Motorway spending

Copyerselveson

Simple question, how much money was spent on motorways and toll deals in the last ten years?

corktina

from a North Cork perspective, not enough

Victor

About €8 billion.

cgcsb

circa €8bn would be an accurate figure. You might wonder why not even half that figure was spent improving the railways

corktina

because many more people use the roads?

cgcsb

corktina wrote: »

because many more people use the roads?

many more people use the roads because the roads offer better service. It could easily be the other way round if there was investment.

corktina

no it couldn't because rail doesn't go everywhere in the same way as the roads do. Every single one of use the roads and rely on them for goods delivery to shops etc. Rail and road are not interchangeable.

Carawaystick

cgcsb wrote: »

circa €8bn would be an accurate figure. You might wonder why not even half that figure was spent improving the railways

Govt spent about 100 million on the line from Galway to Limerick.
It's slower, dearer, and more less services than the coaches serving the same route.

It also has so few passengers, that it would actually be cheaper to taxi them instead of take the train.

Banjoxed

Carawaystick wrote: »

Govt spent about 100 million on the line from Galway to Limerick.
It's slower, dearer, and more less services than the coaches serving the same route.

It also has so few passengers, that it would actually be cheaper to taxi them instead of take the train.

Is that your own original observation and research or something that some feller told you?

I doubt for example that anyone took what they overheard in the school playground as definitive sex-ed. Likewise never base an argument on hearsay.

davidlacey

The amount spent on motorways is ridiculous compared to railways. But, what the funding was spent on in irish rail is also ridiculous. Instead of improving the service, we have new rolling stock which is slow and unreilable which is no fault of the rolling stock but the system. Just look at the darts for example the original rolling stock(8100S) are the most flexible and is still very reliable( 2,4,6,8 car formations available). It has outlasted the failed 8200s which were only built in 1999. The same can be said for the mark 3s, a simple refit could have upgraded them to modern standards as seen on the 8100s but instead we leave them to rot and get the mark ivs and 22000s. the money should have been spent on the constant congestion issues in connolly, double tracking waterford, galway, sligo etc... improving major commuter routes such as maynooth line. the track was relayed to improve safety but no consideration to journey times was proactively made, under 2 hours to cork is a must but is still not being achieved after all the monies spent and then the WRC but no point getting into that.

corktina

Banjoxed wrote: »

Is that your own original observation and research or something that some feller told you?

I doubt for example that anyone took what they overheard in the school playground as definitive sex-ed. Likewise never base an argument on hearsay.

check it out for yourself, many people have.

n0brain3r

Minister said so himself and given the average train carries 8 passengers even if all where paying it would be cheaper to put them on a mini bus


http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10257655/

Copyerselveson

@Carawaystick et al

I'd like to know what is being spent on PPP deals on motorways. Does anyone have any stats on that? A lot more than 100 million euro.

davidlacey

That very said minister would be better off sitting down with IE and sorting out that issue instead of making remarks like that. Attractive prices, decent rolling stock and improved times would help. He looks like a very anti-rail transport minister who rathers everyone on buses without trying to solve the IE mess, plus the minister may say one thing but it may be beyond the truth just because he says there are 8 people on a service means nothing, when have politicians ever been trustworthy. IE probably want the line axed, a few adjustments to figures could easily be done...

Banjoxed

n0brain3r wrote: »

Minister said so himself and given the average train carries 8 passengers even if all where paying it would be cheaper to put them on a mini bus


http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10257655/

But that isn't a source. It's an assertion pulled out of someone's ass.

Banjoxed

Copyerselveson wrote: »

@Carawaystick et al

I'd like to know what is being spent on PPP deals on motorways. Does anyone have any stats on that? A lot more than 100 million euro.

Don't forget the shadow tolls on the M3, which the Right have conveniently forgotten about.

Copyerselveson

I'm struggling to understand why the WRC spend is being rehashed in this thread. I'm trying to understand motorway spends and lots of posters are saying "yeah, what about the WRC?". The WRC isn't a motorway!

Copyerselveson

Banjoxed wrote: »

Don't forget the shadow tolls on the M3, which the Right have conveniently forgotten about.

Tell me more about the shadow tolls.

davidlacey

The WRC is a poor decision but agree has nothing to do with motorways, alot of special interest groups such as truckers are powerful and obviously roads have priority in this land, always have always will...

Banjoxed

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Tell me more about the shadow tolls.

There is a lovely juicy story here about the taxpayer shelling out €547,000 to the operator over a few months in 2011.

http://newsandsport.ie/leads/read/items/taxpayers-foot-500k-for-m3s-traffic-shortfall?page=31

davidlacey

according to a 2004 NRA report....

Funding of the NRA is primarily in the form of grants from the Minister for Transport
for the improvement and maintenance of national roads and a grant to cover the
Authority’s administrative expenses. 2004 sees the start of a multi – annual funding
arrangement. This arrangement, secured from Government by the Minister of Transport,
will see €8 billion, including in excess of €1 billion from private sources, invested in
upgrading the network of national roads over the period 2004 – 2008.

The Authority has been set the target of securing investment of €1.27 billion in respect
of Public Private Partnership projects over the period 2000-2006 to boost the funding
available from the Exchequer and accelerate the pace at which national roads are
improved.

The NRA has statutory power to borrow money (not to exceed €635million), subject to
the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport.

this was only over a 4 year period!!!

Banjoxed

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Tell me more about the shadow tolls.

Here is a really meaty contribution by Catherine Murphy TD on the subject.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2014-02-20a.555

Copyerselveson

As Miley on Glenroe would say, Well Holy God!

In effect, the NRA guaranteed the vehicle numbers on the motorway but when they did not materialise up to €30 million of taxpayers’ money was paid to the developers of part of the road. For them it was a win-win-win situation.

That is completely astonishing.

Copyerselveson

The cost of introducing the free medical card for children under six was calculated at €37 million but when one sees the amount of money transferred from this State into the pockets of developers through shadow tolling one sees the opportunities lost. We must make sure that does not happen in future.

Another astonishing quote from Deputy Murphy. She's on the ball I must say.

Banjoxed

Not a motorway, but this is an oldie but goldie. €44m was the price tag of the 1.2 km Dundrum Bypass.

I take it that it wasn't actually made of gold.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/50770/1/#post454565

Copyerselveson

€44 million on a 1.2 km bypass? Bet most of that went to a few well-fattened landowners...

end of the road

Copyerselveson wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand why the WRC spend is being rehashed in this thread. I'm trying to understand motorway spends and lots of posters are saying "yeah, what about the WRC?". The WRC isn't a motorway!

and they use the WRC as a stick to beat the railways with or a reason not to invest in them

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

and they use the WRC as a stick to beat the railways with or a reason not to invest in them

You railway heads just dont get it! Roads are a far more useful and popular form of transport since the invention of the combustion engine. They deserve and need investment. IE got billions, but decided to invest in a safe, workable railway on their terms, that ultimately couldn't compete with the motorway network. The fault lies at the door of IE and the DOT.

Filibuster

Grandeeod wrote: »

You railway heads just dont get it! Roads are a far more useful and popular form of transport since the invention of the combustion engine. They deserve and need investment. IE got billions, but decided to invest in a safe, workable railway on their terms, that ultimately couldn't compete with the motorway network. The fault lies at the door of IE and the DOT.

I wouldn't call the Irish Rail network safe, given the collapse of the Malahide bridge a couple of years ago. IE invested in wages and poor decisions, nothing else.

monument

Copyerselveson wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand why the WRC spend is being rehashed in this thread. I'm trying to understand motorway spends and lots of posters are saying "yeah, what about the WRC?". The WRC isn't a motorway!

Because posters brought up the subject of road vs rail.

We might move that conversation to another thread if it becomes prolonged and clearly separated from the topic at hand, but for not such is fine here.

I will however remind posters that there's two WRC thread for general debate about the route and to please stick closely to costs and rail vs road here.

- mod

end of the road

Grandeeod wrote: »

You railway heads just dont get it!

get what

Grandeeod wrote: »

Roads are a far more useful and popular form of transport

and? nobody said otherwise, the problem is the governments policy of favouring roads over everything else rather then having all work together, rail can be useful but its up to the relevant people to allow it to be for those that want to use it.

Grandeeod wrote: »

They deserve and need investment.

so does rail, the problem isn't road investment, its the idea from some that roads and roads should only get investment at the expence of everything else which should be left to rot or be destroyed to benefit said people (todd andrews and marples) who had a vested interest in roads, beaching probably had such a vested interest to

monument

cgcsb wrote: »

many more people use the roads because the roads offer better service. It could easily be the other way round if there was investment.

Can you name many countries where, on a national level, modal share of rail is above the modal share of roads?

Banjoxed

How embarrassing. Just came across a peer reviewed list of the world's fifteen greatest cost overruns on infrastructural projects, and Ireland makes three of them. On Luas did you say? Er, no.

In reverse pork order, the three projects are:

3. The M50 Dublin Port Tunnel at 261%.

2. The N20 at Patrickswell at 370%.

And finally, in at number one with a gold plated bullet,

1. The M50 South Eastern Motorway at 556%.

What a lucrative place to be, at the end of bottomless and near unquestionable State largesse. Ker-Ching!

http://123usman123.blogspot.ie/2013/07/15-of-worlds-biggest-cost-overrun.html?m=1

Copyerselveson

monument wrote: »

Can you name many countries where, on a national level, modal share of rail is above the modal share of roads?

That question is a good one monument. However I think a more realistic comparison would be to review the relative percentages of rail use against road use in different countries. No country will have a higher share of rail versus road, that is quite impossible. However it's worth examining the proportional share worldwide and drawing some conclusions. This one might need a bit of research!

I've started a separate thread on that subject.

corktina

end of the road wrote: »

get what

and? nobody said otherwise, the problem is the governments policy of favouring roads over everything else rather then having all work together, rail can be useful but its up to the relevant people to allow it to be for those that want to use it.

so does rail, the problem isn't road investment, its the idea from some that roads and roads should only get investment at the expence of everything else which should be left to rot or be destroyed to benefit said people (todd andrews and marples) who had a vested interest in roads, beaching probably had such a vested interest to

Rail has had vast investment in recent years and we have ended up with bright new shiny trains, sidings full of trains being scrapped before their time and precious little else.
Roads are used by every one of us and not enough has been spent yet to bring quality roads to all. A lot was wasted on parallel motorways which are fairly empty (M7/8 for instance) where one would have served both destinations, but many areas are yet to benefit from modern roads, all of west and north Cork for instance.

Patrickheg

It's not really a fair comparison, you need to look at the bigger picture as a good percent of the road spending was on intercity motorways built from scratch.

You can't deny that Ireland badly needed a motorway network between Dublin, cork, galway, limerick etc together with essential projects like the limerick and Dublin tunnels, M50 upgrade. Even at that we have only caught up to what our European neighbours had 40 years ago.

As we were starting from a bad place return on investment on these types of critical projects is high and they will pay for themselves in years.
-Road deaths down,
-We now have an affordable bus network which is thriving because it offers connections with realistic times and realistic pricing,
-Dublin city is less congested = a nicer place to be in without trucks, health benefits, moving goods is cheaper, less traffic, Dublin bus can get places quicker etc
-Regional towns like Athlone Portlaoise are more attractive for investment,
-Better use of hospitals,
-even small things like being able to do away with regional airport PSOs(€2.5m per year on the Dublin to waterford/Galway dub route)
Etc

Take the costs of these one off motorway builds which are of national importance and then compare the numbers

No Pants

n0brain3r wrote: »

Minister said so himself and given the average train carries 8 passengers even if all where paying it would be cheaper to put them on a mini bus


http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10257655/

And ministers always tell the truth and never have an agenda, so that argument is now over...

Banjoxed

Just a little reminder of the murkiness around the construction of the M50 South Eastern:

http://www.irishbuildingmagazine.ie/2013/07/31/dunlop-bribed-councillors-for-m50-lands-rezoninig/

Chris_5339762

I love the way they couldnt find a picture of the N20 in Limerick and just lashed up a stock photo

Out of interest, why was the Patrickswell section so overbudget? Its noting special or technically challenging as motorways go.

cgcsb

Carawaystick wrote: »

Govt spent about 100 million on the line from Galway to Limerick.
It's slower, dearer, and more less services than the coaches serving the same route.

It also has so few passengers, that it would actually be cheaper to taxi them instead of take the train.

indeed, complete gombeanism, orcastrated by ff.

monument

Copyerselveson wrote: »

That question is a good one monument. However I think a more realistic comparison would be to review the relative percentages of rail use against road use in different countries. No country will have a higher share of rail versus road, that is quite impossible. However it's worth examining the proportional share worldwide and drawing some conclusions. This one might need a bit of research!

That question would normally be fine but cgcsb's point went far beyond the normal and suggested that more people would use rail over road if there was a massive investment in rail but very few places in the world have made that work for intercity trips alone, never mind all trips.

I'm all for more balance but that goes beyond what has been realistic in the last 20 years in a country with such a poor planning system and dispersed housing pattern (even before the motorways made such worse).

corktina

bear in mind that spending on roads also benefits train users, whereas the opposite would rarely be true

Losty Dublin

Banjoxed wrote: »

How embarrassing. Just came across a peer reviewed list of the world's fifteen greatest cost overruns on infrastructural projects, and Ireland makes three of them. On Luas did you say? Er, no.

In reverse pork order, the three projects are:

3. The M50 Dublin Port Tunnel at 261%.

2. The N20 at Patrickswell at 370%.

And finally, in at number one with a gold plated bullet,

1. The M50 South Eastern Motorway at 556%.

What a lucrative place to be, at the end of bottomless and near unquestionable State largesse. Ker-Ching!

http://123usman123.blogspot.ie/2013/07/15-of-worlds-biggest-cost-overrun.html?m=1

Does the M50 get bonus payouts for being a good 20 years late?

monument

corktina wrote: »

bear in mind that spending on roads also benefits train users, whereas the opposite would rarely be true

Taking passenger trips off roads means less congestion.

Taking freight off roads can notably reduce the wear on roads, as well as improves safety and lowers congestion.

Banjoxed

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Does the M50 get bonus payouts for being a good 20 years late?

Perhaps they couldn't quite decide where exactly to build it?

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

get what

and? nobody said otherwise, the problem is the governments policy of favouring roads over everything else rather then having all work together, rail can be useful but its up to the relevant people to allow it to be for those that want to use it.

so does rail, the problem isn't road investment, its the idea from some that roads and roads should only get investment at the expence of everything else which should be left to rot or be destroyed to benefit said people (todd andrews and marples) who had a vested interest in roads, beaching probably had such a vested interest to

You don't get the whole road vs rail thing without expecting an equal or near equal rail investment. That's just daft. On the Island of Ireland, their are more roads than railways. In fact thats the case in most countries. Governments dont favour roads over everything else. Everything else could mean anything.

Roads got huge investment in Ireland, yet the network is still under developed. Railways got huge investment and just failed to address the obvious anomaly. Road investment in Ireland was very basic and just about brought us to the 21st century. The way some people talk about it here would suggest we got some kind of cosmic back to the future flying car highways. Get a grip. The national road network is still poor. We got a motorway network that shortened journey times. Irish rail knew this but perpetuated with a daft investment plan based on a belief that state handouts for investment would run forever and they could plod alone slowly and improve things in their own time. They took their eye off the ball like always, because they are a pitiful little company with civil servant managers and UK imports that enjoy the ride for the pension.

Losty Dublin

Banjoxed wrote: »

Perhaps they couldn't quite decide where exactly to build it?

Oh they knew where to built it for sure

corktina

monument wrote: »

Taking passenger trips off roads means less congestion.

Taking freight off roads can notably reduce the wear on roads, as well as improves safety and lowers congestion.

But would it? Passengers travel to and from stations at the start and end of their journey , as does freight, so instead of this traffic moving city to city on a trunk road, it will be travelling into railheads ,some of which may well be in the wrong direction and all of which are likely to be in town centres.

munchkin_utd

Banjoxed wrote: »

There is a lovely juicy story here about the taxpayer shelling out €547,000 to the operator over a few months in 2011.

http://newsandsport.ie/leads/read/items/taxpayers-foot-500k-for-m3s-traffic-shortfall?page=31

for a road that cost 1billion, i.e. 1000 million, to build.
even if the government paid 500grand every 6 months, it'd take 1000 years before the government has paid an equivalent cost to what the road cost.

And assuming that some of the 1billion was land purchases and whatnot, youre still looking at 500 to 800 years before the government would have paid in toll subsidies what the road cost to build if they did it themselves.

cgcsb

monument wrote: »

Can you name many countries where, on a national level, modal share of rail is above the modal share of roads?

I cannot, but that's beside the point.
Approximately 40% of Dublin-Cork journies are taken by public transports, it seems logical that investment can improve that figure.

corktina

source?