The Strategic Rail Review will consider how the rail network on the island can improve sustainable connectivity between major cities, enhance regional accessibility including to the North West and support balanced regional development.
The line I like best from that article is this one:
we’re told we are in a climate emergency now but the proposals include a post-2040 network where half the tracks are not electric and there are still sections of the Galway to Dublin line with single track.
The recent articles by McDowell and Fitzgearlds in the IT have been well examined below
If you can sum up McDowell’s argument as “I’m a rail fan, but we need more roads”, FitzGerald’s argument can be distilled to “I’m a rail fan, but buses can use motorways anyway and, sure, cars will soon be all-electric anyway”.
Another stupidly located regional airport- it should have been built between letterkenny and Derry for maximum traffic viability and logic. But no
Dart Underground is not in the current NDP. It's essentially shelved. The 2018 Dart Expansion Options Assessment found that Dart+ via Glasnevin Station, connecting to Metrolink had a much stronger CBA. Ironically, this rail review that he is lambasting puts the Dart inter-connector back into the picture.
It's important to acknowledge that McDowell owns property right next to where the Metrolink would join the Green Line in Ranelagh. He has been writing articles against it for years. Would he support massive disruption and road space re-allocation needed for Luas lines all around the city?
Well keep in mind IR is part of CIE and CIE in turn is part of the Department of Transport. So in the end IR, CIE, NTA and TII are all part of the DoT.
In the end it is the DoT and the Minister who makes the decision. Though if you are talking about giving the go ahead to major projects, then that decision is made with the whole government cabinet, as budgeting, etc. would be involved.
"Some of what McDowell wrote in the article was spot on. Especially re the lack of progress on Dart Underground. Shows up the lack of competence at the NTA regarding heavy rail."
They aren't progressing DU at the moment, as they are going with DART+ instead. DU doesn't really make sense with Dart+ can largely do the same.
Irish Rail themselves are the ones developing Dart+ project.
Thanks for a very useful historical explanation of the roles of TII, NTA, etc. I have one problem, however. For major projects you need to co-ordinate decisions. Suppose you are looking at connections from Waterford to Cork and Limerick, where road will be all-important as long as the Waterford-Limerick junction railway is left in its present poor state. If you decide to really develop the rail link, especially for Belview container traffic, then the rail component will increase in importance and this may impact of required road developments. Who co-ordinates these big investment decisions, and how?
If you are looking at LUAS or Metrolink versus competing or complementary road developments, then at least NTA and TII will both be involved. I have a feeling that the assignment of responsibilities in such matters is partly responsible for the excessive use of consultants.
Some of what McDowell wrote in the article was spot on. Especially re the lack of progress on Dart Underground. Shows up the lack of competence at the NTA regarding heavy rail. They are too dependent on consultants who will tell them whatever they are paid to tell them.
Regarding using Hydrogen powered trucks for freight on roads thats pure fantasy as the technology is not there yet
His rehashing of the tired old road versus rail argument lacks credibility. We need both.
Have you read what McMcD wrote? Or are you judging him purely by what his views were a decade or more ago?
Asking for McDowells input on PT spending..... 🤦♂️
Yep, though that sounds awkward as hell, I could see a lot of infighting between the two.
If TII took over heavy rail as the Infrastructure Manager, Irish Rail would still continue to exist as a Railway Operator.
In to-days I.T, Michael McDowell has some interesting observations, especially on the matter of Transport sector governance:
Observations which wouldn't be fit to manure my garden. It really does sicken me that McDowell is given a platform by the Times despite opposing the Luas, Busconnects, Metrolink and basically any public transport initiative.
I have personally spoken to people high up in the NTA who justified narrowing of footpaths to fit in road lanes, who suggested that cyclists should cycle on footpaths etc.
And some here are criticising councils, but some of the people fighting the hardest to put in good pedestrian and cycle designs are the council engineers, who are pooped on by the councillors and the "public submissions" process (read: rage-click media is determining scheme approvals). I have seen some councillors openly state that they will agree or disagree with active travel schemes based on the NUMBER of submissions they receive in favour or against a scheme.
So the rot is from top to bottom. There's some great attitudes and some terrible attitudes right through the system. I can't go into detail here but some mega-projects have some seriously backwards teams involved, who pretend they're doing things by the book by citing standards incorrectly.
All off-topic, but I know the sustainable transport side is not being spent fully, and I believe that a large part of what has been spent to-date has been spent on roads resurfacing, traffic control and bridge repairs.
"You haven't explained the position for heavy rail projects. Why are LUAS and Metro part of TII's responsibility, but not heavy rail?."
Luas started out as a project under CIE, as it progressed it was separated out into the Railway Procurement Agency under the DoT. The RPA was later merged with the NRA to create TII.
Heavy rail stayed under Irish Rail. I assume it did so because IR already has expertise in heavy rail and were already operating it had successfully rolled out major projects like DART. It was easier to separate out Luas as it was brand new and a different type of rail that would have little interaction with the heavy rail network.
Even if TII had responsibility for heavy rail projects, they would still need to work very closely with IR as most projects happen on the existing operating rail line.
One thing to point out, TII don't just build the Luas and Roads, they are actually responsible for their ongoing maintenance and operation. Transdev do the day to day work, but under contract and oversight by TII. In this way it is better to think of TII as the "Irish Rail" of light rail and Metro.
So if TII were to take over heavy rail, it would not only be new projects, but likely replacing IR as the maintainer and operator of the heavy rail network, meaning IR would be dissolved or perhaps just become the sub-contracted operator similar to what Transdev is to Luas.
"Some well-deserved disparaging remarks have been made about Local Authorities and Councillors. While some of this is deserved, its also the case that LAs have very little autonomy with respect to taxation or other fund-raising and in these circumstances you cant devolve power to them."
While true, having sat in on local council meetings, I can honestly say it is for the best.
A lot of what was historically billed as "sustainable transport" schemes I've seen have done this. A large number of the older sustainable transport were resurfacing gigs. I don't want to pick on any one LA, as I believe that most have done this but I know the two Cork LA's best. Here's a list of Cork City completed sustainable transport schemes, and you can judge for yourself.
Thankfully not many schemes over the years actively downgraded the pedestrian and cycle infrastructure but there were a few around the country.
Also NTA and TII themselves directly oversaw some right clangers like the Tivoli/Silversprings scheme but not all of these came from the "Sustainable" bucket. And the "inaccuracy" doesn't seem to fly as easily now, from what I can tell.
You haven't explained the position for heavy rail projects. Why are LUAS and Metro part of TII's responsibility, but not heavy rail?.
Some well-deserved disparaging remarks have been made about Local Authorities and Councillors. While some of this is deserved, its also the case that LAs have very little autonomy with respect to taxation or other fund-raising and in these circumstances you cant devolve power to them.
BTW keep in mind that local councils are often driven by idiotic local councillors and parish pump politics.
This is a major factor behind a proposed change that will see the NTA control, fund, design and implement all PT/AT projects with only token involvement of local councils.
LA's have, with only a few exceptions, done such a poor job that the responsibility needs to be taken away from them
TII and NTA are under the DoT
TII was formed by merging the NRA and RPA and as such are responsible for national roads, motorways, LUAS and Metrolink.
NTA are broadly responsible for public transport.
NTA and TII work extremely closely together and with the DoT
Local councils are their own thing, the are Local Government, part of the Department of Local Government, however each is a lot more independent from national government and each other then the NTA/TII. Each local authority has responsibility for the non national roads in their area.
The NTA and local councils can then overlap on shared projects, where the NTA might be operating buses in a local council area or making money available for active travel, but then the local council does the actual work on the ground. I get the impression that the relationship between the NTA and each local council can differ widely, from very positive to negative.
If its under a certain amount I think they can spend without getting direct approval from NTA so I'd expect to see a lot of small road schemes, resurfaces etc paid for like this. The NTA ignored its own design guidance when designing the bus connects corridors and instead has sent several car oriented schemes for planning so you can't just blame councils wedged with culchie councilors and lackies, there's problems at the top too
Galway - of course it's Galway.
Though I've seen Wicklow CC using "active travel" funding to resurface roads so they're all at it.
This kind of carry on is often reported in cycling groups.
Can we have some detail on this please.
I'm a little confused by your post. Porobably because the responsibility of various entities is so difficult to understand. Road and light rail projects are under TII, and I suspect that for light rail TII is only responsible for carrying out projects approved by the DoT and/or the NTA. How Councils and cycling infrastructure fits into the TII and NTA responsibilities is not clear to me.
Does anyone have a decent organisational chart showing the decision-maing, operating ane reporting roles of the DoT, DPER, TII, NTA, Local Authorities (and whatever Department they answer to)? And of course TII seems to have no role in heavy rail, which in my opinion is mad.
Time for a rationalisation and possible cull of these quangos.
Some councils are spending sustainable transport budget on roads or downgrades of cycle lanes according to cycling campaign. No surprising really when the NTA is car centric in its outlook
I cant speak authoritatively but I would strongly suspect that most budgets are out of kilter due to the sheer lack of projects that have planning permission/shovel ready. Across all types, road/rail/bus/active
We're off topic now, but is the actual spending anywhere near that ratio right now? I know that a lot of the sustainable transport budgets are not getting spent.
You are entirely correct here.
(This is a general reply, not just to your post, we are in agreement here).
There is a list as long as my arm of rail projects which have enormous benefits and will make a real difference to our transport system. They are mainly in areas of dense population, not just at either end of the line but along it:
MetroLink, DART+ West, DART+ South West, DART+ Coastal, Cork Commuter Rail, Galway upgrade to Oranmore etc. There's billions of spending there and every cent should go on those projects because they are super low hanging fruit and they really have the power to make society better for thousands of people. They have a lot of positive side effects, such as MetroLink opening up residential land for building thousands of apartments within walking distance of their stops, which will enable remarkably efficient commuting, such as living in Northwood and being in the city centre in under 20 minutes.
There are parts of the country where road investment makes sense. Upgrading the national primary network, Dublin-Donegal, Sligo-Galway, Cork-Limerick, Limerick-Tralee, Limerick-Waterford, Cork-Waterford, etc. Rail solutions are poor alternatives here, and the most efficient money spend would be on road upgrades. This is the reality of population density, dispersed settlement etc.
There is strong cases for both road and rail in Ireland. Build roads where roads make sense. Build rail where rail makes sense. There is no either or. The PfG explicitly states a 2:1 investment in public transport over new roads. This imo should be even greater than that, perhaps 2.5:1 given the massive investment in roads in the last 20 years and the failure to deliver key public transport projects. But a ratio is a ratio, and if you are spending that 2.5 on public transport, it's only fair you spend what you agreed on on roads. We need both. It's not an either or debate.
Can we give the “roads versus rail” a rest, please? We have a rail system that needs modernisation, and this study has given a decent roadmap for that. Meanwhile, we still have roads that are substandard, and they need to be addressed.
N17 needs to be upgraded here. It will be expensive, but we should concentrate on the societal benefit of transport infrastructure, not just its cost, and do things properly first time.
Maynooth line needs to be electrified. It will be expensive, but we should concentrate on the societal benefit of transport infrastructure, not just its cost, and do things properly first time.
I see no conflict between both of those. Both are needed.
(Ennis-Athenry was an example of concentrating on cost, not benefits - it’s 1h15 between Ennis and Galway by rail, but just 50 minutes by road, worst-case 1 hour - to be competitive, it should have been 40 minutes by rail or better)
By that logic we are spending 1bn on a partial upgrade of the Sligo line, that being DART+ to Maynooth.
What WRC section are you on about? Ennis-Athenry?
That section of N17 carries every item of freight and all buses from Galway and south of there to Sligo, along with Mayo-Sligo buses. It's through some of the lowest density areas of the country. What else could you spend money on to provide better access from Sligo to Mayo/Galway and south of there?
Was the former Loganair/British Airways flight from LDY to DUB a PSO flight? Its bizarre that the airport at Carrickfin with more cattle than people around it has a link to Dublin while Derry Airport, far closer to Letterkenny and the vast majority of people in North Donegal and Derry, doesn't.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
