Budget (supplementary) 2009

marmurr1916

Zoney wrote: »

It would also get rid of the varying standards between councils (of course this means the average/NRA would possibly be worse than some of the better councils).

A price worth paying, given that only a few councils are any good.

QUOTE=Zoney;59752792]Presumably the NRA would inflate somewhat in scale though? (and I wouldn't expect any corresponding scaling down in dept or cocos).[/QUOTE]

The most logical way to organise a Regional/Local roads division within the NRA would be to set up seven regional offices, corresponding to the regional road numbers.

i.e. one office for the R100s (and all the local roads in the R100 area), one office for the R200s and so on.

The offices shouldn't have to be responsible for the exact R100 etc. network: a geographically-defined area corresponding more-or-less to a particular set of roads would be fine.

Hopefully, this would reduce administration costs, especially if staff were transferred from local authorities to the NRA but based in fewer offices.

In addition, the centralised buying power of the NRA would allow for far cheaper road building and maintenance.

jd

So what may go ahead under the ambit of the NRA given the spending envelopes outlined?

I guess the MIUs will be completed 2010 (I'm not sure about M7/M8)
Proposed PPP's - are they off the sheet, so they may proceed?
Funded directly by the state - T21 - what is feasible?

L1011

Zoney wrote: »

It would also get rid of the varying standards between councils (of course this means the average/NRA would possibly be worse than some of the better councils).

Presumably the NRA would inflate somewhat in scale though? (and I wouldn't expect any corresponding scaling down in dept or cocos).

The NRAs handling of national secondary roads is across the board worse than local councils handling of regional roads at this stage. There are even cases where there are regional roads signposted as the route between two place served by a national secondary route due to the quality difference at this stage!

dowlingm

Gruffalo - I think a point by point response to Metrobest's post is called for. If you really disagree entirely, deliver it or shut up.

It is in fact almost entirely correct although it lacks the contribution of fiscal and not merely labour market changes which accelerated economic growth (removal of 1980s currency restrictions and reduction of punitive interest rates of that era, joining the euro and thus being the only primarily English speaking Eurozone State, income tax reductions and removal of disincentives to work, reduction on capital gains which created a new pool of traded assets - i.e. land - previously hoarded, the refusal to limit mortgage relief until too late and so forth.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Ireland being some kind of desert outside Dublin. I certainly agree that Limerick is in dire need of help. But saying Dublin must not be permitted to become hollowed out doesn't make murphaph an FFer. It was the FFers who created and then bungled the Spatial Strategy which tried to make every hamlet a metropolis rather than carefully managing cities like Limerick, Galway, Waterford to a population of about 100,000 in an integrated municipality with a defined core rather than 50,000 or so spread over several county bounds as at present.

In Limerick's case, the government should have insisted on removing the port to Foynes as SFPC proposed, quickly, and creating a new commercial/services/government district in its place to more firmly anchor the City. Instead they banked on being able to persuade Dell to hang around indefinitely - who recalls the endless trips to California that government ministers did every time Apple threatened to close the Cork plant when there was nothing else on the northside.

The supplementary budget is essentially tinkering using a sledgehammer when what's needed is to rethink the nation's income and expenditure entirely.

I've been finding this blog helpful over the last few months: www.irisheconomy.ie

Gruffalo

dowlingm wrote: »

Gruffalo - I think a point by point response to Metrobest's post is called for. If you really disagree entirely, deliver it or shut up.

Dowling, you would be better served learning to read than suggesting that others shut up. I have told him why I disagree with him i.e. he thinks we will be in an upswing by December and his argument was based on this. We wont and we will not be getting back to heady heights of the Celtic tiger anytime soon.

Try reading rather than lecturing, like a good man.

P.S. I didn't say "entirely". Go back and check it.