by ICE-heavy makers (hi Toyota!) to stoke range anxiety in buyers. (I've had people who drive less than 5000 km a year, all short trips, tell me they'd be worried about relying on an EV with “only” 300 km of range…)

    I've got an EV, and it's far cheaper for me than the diesel it replaced. However, I've also got a driveway and a home charger. With public charging infrastructure the way it is now (i.e., sparse and expensive), you cannot realistically expect someone who doesn't have a private driveway to buy an EV. Then there's the mostly rural drivers who do have the place to charge overnight, but drive longer distances, and for peace of mind would like a charging option at their destinations.

    Tax-breaks on 2nd hand EVs are a useful measure (over a third of cars on Irish roads were previously registered in the UK), but the real money needs to be spent on making EV charging more cost-effective and accessible, and in fairness to the perennially-maligned Ryan, that's why he cut back the grant: as EV prices fell, and second-hand units arrived on the market, it became nothing much more than a subsidy for people who can afford a new car, so the money was better spent in supporting everyone who owned an EV, regardless of how they acquired it.

    I’m actually disappointed that the purchase incentive is back. If it has to be, I'd like to see it tied to a scrappage scheme and weighted toward lower-price models… I'll wait to see the details.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,319 ✭✭✭Westernview


    IIf you're referring to yesterday's release it is only a draft PfG full of general statements promising a bit of everything. I can't get any sense that there is a shift in the balance from public transport to or from roads. Needs more meat on the bones for a final document or else we will have to wait for the announcements of project funding.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    It's quite obvious that there is no shift, just that much needed road projects will no longer be stalled.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,319 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Its not obvious to me but I hope you are right.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/01/17/who-are-the-independents-supporting-the-new-ff-fg-coalition-and-what-do-they-want-in-return/

    Some detail on the nine TDs supporting the Government and some of the constituency projects they are prioritising. No "consitutency deals" but apparently they are having input on the NDP review in July.

    Marian Harkin: N4 Carrick on Shannon bypass, N17 Knock-Collooney

    Healy Raes x2: N22 Killarney-Farranfore

    Sean Canney: M6 Galway City Ring Road

    Mentions an "outer ring road" of Athlone regarding Boxer Moran which I don't follow, but maybe the N55 to Ballymahon will be prioritised. Gillian Toole's base is quite close to the N2 Kilmoon Cross-Ashbourne project that got knifed a few years back. Noel Grealish may have his eye on a Claregalway relief road aside from the GCRR proposal. Lowry has regularly made mention of bypasses of Tipperary Town (now outside his constituency) and Thurles.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement