Does Dublin lose out on project spending to rural areas?

snotboogie

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

Yes cities like Cork & Limerick which have cattle tracks linking the cities themselves to local towns, no houses, severely congested approach roads, no effective public transport systems?

That's my issue too.

We can talk all day about how the North West needs roads. It does, no question.

But our economy is based around 1. Dublin city 2. Cork city 3. Limerick city. These economic centres are effectively paying for the North West or South East's infrastructure. It will probably always be this way. What we're discussing here is the fact that some of the exact infrastructure that's missing from these economic centres, is getting put into the North West and South East, where the need isn't quite as great, from an economic perspective. That that amounts to political vanity projects.

Limerick is actually a net benefactor from the tax payer. The Greater Dublin Area and Cork are the only two significant contributors in Ireland to the exchequer.

Bray Head

snotboogie wrote: »

Limerick is actually a net benefactor from the tax payer. The Greater Dublin Area and Cork are the only two significant contributors in Ireland to the exchequer.

What is your source for that?

From my knowledge of the data it is very difficult to make these kind of estimates. Take corporation tax. Dunnes and Musgraves both operate nationwide but are headquartered in Dublin and Cork respectively. All of their profits would appear to be occurring in Dublin and Cork but in reality they are generated all over the country.

The same goes for many types of spending. For example who is the beneficiary of spending on the Defence Forces? Bases are in particular places, staff are from everywhere but in theory we all benefit equally from its existence. National defence is a national not a local good.

rebs23

Bray Head wrote: »

What is your source for that?

From my knowledge of the data it is very difficult to make these kind of estimates. .

Probably impossible to assess if an area is a net benefactor in relation to expenditure and income but there are reasonable assessments that can be made from the GVA per head of population in a region, the numbers in employment, the average incomes, the average unemployment rate, etc.
If you examine infrastructural spending over a 10 year period you could then take a pretty educated guess.
There has also been analysis done for Dublin City Council a few years ago in relation to central government funding for Local Authorities. It showed that Cork and Dublin Councils received between €5 to €7 per head of population whereas Leitrim Council received €174 per head and Limerick €147 per head.
It was reported in the Irish Times but sorry cannot find the link.

There is also pretty strong evidence in relation to the success or use of infrastructural projects and that would show pretty low use of infrastructure in certain regions.
So there is pretty strong evidence that some regions are over provided for in terms of infrastructure while other regions struggle to receive public infrastructural spending.

Bray Head

GVA per head data is not meaningful because of the fact that multinationals have very high profits and tend to locate in Dublin, Mid-East and South-West.

Transfers at local authority level make up a very small share of 70bn-ish billion non-interest public spending.

I am sure that rural areas are net beneficiaries (a benefactor is something else) but you will struggle to quantify it.

tharlear

Some of the profits ,taxes paid in Dublin are a result of activity outside of Dublin. these should not be counted in Dublin's contribution. Microsoft, apple Google financial sector all book profits and pay taxes but little of it is form economic activity in Dublin. if you stripe all that out I don't think Dublin will look as good

Intel manufacture stuff in Kildare, Do you consider Kildare in Dublin greater metro area ?

secondly what are the population distribution like in Dublin compared to leitrim. I would guess that leitrim is saddled with lots of old and young. The working age ones are in college, working in Dublin or have left Ireland. Some small number manage to get jobs in leitrim, to raise and educate the next wave to leave?
Should we be worried of the brain drain from rural Ireland to Dublin:-)

rebs23

Bray Head wrote: »

GVA per head data is not meaningful because of the fact that multinationals have very high profits and tend to locate in Dublin, Mid-East and South-West.

Transfers at local authority level make up a very small share of 70bn-ish billion non-interest public spending.

I am sure that rural areas are net beneficiaries (a benefactor is something else) but you will struggle to quantify it.

Sorry meant to say beneficiaries but it seems we are making the same point, rural areas are net beneficiaries. I would argue though that it is not just a rural/urban issue, there is considerable disparity in relation to the regional spread of infrastructural spending.
The point in relation to GVA is that it is still a useful way when combined with other statistics, of analysing a regions importance to the national economy and aids decision making in relation to where public infrastructure spending should go. Of course every major project should have it's own economic analysis or cost benefit analysis.
There are certain regions that seem to do very well in terms of infrastructural spending yet the infrastructure provided is underutilised.
Is there was an actual study of public infrastructural spending per head of population for every region?

MJohnston

tharlear wrote: »

Some of the profits ,taxes paid in Dublin are a result of activity outside of Dublin. these should not be counted in Dublin's contribution. Microsoft, apple Google financial sector all book profits and pay taxes but little of it is form economic activity in Dublin. if you stripe all that out I don't think Dublin will look as good

Conversely - how can you measure the value that Dublin brings in retaining the presence of these companies in Ireland? Because that what its all about. Its not about which city brings in the most tax for Ireland specifically for profits earned in that city, its about what the presence of those companies in Ireland brings to the ledger.

tharlear

- how can you measure the value that Dublin brings in retaining the presence of these companies in Ireland

You can't, But its the investment in infrastructure that attracts these companies, along with 12% tax rate and sandwich benefits. A lot of the money we are talking about in foreign investment is US companies. If you have a motorway exit a university and tech school, they find it attractive.

irish time last year
The study, which was commissioned by the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, reveals that US firms have invested more than $277 billion here since 1990. In addition, the 700 US companies based in Ireland now employ 130,000 people.
According to the report, the output from US companies resident in Ireland now exceeds $80 billion a year and exports from such firms are four times higher than from China.

Most of the Big infrastructure investment over the last 15-20years (not talking about Tralee bypass or Liffey walk), but Motorways and rail m1, m2 m3, m4 n/m7 m50, m50 rebuild, luas red, green has all happened within 50KM of O'Connell street.
This has paid dividends and attracted more jobs and thus more investment is required. The OP question asks if Dublin is losing out. I would content that its a victim of its own success.
Galway for example will lose out on foreign investment while it takes a visiting CEO an hour to get out of the parkmore industrial estate. Dublin will lose out if people cannot get to work in less than an hour.
The question is do you want everybody to live in Dublin, and if they do, they will want motorways to go home to visit grandma :-) or get out of town for the weekend. Either way you have to build a national motorway system

LeinsterDub

tharlear wrote: »

Most of the Big infrastructure investment over the last 15-20years (not talking about Tralee bypass or Liffey walk), but Motorways and rail m1, m2 m3, m4 n/m7 m50, m50 rebuild, luas red, green has all happened within 50KM of O'Connell street.

Really? Motorways to Galway, Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Waterford are all by definition rural.

MJohnston

tharlear wrote: »

You can't, But its the investment in infrastructure that attracts these companies, along with 12% tax rate and sandwich benefits. A lot of the money we are talking about in foreign investment is US companies. If you have a motorway exit a university and tech school, they find it attractive.



Most of the Big infrastructure investment over the last 15-20years (not talking about Tralee bypass or Liffey walk), but Motorways and rail m1, m2 m3, m4 n/m7 m50, m50 rebuild, luas red, green has all happened within 50KM of O'Connell street.
This has paid dividends and attracted more jobs and thus more investment is required. The OP question asks if Dublin is losing out. I would content that its a victim of its own success.
Galway for example will lose out on foreign investment while it takes a visiting CEO an hour to get out of the parkmore industrial estate. Dublin will lose out if people cannot get to work in less than an hour.
The question is do you want everybody to live in Dublin, and if they do, they will want motorways to go home to visit grandma :-) or get out of town for the weekend. Either way you have to build a national motorway system

You're missing a big, vital element of why a lot of those companies choose Dublin - because their competitors are there. It's why you get huge tech companies clustering around the Docklands instead of moving to cheaper suburbs (Hell, some tech companies wont even consider offices in the NORTH Docklands because of this, and this happens in the US too - if you're a startup, you're basically committing suicide to locate away from the Palo Alto-Sunnyvale area).

They do it so that they can easily poach employees from each other, and they pick cities like Dublin because they're far more attractive when trying to convince people to move from mainland Europe and further afield to move for jobs.

It's not about infrastructure or colleges, its about being able to attract a big talent pool, and the further in Ireland you get from Dublin city centre, the more you're harming your chances for success in that regard.

marno21

This thread is making it big!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/senator-claims-anti-dublin-bias-in-government-plans-1.2753408

Very little mention of transport though.

Amazing people give out about small water changes and minsicule bin charges but no giving out about spending half their life sitting in their cars.

markpb

tharlear wrote:

Most of the Big infrastructure investment over the last 15-20years (not talking about Tralee bypass or Liffey walk), but Motorways and rail m1, m2 m3, m4 n/m7 m50, m50 rebuild, luas red, green has all happened within 50KM of O'Connell street. This has paid dividends and attracted more jobs and thus more investment is required.

Those motorways are a double edge sword. Yes, they're an investment in Dublin because they make it easier for people from the rest of the country to get to Dublin and spend their money there.

On the other hand, they do nothing for Dublins infrastructure. They don't, with the exception of the m50, make it easier to get around Dublin. They were built with money that would have been better spent on public transport inside the city. They encourage urban sprawl which will make future investment in public transport harder.

They made the hosting problem worse, not better, because the focus on building regular housing is spread out across four or five counties which weren't ready for it. They deprive Dublin councils of the developer contributions and property tax which could have been spent on social housing.

As you say, they're a national requirement, not a Dublin requirement and should be viewed as such instead of used to beat Dublin when complaining that it gets all the money.

Bray Head

marno21 wrote: »

This thread is making it big!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/senator-claims-anti-dublin-bias-in-government-plans-1.2753408

Very little mention of transport though.

Amazing people give out about small water changes and minsicule bin charges but no giving out about spending half their life sitting in their cars.

He makes a few decent points but it's the traditional line. Dublin needs self-government cos, well, other big cities have it. No real examples of where more self-government would make a difference.

Ireland is a small, unitary state. Over time local government has had power taken away because many of the things it does have not been done very well, see water infrastructure, planning for example.

I would prefer he made the positive case for specific infrastructural projects in Dublin rather than just complain that Dublin gets a poor fiscal deal (which it of course does). It is quite depressing how few Dublin politicians actually champion useful infrastructure for Dublin.

Take the Aviva which chewed up nearly 200m of taxpayers' money, is empty 345 days a year and supports little employment. This was generally supported by Dublin politicians.

By contrast they universally opposed an incinerator 2km away the construction of which has dragged out for nearly two decades. This by contrast will operate all year round, will employ 100 people when complete, will generate electricity and is the solution to waste treatment for a million people for a generation.

tharlear

Really? Motorways to Galway, Cork, Limerick, Wexford, Waterford are all by definition rural.

On the other hand, they do nothing for Dublins infrastructure. They don't, with the exception of the m50, make it easier to get around Dublin. They were built with money that would have been better spent on public transport inside the city. They encourage urban sprawl which will make future investment in public transport harder.

If you look at the history of their construction they were built originally as built as commuter roads. It wasn't until the heady days of the celtic tiger about 2002 to 2006 that they got out of the Dublin orbit. m1 m4 , m11 and maybe m7 were all that's was need to build a motorway system, instead they build motorways to housing estates. The money for your trains was spent on Dublin commuter motorways.

As you say, they're a national requirement, not a Dublin requirement and should be viewed as such instead of used to beat Dublin when complaining that it gets all the money.

I thought the OP was arguing that Dublin does not get all the money?

marno21

tharlear wrote: »

If you look at the history of their construction they were built originally as built as commuter roads. It wasn't until the heady days of the celtic tiger about 2002 to 2006 that they got out of the Dublin orbit. m1 m4 , m11 and maybe m7 were all that's was need to build a motorway system, instead they build motorways to housing estates. The money for your trains was spent on Dublin commuter motorways.

I thought the OP was arguing that Dublin does not get all the money?

The original plan was for "motorways" to Dundalk (continues as N1/A1), Kinnegad (continues as N4/N6), Portlaoise (continues as N7/N8) and Bray (continues as N11), and of course the M50.

The remainder of the N4, N6, N7, N8, N9 & N11 were to be "dual carraigeways".

* Motorway in this instance was 2 x 3.75m lanes + 3.0m hard shoulder on either side, a big wide grass median and full grade seperated junctions for every access.

* Dual carraigeway was 2 x 3.65m lanes + 2.5m hard shoulder on either side, a narrow concrete median & full/compact grade seperated junctions (mainly dumbells).

The "motorways" that are the M6 west of Kinnegad, M7/M8 after Portlaoise, M9 & M11 south of Ashford are basically dual carraigeways with motorway restrictions. Motorway lites per se. They are not as high quality as the motorways nearer Dublin, especially in the case of the M7 which is much straighter and easier for higher running speeds closer to Dublin.

I would say something if the M7 west of Portlaoise had a 15m grass median but compared to the M7 east of Portlaoise, the M7 to Limerick west of Portlaoise is a lot more basic (and cheaper) DC.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

The original plan was for "motorways" to Dundalk (continues as N1/A1), Kinnegad (continues as N4/N6), Portlaoise (continues as N7/N8) and Bray (continues as N11), and of course the M50.

The remainder of the N4, N6, N7, N8, N9 & N11 were to be "dual carraigeways".

* Motorway in this instance was 2 x 3.75m lanes + 3.0m hard shoulder on either side, a big wide grass median and full grade seperated junctions for every access.

* Dual carraigeway was 2 x 3.65m lanes + 2.5m hard shoulder on either side, a narrow concrete median & full/compact grade seperated junctions (mainly dumbells).

The "motorways" that are the M6 west of Kinnegad, M7/M8 after Portlaoise, M9 & M11 south of Ashford are basically dual carraigeways with motorway restrictions. Motorway lites per se. They are not as high quality as the motorways nearer Dublin, especially in the case of the M7 which is much straighter and easier for higher running speeds closer to Dublin.

I would say something if the M7 west of Portlaoise had a 15m grass median but compared to the M7 east of Portlaoise, the M7 to Limerick west of Portlaoise is a lot more basic (and cheaper) DC.

What is the relative cost difference per km for motorway vs dual carriageway?

By the way, I believe the M6 is 'dual carriageway' from Kinnegad to Athlone and 'motorway' from Athlone to Galway - with the Athlone bypass in between. Well, that is what it feels like when driving - and also the M6 appears to be very light on traffic compared with the M4 as far as Kinnegad.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is the relative cost difference per km for motorway vs dual carriageway?

By the way, I believe the M6 is 'dual carriageway' from Kinnegad to Athlone and 'motorway' from Athlone to Galway - with the Athlone bypass in between. Well, that is what it feels like when driving - and also the M6 appears to be very light on traffic compared with the M4 as far as Kinnegad.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule as to the difference - it would depend on land cost (with the much larger land take for motorway) and the terrain etc.

Why do you say the M6 is different east of Athlone to west of Athlone?

D Trent

marno21 wrote: »

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule as to the difference - it would depend on land cost (with the much larger land take for motorway) and the terrain etc.

Why do you say the M6 is different east of Athlone to west of Athlone?

Much smoother road surface when past Monksland exit heading westbound.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule as to the difference - it would depend on land cost (with the much larger land take for motorway) and the terrain etc.

Why do you say the M6 is different east of Athlone to west of Athlone?

Different quality of construction - the Athlone to Galway stretch was to the same spec as the M4 but the Kinnegad to Athlone stretch was not a motorway for quite a long time. It was upgraded by adding blue signs - not changing the road.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Different quality of construction - the Athlone to Galway stretch was to the same spec as the M4 but the Kinnegad to Athlone stretch was not a motorway for quite a long time. It was upgraded by adding blue signs - not changing the road.

The M6 west of Athlone was well under construction when the sections east of Athlone were redesignated. The PPP element is even called N6 Concession because it was planned as all purpose dual carraigeway until it was redesignated in 2008. In fairness, a 100km/h limit on Ballinasloe-Galway would've been ludicrous.

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

The M6 west of Athlone was well under construction when the sections east of Athlone were redesignated. The PPP element is even called N6 Concession because it was planned as all purpose dual carraigeway until it was redesignated in 2008. In fairness, a 100km/h limit on Ballinasloe-Galway would've been ludicrous.

Yes, like it was on the Athlone - Kinnegad section before the re-designation. I think that the only difference is in the quality of material used on the road surface.

murphaph

marno21 wrote: »

Yes cities like Cork & Limerick which have cattle tracks linking the cities themselves to local towns, no houses, severely congested approach roads, no effective public transport systems?

Sounds like Dublin too.

murphaph

Oh and anyone claiming the motorway network was built for Dublin's benefit needs their head examined. The motorway network was built by bypassing congested provincial towns that all wanted bypasses once they saw that Naas didn't die after the first section of M7 was built. The regions all wanted connectivity to Dublin first and foremost. Let's not pretend otherwise.

marno21

murphaph wrote: »

Oh and anyone claiming the motorway network was built for Dublin's benefit needs their head examined. The motorway network was built by bypassing congested provincial towns that all wanted bypasses once they saw that Naas didn't die after the first section of M7 was built. The regions all wanted connectivity to Dublin first and foremost. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I have no objections to the roads to Dublin being upgraded, they are all the busiest and possibly most important links in the country

However, there's a lot left to do, the Atlantic Corridor, N21/22/24/25, and lots of work on national secondaries to be done.

These are being completely neglected. If there's money for motorways in Wexford, for a supposedly rich country, how do we not have either the money or brain cells to progress the M20 through the planning phase and eventually as a PPP?

Pathetic nonsense that there's money available for planning on the N5 for the last 5 years but no money for planning on the M20.

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

I have no objections to the roads to Dublin being upgraded, they are all the busiest and possibly most important links in the country

However, there's a lot left to do, the Atlantic Corridor, N21/22/24/25, and lots of work on national secondaries to be done.

These are being completely neglected. If there's money for motorways in Wexford, for a supposedly rich country, how do we not have either the money or brain cells to progress the M20 through the planning phase and eventually as a PPP?

Pathetic nonsense that there's money available for planning on the N5 for the last 5 years but no money for planning on the M20.

Leaving the M20 aside Marno why not save us all the nonsense and just say you want all roads in and out of Kerry upgraded to Motorway level and sod the rest. Your trying to paint it up a bit not to sound so parochial but its obvious to everybody reading this thread.

You do realise that the N5 goes half way across the country and so benefits several counties, a bit more important than just the few travelling in and out of Kerry :rolleyes:.

the Atlantic Corridor, N21/22/24/25 :eek:, yeah about 20% of it . If you are actually interested in the real atlantic corridor than im sure you'll be pushing for the N17 from Tuam to Sligo and into Donegal to be completed as soon as possible.

marno21

Deleted User wrote: »

Leaving the M20 aside Marno why not save us all the nonsense and just say you want all roads in and out of Kerry upgraded to Motorway level and sod the rest. Your trying to paint it up a bit not to sound so parochial but its obvious to everybody reading this thread.

You do realise that the N5 goes half way across the country and so benefits several counties, a bit more important than just the few travelling in and out of Kerry :rolleyes:.

the Atlantic Corridor, N21/22/24/25 :eek:, yeah about 20% of it . If you are actually interested in the real atlantic corridor than im sure you'll be pushing for the N17 from Tuam to Sligo and into Donegal to be completed as soon as possible.

I don't need to state the N5 here because the only stretches left to do are Westport - Turlough & Ballaghaderreen - Scramoge. One is almost ready to tender and the other is going through the planning process. So I don't need to give out about them becuase by the time the rest are being done the N5 will be finished

Maybe my syntax is wrong, I was meaning the Atlantic Corridor (N13/N15/N17/N18/N20) AND the N21/N22/N24/N25 (only two of which are in Kerry).

I don't want any motorways built into or out of Kerry. Just that the main corridors out of Kerry don't have to run through highly congested towns and villages (Adare, Newcastlewest, Abbeyfeale, Killarney and Macroom).

The N5 at present has had all it's bottlenecks bypassed (Longford, Ballaghaderreen, Swinford & Charlestown) and Castlebar will have its 2nd bypass by 2020. I'm in favour of the Ballaghaderreen-Scramoge section but I don't believe it's as high priority as roads such as the M20 or the Adare bypass or the N25 Midleton-Youghal.

I don't have an anti Mayo agenda or a pro Kerry agenda. But it makes no sense to have a prisitine road network in Mayo just to service Allergan/Baxter/Coca Cola etc while the rest of the country's is a total mess. In that case should the N73 be prioritised to Dairygold & Ornua? Traffic counts on the N73 are 3200 whilst traffic counts on the N5 in Co. Roscommon are 5000 and 4500 on the Ballaghaderreen bypass.

The Killarney relief road carries 4x the traffic of the N5 in Co. Roscommon. Can you see why I see the importance in upgrading it?

Bray Head

Ciaran Cuffe is making noise on twitter about central government needing to spend more on sustainable transport (ie, cycle lanes) in Dublin.

https://twitter.com/CiaranCuffe/status/766250437334925312

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Central Government should provide more than 1% of transport funding to walking and cycling so [/font][font=Arial, sans-serif]#DublinBikes[/font][font=Arial, sans-serif] can expand faster 2of2[/font]

I fully agree with this. Much of Dublin's cycle infrastructure is poor and a small amount would go a long way. I cycle as much as possible myself and the modal switch to cycling (Dublin bikes and private) over the last decade is a really good thing.

The problem is that no cycle lane will ever carry the very large volumes of commuters at high speeds at peak times that underground rail will.

None of the Dublin city councillors from what I can tell make either MN or DU an issue. Yes I understand they have zero power in this regard but at least they have a bully pulpit from which to make a positive case.