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

Infrastructure investment in a post covid-19 world

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,856 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    But we borrowed a lot quite unnecessarily.

    Billions upon billions to save a worthless bank that no longer exists.


  • Options
    #33
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,790 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    Absolutely nobody is begrudging the money being spent. But they could easily have been borrowing that very low cost money before the crisis to build the needed infrastructure and make the country a better place to live in for everyone. They chose not to. Wind your neck in.

    But there is two major infrastructure projects - BusConnects and Metrolink -underway.


  • Options
    #34
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    But there is two major infrastructure projects - BusConnects and Metrolink -underway.

    They've not even gone to ABP. They're a long way from being underway.


  • Options
    #35
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058068997

    take a read of this incredible ****! As someone who has paid in god knows what into the system in taxes over the last fifteen years, I am meant to be ok with the likes of this? and accept the third world public transport here, its totally unacepptable!


  • Options
    #36
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,430 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Just look at the money burnt up with the banks.

    So much utterly wasted.

    25% of that spent on PT would have been amazing.

    The amount spent on the banks was €60 billion - the amount spent on trying to bring the economy back to life was a further €140 billion, much went on interest charges, dole and other SW.

    As well as that, austerity caused huge social costs - we do not want that again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Tomrota
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭Tomrota


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    But there is two major infrastructure projects - BusConnects and Metrolink -underway.
    And how many major projects have been completed in Dublin over the past 15 years for public transport in Dublin since the two Luas lines were built? List 5.


  • Options
    #38
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,430 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Tomrota wrote: »
    And how many major projects have been completed in Dublin over the past 15 years for public transport in Dublin since the two Luas lines were built? List 5.

    1. Mad cow roundabout - Newlands Cross overpass.

    2. The M50 three lane expansion.

    3. The Westlink barrier free tolling.

    4. The re-signalling of the Dart/ Phoenix Park tunnel service..

    5. The ten minute Dart frequency.

    There's five for you. Did not include the children's hospital as it is not built yet.


  • Options
    #39
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,114 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    1. Mad cow roundabout - Newlands Cross overpass.

    2. The M50 three lane expansion.

    3. The Westlink barrier free tolling.

    4. The re-signalling of the Dart/ Phoenix Park tunnel service..

    5. The ten minute Dart frequency.

    There's five for you. Did not include the children's hospital as it is not built yet.

    The poster asked about Public Transport projects. I see two small enough ones on your list. Three on your list were done in Celtic Tiger days and hardly merit PT projects.


  • Options
    #40
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,856 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    1. M3 Pace branch off Maynooth line.

    2. Extension of Luas to Broombridge.

    3. Extension of Luas to Bride's Glen.

    4. Docklands branch of Luas.

    5. Saggart brach of Luas.


  • Options
    #41
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    FG and FF are certainly making the right noises about capital spending while they're trying to court each other.

    Capital spending deemed key to FF-FG coalition government

    The article says that there's nothing specific mentioned so far, but I'd be highly confident that they'll push forward with Metrolink now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Tomrota
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭Tomrota


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    1. M3 Pace branch off Maynooth line.

    2. Extension of Luas to Broombridge.

    3. Extension of Luas to Bride's Glen.

    4. Docklands branch of Luas.

    5. Saggart brach of Luas.
    Thank you for actually listing public transport projects. Only problem is they’re tiny. We have one of the highest GDP in the world per capita. Look at some other European countries and what they’ve done. Many smaller and far poorer than Ireland. It’s all about priorities. There are cities with lower populations and cities with lower population densities than Dublin which have metros.

    The amount of external problems not having a good public transport system has on quality of life and the economy is just unbelievable. Ireland is terrible for public transport investment, we all know this on the forum. We should have met capacity for 2020 years ago. And we should be aiming to create capacity for 2030 for growth levels that exceed 2030 targets. Not doing years of feasibility studies when the system is already tearing at the seams.


  • Options
    #43
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,856 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    How could I forget the glorious WRC? :pac:


  • Options
    #44
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    CatInABox wrote: »
    FG and FF are certainly making the right noises about capital spending while they're trying to court each other.

    Capital spending deemed key to FF-FG coalition government

    The article says that there's nothing specific mentioned so far, but I'd be highly confident that they'll push forward with Metrolink now.
    At this stage it's not really feasible to proceed with much else, given that public transport is specifically mentioned.

    MetroLink, DART Expansion and BusConnects are the only projects sufficiently advanced in planning and design to possibly go ahead in the next few years.

    Advancing planning for DART Underground, Metro South and taking the regional city transport plans (Cork Luas, Cork Suburban Rail, Galway BusConnects) seriously is another option. There are some easy, quick wins in there which are being squandered.

    And roads. Lots of roads. M20, N17 dual carriageway, Cork North Ring Road, N2/N14 to Donegal all should proceed.


  • Options
    #45
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    I'd have said lots of the active travel scheme pieces of infrastructure should be funded too.

    A lot of people are suddenly after discovering how mobile they are capable of being, over the past month or so.

    Active travel projects are low-cost individually, they're easy to fund, they're quick to deliver, they don't need massive amounts of expertise and they can be quite transformative.


  • Options
    #46
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    I'd have said lots of the active travel scheme pieces of infrastructure should be funded too.

    A lot of people are suddenly after discovering how mobile they are capable of being, over the past month or so.

    Active travel projects are low-cost individually, they're easy to fund, they're quick to deliver, they don't need massive amounts of expertise and they can be quite transformative.

    I agree on all that. Should be easier to finance a lot more of these as their per project costs are much smaller.

    Case in point: https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/200000-people-live-or-work-near-route-of-life-changing-Cork-greenway-proposal-3b586dfd-2b28-4ff8-9aba-1393c9d67574-ds

    The old Bandon railway line would make a fantastic greenway too


  • Options
    #47
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Over in the UK, a legal bid to halt the UK governments £29 billion roads project has been launched. It's by the same group that successfully blocked (for now, at least) the third runway at Heathrow, on the basis that the project ignored the Paris Climate Agreement. I had wondered if governments around the world knew what they were signing up to at the time, and so it has proven.

    Whatever projects are proposed in the future, this is another hurdle for roads projects to jump over. Personally, I think the Paris Agreement didn't go far enough, and fully support the fact that it should be used a benchmark for projects like this. Increases in emissions as a result of a project should definitely be considered as part of the environmental impact assessment.


  • Options
    #48
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,622 ✭✭✭Nermal


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Over in the UK, a legal bid to halt the UK governments £29 billion roads project has been launched. It's by the same group that successfully blocked (for now, at least) the third runway at Heathrow, on the basis that the project ignored the Paris Climate Agreement. I had wondered if governments around the world knew what they were signing up to at the time, and so it has proven.

    Whatever projects are proposed in the future, this is another hurdle for roads projects to jump over. Personally, I think the Paris Agreement didn't go far enough, and fully support the fact that it should be used a benchmark for projects like this. Increases in emissions as a result of a project should definitely be considered as part of the environmental impact assessment.

    Using the courts to do what you couldn't achieve at the ballot box.

    The government needs to apply a bit more scrutiny to the opinions of judges.


  • Options
    #49
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Over in the UK, a legal bid to halt the UK governments £29 billion roads project has been launched. It's by the same group that successfully blocked (for now, at least) the third runway at Heathrow, on the basis that the project ignored the Paris Climate Agreement. I had wondered if governments around the world knew what they were signing up to at the time, and so it has proven.

    Whatever projects are proposed in the future, this is another hurdle for roads projects to jump over. Personally, I think the Paris Agreement didn't go far enough, and fully support the fact that it should be used a benchmark for projects like this. Increases in emissions as a result of a project should definitely be considered as part of the environmental impact assessment.

    In 20 years all private transport will be electric powered so this should take away one of the sticks that is used to beat road upgrades and improvements


  • Options
    #50
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    roadmaster wrote: »
    In 20 years all private transport will be electric powered so this should take away one of the sticks that is used to beat road upgrades and improvements

    Environmental concerns and public and/or active transport aren't the biggest roadblocks (ahem!) we've had in the last 20 years. The biggest problem has been funding.

    Again - certainly not aimed at you specifically - roads currently get the vast majority of all land-based infrastructure investment.

    So if it ever comes to a point in the future that public and/or active transport are ever NOT the impoverished poor relation of roads, then I'd say electric vehicles would certainly take away some of the "environmental" road block. But the biggest concern would still probably to be financial.

    On the topic of the thread, it's not inconceivable that transport priorities will change fundamentally in a post-Covid19 world. Some cities such as Milan are using the upheaval as an opportunity to re-allocate more road space to active transport users. Brighton has done similar. We may see some of that in Ireland's urban areas.


  • Options
    #51
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,430 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    roadmaster wrote: »
    In 20 years all private transport will be electric powered so this should take away one of the sticks that is used to beat road upgrades and improvements

    I would not be too sure of that.

    Batteries might be the flavour at the moment, but there are significant issues to the source of materials for the best battery technologies. We might see hydrogen fuel cells be the major source of power for private vehicles, but we might see a return to more public transport, with perhaps self driving electric powered micro-buses.

    The benefit of hydrogen based fuel cells is that the production of hydrogen just requires water and electricity as the only consumables. No CO2, no NOX, and all could be sourced from wind and wave.

    I would like to see rail infrastructure installed for Dublin at least. Metrolink, Dart expansion, and Dart Underground.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Nermal wrote: »
    Using the courts to do what you couldn't achieve at the ballot box.

    I really don't think that it is, to be honest. The conservative government ran an election campaign that said they were going to protect the environment, signed up to the Paris Agreement of their own free will, and ran another campaign that included the fact that they signed up to the Paris agreement as proof of their green credentials.

    They can't have it both ways, claiming to be green, and then abandoning/ignoring it whenever they want.
    Nermal wrote: »
    The government needs to apply a bit more scrutiny to the opinions of judges.

    A very sinister approach to justice. The law applies to the government just as much as it applies to the people, and it's ridiculous and dangerous to suggest otherwise. If the government wanted the third runway to be built without issue, then they should have looked at what effect it would have on the countries Paris Agreement responsibilities, not just pretended that they don't exist.


  • Options
    #53
    Kevtherev1
    Registered Users Posts: 154 ✭✭Kevtherev1


    Some news and i will put it here as it related to infrastructure investment. As we know ireland it taking a case to oppose the 14billion tax the EU has said is owed to us by apple.


    It has cost millions in lost value as stated in following article.
    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/losses-14billion-apple-account-set-22306198



    I was just listening to today with sarah mcinerney on rte. She has just said this apple tax case will have its ruling next week. Have not found any article confirming this online.


    I wonder will the govt and apple appeal the case if they lose it. (Ie court rules the money in account is irelands) There will be a big debate kicking off in the dail next week no doubt lol


  • Options
    #54
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Kevtherev1 wrote: »
    Some news and i will put it here as it related to infrastructure investment. As we know ireland it taking a case to oppose the 14billion tax the EU has said is owed to us by apple.


    It has cost millions in lost value as stated in following article.
    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/losses-14billion-apple-account-set-22306198



    I was just listening to today with sarah mcinerney on rte. She has just said this apple tax case will have its ruling next week. Have not found any article confirming this online.


    I wonder will the govt and apple appeal the case if they lose it. (Ie court rules the money in account is irelands) There will be a big debate kicking off in the dail next week no doubt lol

    I'll admit that I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that only a small percentage of that money would be due to Ireland. The rest is due to the countries that the tax should have been paid in.


  • Options
    #55
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,430 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    I'll admit that I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that only a small percentage of that money would be due to Ireland. The rest is due to the countries that the tax should have been paid in.

    How does that work?

    Say country A says we want €3 bn of that for us. How do they claim it? Apple should have paid tax here! Well why didn't they? Was it VAT or corporation tax or some other tax? How is the tax to be calculated? Or is it we would just like some of this free money?

    This is made up nonsense. If Apple did not pay tax, it is Ireland that should get the tax as it is Ireland that is the tax authority and did not claim it under their laws that are now considered incorrectly applied, if the judgement goes that way.

    If other countries are due tax, then they should claim it through their own tax laws. Tax is not an EU competence, merely competition laws.


  • Options
    #56
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    How does that work?

    Say country A says we want €3 bn of that for us. How do they claim it? Apple should have paid tax here! Well why didn't they? Was it VAT or corporation tax or some other tax? How is the tax to be calculated? Or is it we would just like some of this free money?

    This is made up nonsense. If Apple did not pay tax, it is Ireland that should get the tax as it is Ireland that is the tax authority and did not claim it under their laws that are now considered incorrectly applied, if the judgement goes that way.

    If other countries are due tax, then they should claim it through their own tax laws. Tax is not an EU competence, merely competition laws.

    The EU Commission have already warned that other EU countries might have a claim to the money. Other countries seem to be adopting a wait and see approach until after the appeal ruling.

    In reality if the case is overturned I suspect the money will sit in an escrow account for a long, long time while the issues you raise are sorted out. I wouldn't be too confident in factoring it into any urgent infrastructure spending plans.

    Ireland may not get Apple's €13bn back taxes in full, EU says


  • Options
    #57
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,430 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    The EU Commission have already warned that other EU countries might have a claim to the money. Other countries seem to be adopting a wait and see approach until after the appeal ruling.

    In reality if the case is overturned I suspect the money will sit in an escrow account for a long, long time while the issues you raise are sorted out. I wouldn't be too confident in factoring it into any urgent infrastructure spending plans.

    Ireland may not get Apple's €13bn back taxes in full, EU says

    That article is from 2016 and sourced from the Indo. Hmmm.

    The judgement is one that concerns competition, not tax. The underpayment of tax gives Apple a competition advantage. Paying the tax removes that competitive advantage.

    How do other countries claim the tax as it would fall under Irish tax laws that should have applied if the (supposed) illegality of the provisions that Apple took unlawful advantage. Their claims would apply anyway, irrespective of the judgement, and would be additional to the amount underpaid to Ireland.

    [I am not a tax lawyer!]


  • Options
    #58
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    That article is from 2016 and sourced from the Indo. Hmmm.

    The judgement is one that concerns competition, not tax. The underpayment of tax gives Apple a competition advantage. Paying the tax removes that competitive advantage.

    How do other countries claim the tax as it would fall under Irish tax laws that should have applied if the (supposed) illegality of the provisions that Apple took unlawful advantage. Their claims would apply anyway, irrespective of the judgement, and would be additional to the amount underpaid to Ireland.

    [I am not a tax lawyer!]

    I am no tax expert, but many sources claimed that the money could be claimed by other Euro states. The state insists that the deal that Apple had was available to other companies. I would be inclined to think that the gov of the day would have tended to offer it to anyone.


  • Options
    #59
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,430 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    I am no tax expert, but many sources claimed that the money could be claimed by other Euro states. The state insists that the deal that Apple had was available to other companies. I would be inclined to think that the gov of the day would have tended to offer it to anyone.

    The idea that other countries could share the tax was floated by the competition commissioner who is obviously an international tax expert (not). The EU has no competence on tax. I would think her enthusiasm for sharing the tax was to increase the support for the case.


  • Options
    #60
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The idea that other countries could share the tax was floated by the competition commissioner who is obviously an international tax expert (not). The EU has no competence on tax. I would think her enthusiasm for sharing the tax was to increase the support for the case.

    Very dirty tricks by her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The idea that other countries could share the tax was floated by the competition commissioner who is obviously an international tax expert (not). The EU has no competence on tax. I would think her enthusiasm for sharing the tax was to increase the support for the case.


    Are you a tax expert? (Genuine question)


Advertisement