R roads

MT

Is it time for the remit of the NRA to be extended so that it also has responsibility for regional roads? And, yes, for the pedants this would require a name change. I think this might be envisaged as part of a move to transfer responsibility for regional roads from the Dept. of Environment to the Dept. of Transport. I mean, why bother having a DoT in the first place when its authority only covers a minority of the road transport network. Surely, it’s a misnomer. Maybe Dept. of the odd bit of road transport here and there would be more appropriate.

I think such a move would have a number of benefits:

Better co-ordination of funding with greater prioritising.

Less interdepartmental confusion resulting in better planning and greater efficiency.

Giving the NRA control would raise standards of construction/maintenance on R roads. Just look at the often woeful standard of signage on R roads and the considerable inconsistency. Clearly, the DoE and local authorities are not up to the task.

The NRA’s veto on ribbon development along N routes might well be extended to R routes. This would ensure the current approach of simply diverting ribbon development from N roads running out of towns to R roads would come to an end. The DoT and NRA should have a say on ribbon development along any major routes running out of urban areas.

Many R routes are quite important and should be prioritised as transport corridors and so included in the DoT’s brief.

R roads would pass into the control of a department dedicated to transport policy and not as an after thought in the crowded portfolio of Dick Roche and the Dept. of the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government.

D'Peoples Voice

MT wrote:

I mean, why bother having a DoT in the first place when its authority only covers a minority of the road transport network. .

Public Transport?
Not that they do a decent job of that either....

MT

Yes, that’s true. My post is misleading as of course the DoT also has responsibilities to other modes of travel as well as the car. However, in relation to roads I see no reason why the department shouldn’t be given control of the regional road network as well as the national. Certainly, minor roads could remain within the remit of councils and the DoE but given their track record their responsibilities should go no further.

What’s your view?

mike65

Would'nt giving the NRA all but the minor roads bankrupt the state? They seem to be averaging 80% over budget on everything they're involved with at the moment.

Less interdepartmental confusion resulting in better planning and greater efficiency.

One less department but greater efficiency? I doubt it....

Mike.

Victor

The problem is the NRA is only a supervisory agency. It provides standards, does research, vets and funds projects and runs the regional design offices, but it is the councils that run projects.

Take all of the running away from councils and / or fund national roads to say about 90%, then the councils might get on with their own work and not have a policy of an interchange for everyone in the audience.