Greens demand improved public transport take priority over Cork/Limerick motorway

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

...Then come back with a number. Until then this 'we need no more roads' is just silly talk, and most people will recognise it as such.....
Time to argue your case, with facts and figures, but I seriously doubt you could. Prove me wrong.

I never said 'we need no more roads' I all I've ever said is we have to re-balance our spending , if we never start spending on PT we'll never have PT. Perhaps you're right and the M20 is needed but the issue is with each individual project is we are told it's needed . The M11 was needed , M20 is needed , Galway Ring road is needed , the 1 BL on roads FG announced before the election are needed. We have to stop somewhere or else we'll continually induce more demand... in 10-15 years times we'll be here and people will be saying the M50 bypass is needed . Dunkettle upgrade upgrade is needed .M20 widening is needed

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

SF cutting taxes?

Again more nonsense. Where are they cutting taxes without replacing them elsewhere?

In fairness SF have committed to balancing their cuts with increases.So do tell where have the Greens a less realistic view of how much can be spent?

efanton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I never said 'we need no more roads' I all I've ever said is we have to re-balance our spending , if we never start spending on PT we'll never have PT. Perhaps you're right and the M20 is needed but the issue is with each individual project is we are told it's needed . The M11 was needed , M20 is needed , Galway Ring road is needed , the 1 BL on roads FG announced before the election are needed. We have to stop somewhere or else we'll continually induce more demand... in 10-15 years times we'll be here and people will be saying the M50 bypass is needed . Dunkettle upgrade upgrade is needed .M20 widening is needed

I get where you re going, and you are right to a large extent. the problem we have is there ha been so much under investment in many areas outside of Dublin and the major cities that it is now all coming back to bite us.

But I said this earlier

What is realistic is to cherry pick the projects that are desperately needed at the moment, and build them in as green a way as possible.
Build the M20, but build in capabilities or features that would fit in with the eventual aims of the Green party such as a priority lane for public transport during rush hour periods where motorway come into cities, make it compulsory for fast charging points to be installed at any services that might be built along the M20.
Then encourage private bus companies to use it to provide new routes. It would be cheaper for the government to incentivise a scheme like that than attempt to build a whole new public infrastructure in a rural area that currently has no public transport whatsoever.

We need to move toward a more sustainable transport system, I totally agree.
But it is possible to put in the infrastructure we need now, and with some little bit of imagination and forethought we can aim for the green policies of the future.

LeinsterDub

efanton wrote: »

I get where you re going, and you are right to a large extent. the problem we have is there ha been so much under investment in many areas outside of Dublin and the major cities that it is now all coming back to bite us.

But I said this earlier



We need to move toward a more sustainable transport system, I totally agree.
But it is possible to put in the infrastructure we need now, and with some little bit of imagination and forethought we can aim for the green policies of the future.

I agree with you with one exception the infrastructure we need now will always be roads until we decided it isn't top of the list. Perhaps we make a list of all the roads we need and say this much and no more until x,y and z PT has been built

efanton

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I agree with you with one exception the infrastructure we need now will always be roads until we decided it isn't top of the list. Perhaps we make a list of all the roads we need and say this much and no more until x,y and z PT has been built

I would agree with that.

Make a list of critical infrastructure and get that out of the way and then split all capital expenditure between roads, rail, and public transport in fixed proportions , and bring in legislation to ensure that happens if it is necessary.

Seth Brundle

efanton wrote: »

We need to move toward a more sustainable transport system, I totally agree.

...you don't appear to though...

efanton wrote: »

But it is possible to put in the infrastructure we need now, and with some little bit of imagination and forethought we can aim for the green policies of the future.

Who decuides what we need "now"?
Do we build another bigger road and then decide that that's it and look elsewhere for anopther problem route. The when we're not looking it appears that the busy road needs upgrading and we still don't have a sustainable alternative.

As for "green policies of the future", these are actually needed now.
If we had a proper rail network (like most other countries and like here 100 years ago!) then we could use it to bulk move both people and freight. However, successive governments ignored this and pumped billions into roads and we are where we are now: over-dependant on cars. We then complain that we need our cars because public transport is crap. Because we spend so much on our cars, we demand good roads. See where this goes?

If people had an efficient and reliable alternative then they would use it. By long fingering the investment, we will never actually get it.
So, we've enough money to build either a decent rail network *or* an M20 (and we won't have money or the political will to do both), what do we do?

fly_agaric

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I agree with you with one exception the infrastructure we need now will always be roads until we decided it isn't top of the list. Perhaps we make a list of all the roads we need and say this much and no more until x,y and z PT has been built

The only party manifesto I actually read a good deal of was FFs as I really expected them to be in government whatever my own preferences on the matter.

Funny how time goes so fast, had to use the internet archive to get a copy of it as pdf seems to be gone from FFs website.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200203131536/https://www.fiannafail.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Fianna-Fail-General-Election-Manifesto-2020.pdf

The transport section had that old chestnut roads right at the top of the list ("Build the M20") along with other stuff about increasing the roads budget.
Statements about public transport were encouraging and positive, but far more nebulous than a blunt "We will build...".

"We wil start Dart underground..." (some new reports, some exploration works??)
"We will explore a Metro South West..." (commission a Pie in the Sky report??)
"Prioritise rail electrification..." (behind expanded road building and improvements??)

Whatever else you might say about FF they usually seem to have their finger on what "rural Ireland" wants and it is not public transport, certainly not in the cities (where it is so badly needed) at expense of increasing the precious roads budget.

efanton

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...you don't appear to though...

Who decuides what we need "now"?
Do we build another bigger road and then decide that that's it and look elsewhere for anopther problem route. The when we're not looking it appears that the busy road needs upgrading and we still don't have a sustainable alternative.

As for "green policies of the future", these are actually needed now.
If we had a proper rail network (like most other countries and like here 100 years ago!) then we could use it to bulk move both people and freight. However, successive governments ignored this and pumped billions into roads and we are where we are now: over-dependant on cars. We then complain that we need our cars because public transport is crap. Because we spend so much on our cars, we demand good roads. See where this goes?

If people had an efficient and reliable alternative then they would use it. By long fingering the investment, we will never actually get it.
So, we've enough money to build either a decent rail network *or* an M20 (and we won't have money or the political will to do both), what do we do?

Had you bothered to read my earlier posts all you questions and concerns were answered. There were a lot of them, but obviously you have jumped in at the end and not bothered.

I would love an efficient and reliable alternative. especially as I do not own a car.
I use a motorcycle instead for various reasons, cost, cleaner and greener, fuel efficiency, cost of insurance and have always loved them. As my father is now elderly I do drive his car for him if he wants to drive somewhere. At 86 years of age and disabled I dont think riding pillion on a motorcycle would be an option for him, and I doubt he would go on a motorcycle even if that was not the case.

As I have said before to others, you propose an alternative to a M20, estimate the costs of that and estimate how long it will take to complete.
Then come back and with the cost and timeline for your proposal.

You will quickly see there is no viable alternative to a M20.

McGiver

Chips Lovell wrote:

The reason public transport is inadequate is that we've consistently under-invested in it relative to our peers. You can't get "top class" public transport for bottom of the class investment.

Yes. And this just last 20 years. Look at last 50 years and the gap will be be truly shocking and impossible to bridge...

McGiver

Chips Lovell wrote:

By the way, as far as I can see, the Greens have never said the M20 shouldn't be built, but have rather questioned its prioritisation ahead of public transport.

Exactly! Why not taking it of the M8? Must be cheaper for sure!

McGiver

phater phagan wrote:

Could the Government invite some Zurich transport professionals for advice on infrastructure matters? That city is magnificently served by public transport, and while they're at it might they also ask Swiss advisers for assistance with national transport matters? It would certainly not be a waste of resources if other successful examples were applied here.

Doesn't have to be Zurich.
Any larger German city, Vienna, Prague, even some French cities. That all would do. No need Swiss prices.

LeinsterDub

McGiver wrote: »

Yes. And this just last 20 years. Look at last 50 years and the gap will be be truly shocking and impossible to bridge...

It's not impossible

fly_agaric

efanton wrote: »

Building the M20 is the only sensible and affordable solution we have at the moment. It will also allow for usable reasonably quick public transport to be introduced to the region. The reason to built is is mostly to do with congestion.
Currently the N20 carries 18,500 vehicles a day. Its capacity is 15,000 vehicles a day.

Possibly shouldn't reply directly as don't know merit of this specific project (other than what you write here) but I do have an interest in transport. I did a google search and found articles suggesting that the M20 motorway will now cost > EUR 1 Bn to construct. Is that correct (do you think)?

Ireland is rich so it is technically affordable, but EUR 1Bn is still a lot of money, it does not have infinite resources and Irish people are a bit allergic in general to paying any more tax.

Is spending > EUR 1Bn on constructing the new motorway better use of transport budget money for entire region than say a small tram system for Cork, expansions of the Cork and Limerick urban/local bus services and commuter rail etc?

Public transport expenditure doesn't have to go into Dublin if you're one of those who would rather it just choke on its' own fumes and filth and die back instead of spending money to relieve the development & demographic pressures.

I'm sure the Greens may be flexible on where in the country and exactly what projects such money is spent on if angling to get into government, but they are unlikely to be flexible on their principles (more for PT, less for new road building).

efanton

fly_agaric wrote: »

Possibly shouldn't reply directly as don't know merit of this specific project (other than what you write here) but I do have an interest in transport. I did a google search and found articles suggesting that the M20 motorway will now cost > EUR 1 Bn to construct. Is that correct (do you think)?

Ireland is rich so it is technically affordable, but EUR 1Bn is still a lot of money, it does not have infinite resources and Irish people are a bit allergic in general to paying any more tax.

Is spending > EUR 1Bn on constructing the new motorway better use of transport budget money for entire region than say a small tram system for Cork, expansions of the Cork and Limerick urban/local bus services and commuter rail etc?

Public transport expenditure doesn't have to go into Dublin if you're one of those who would rather it just choke on its' own fumes and filth and die back instead of spending money to relieve the development & demographic pressures.

I'm sure the Greens may be flexible on where in the country and exactly what projects such money is spent on if angling to get into government, but they are unlikely to be flexible on their principles (more for PT, less for new road building).

The M20 could well cost 1 billion or 1.2 billion by the time it is finished. Our FG government are very loud on talking about financial prudence but do not seem to put it into practice themselves. They enter into contracts that are not fixed price,have no penalty clauses, and do not apportion any serious accountability to the organisations, ministers, or individuals responsible for them. Any private company or institution would laugh at you if you asked them to sign such a contract.

Unfortunately Ireland might appear rich but due to the huge repayments we have to make on austerity loans or debts our capital expenditure spending is somewhat limited.

THe problem with a public transport solution is that for it to work you simply cannot build or fund one single thing. If you build a rail network, you will have to build the additional track, purchase the trains and rolling stock, build or upgrade the rail stations to cope for the additional capacity of both trains and commuters, and then on top of that build a feeder bus network to deliver commuters to those stations which would require more busses, new bus stops, and depots and storage for these busses. Even then bypasses around Charleville, Buttevant and Mallow would still be required to be built but fortunately the planning process for these is well under way. All the above would have to be delivered as one single package otherwise it would be completely pointless.
The planning require for all of would take years, then you have a few more years for the planning process for the infrastructure required, and then yet more years for the actual construction and purchase of the vehicles an rolling stock required.

Even if you went a bus only route, you still need the additional infrastructure in both Cork and Limerick to handle the increased number of busses and commuters as both stations are running at capacity already, the additional coaches and busses, additional bus stops along the route, the feeder bus network required to get commuters from towns and villages to the main coach route and again the years of planning, planning process and construction.

Both projects would take many years longer to deliver than a M20, probably cost a similar amount of money, and do not address the fact that the N20 is currently at least 20% beyond its capacity and needs a fairly quick solution.

Personally, I would prefer the public transport solution but in practical terms its not feasible for current circumstances. This is always the problem when a government kicks the can down the road the solution always costs more and is never the best solution for the problem.

fly_agaric

efanton wrote: »

Unfortunately Ireland might appear rich but due to the huge repayments we have to make on austerity loans or debts our capital expenditure spending is somewhat limited.

True, not as wealthy as the headline figures make it look but I think we can afford capital expenditure on some important infrastructure...indeed I wonder if we can afford not to do it when our peers and competitors are all ahead of us? They are things that give multi-generational value so (unless completely daft) will pay for themselves many times over in social and economic benefits over their lifetimes. Even the ones some people (incl. economic experts) argue might not be worth it at the start tend to do that over the very long haul.
Somewhat unrelated, but I'd argue we could even have invested in kicking off one of the big rail projects in Dublin during our economic crisis (post 2008) via European money/loans (EIB) but the FG governments chose not to go that route. If they had it would have been up and running and providing benefits for about 5 years now.

efanton wrote: »

THe problem with a public transport solution is that for it to work you simply cannot build or fund one single thing. If you build a rail network, you will have to build the additional track, purchase the trains and rolling stock, build or upgrade the rail stations to cope for the additional capacity of both trains and commuters, and then on top of that build a feeder bus network to deliver commuters to those stations which would require more busses, new bus stops, and depots and storage for these busses. Even then bypasses around Charleville, Buttevant and Mallow would still be required to be built but fortunately the planning process for these is well under way. All the above would have to be delivered as one single package otherwise it would be completely pointless.
The planning require for all of would take years, then you have a few more years for the planning process for the infrastructure required, and then yet more years for the actual construction and purchase of the vehicles an rolling stock required.

Even if you went a bus only route, you still need the additional infrastructure in both Cork and Limerick to handle the increased number of busses and commuters as both stations are running at capacity already, the additional coaches and busses, additional bus stops along the route, the feeder bus network required to get commuters from towns and villages to the main coach route and again the years of planning, planning process and construction.

Both projects would take many years longer to deliver than a M20, probably cost a similar amount of money, and do not address the fact that the N20 is currently at least 20% beyond its capacity and needs a fairly quick solution.

Personally, I would prefer the public transport solution but in practical terms its not feasible for current circumstances. This is always the problem when a government kicks the can down the road the solution always costs more and is never the best solution for the problem.

Yes, it is a very slow and painful and expensive process in Ireland as we see with Busconnects and projects in the past (and there must be some way to speed that up without disenfranchising people).

I wasn't trying to argue big investments in improving PT for Cork/Limerick would be cheaper or quicker than a motorway (in the end it may cost more) but as a non-expert watching the way the winds are blowing I think it could have a longer term value to the region.

However, I suppose I'd mainly argue as others did already that if you never start at all + keep assigning the available resources to road construction it will take even longer to get decent improvements in PT and benefits flowing from that...possibly forever!

McGiver

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes, it is a very slow and painful and expensive process in Ireland as we see with Busconnects and projects in the past (and there must be some way to speed that up without disenfranchising people) but if you never start at all + keep diverting the available resources to road construction it will take even longer...possibly forever!

Exactly my opinion. If you don't start then you'll never start. The infrastructural gap (esp PT) is so huge in Ireland vs Western/northern/central Europe that the gov should put at least % extra money every year for this and start doing little by little. If it's postponed and nothing is done, it will never happen, the gap will widen even more and then next recession comes and this will never get sorted.

Was there any survey of the public done in terms of PT? I'd imagine a large majority of urban population is in favour.

fly_agaric

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly my opinion. If you don't start then you'll never start. The infrastructural gap (esp PT) is so huge in Ireland vs Western/northern/central Europe that the gov should put at least % extra money every year for this and start doing little by little. If it's postponed and nothing is done, it will never happen, the gap will widen even more and then next recession comes and this will never get sorted.

Was there any survey of the public done in terms of PT? I'd imagine a large majority of urban population is in favour.

I don't know if any survey has been done on that.
Probably, but a lot still rely on their cars too and change is not pleasant.

I suppose the Greens' ideas are not palatable to many (they generate alot of anger on this website anyway) but we could be forced eventually to try and shift to relying far more on PT + a model of people living more densely & nearer where they work etc. (even without considering what our peers are doing).

It's going to be even more painful if we've done nothing to get ready except build more and better roads + allow spread out development and commuting that depends on these roads to be viable.

no.8

McGiver wrote:

Doesn't have to be Zurich. Any larger German city, Vienna, Prague, even some French cities. That all would do. No need Swiss prices.

That they do. Though we could do with swiss quality (that stereotype is overblown btw, you know what he was getting at).
Prague and even Vienna wouldn't compare to Zurich's infrastructure but it's having multiple options which serve at a local, regional and national level which is the goal (seemless transfers which give nearly everybody an efficient and predictable route from A to . It doesnt have to be as dense as central European cities but the public transport of the future here needs to have built in over capacity.

efanton

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't know if any survey has been done on that.
Probably, but a lot still rely on their cars too and change is not pleasant.

I suppose the Greens' ideas are not palatable to many (they generate alot of anger on this website anyway) but we could be forced eventually to try and shift to relying far more on PT + a model of people living more densely & nearer where they work etc. (even without considering what our peers are doing).

It's going to be even more painful if we've done nothing to get ready except build more and better roads + allow spread out development and commuting that depends on these roads to be viable.

The problem as I have already pointed out is talking about Dublin or other cities and talking about what is predominantly a rural areas are two totally and utterly different situation. You might complain that PT in Dublin is slow or that with existing services it is difficult for commuters to switch between multiple services in a single journey.

TH point is Dublin does have the services to enable most people to make their journeys by PT. The improvements will be slow but in the meantime the PT transport service is still usable but possibly not ideal.

When you wish to introduce PT transport into an area that has absolutely no PT transport whatsoever there is not point whatsoever providing a small part of the eventually planned service. You cant do it piece-meal. If commuters can only get part of the way to their destination then its as plain as day they they will not and cannot use that service.
The investment will be good for the future but will not go anyway to significantly solving the problems of today.

As I have already pointed out, if the government used a bit of imagination it could make a new M20 part of the public transport solution. Incentivise private bus companies to use it to provide additional PT routes, put in fast charging points along it routes. Then as part of that project, or as the next step, put in a feeder network of smaller busses to get commuters from the towns and villages that are not on or near the bust stops.
Now your investment gives instant and significant PT dividends and is a key piece of the infrastructure that will allow more PT services in the future than could be introduced in parts.

rossie1977

Should be doing both. This is the time ie huge growth, budget surpluses when major infrastructure projects should be carried out.

As others have said our public transport and roads pale in comparison with countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Austria or Switzerland.

LeinsterDub

My M20 comprise. Make it 3 lanes but one is ANPR controlled bus lane, bus will have priority at all exits.

McGiver

rossie1977 wrote:

As others have said our public transport and roads pale in comparison with countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Austria or Switzerland.

Even Italy actually...

markodaly

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly! Why not taking it of the M8? Must be cheaper for sure!

As it has been already pointed out, it isnt, due to the geographical terrain.
Even if you did, you still need to build bypasses of Mallow and Charleville.

efanton

McGiver wrote: »

Even Italy actually...

Well to be honest the slower those roads are the longer it takes for them to get here. Not a bad thing under present circumstances.:eek:

timsey tiger

Prioritising public transport over road transport I can understand that there is a discussion to be had. But, how on earth was a motorway built from Limerick to Galway and on to Castlebar before this one? This I cannot understand, drove on an empty motorway last November eerie.

The Tetrarch

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In fairness SF have committed to balancing their cuts with increases.So do tell where have the Greens a less realistic view of how much can be spent?

Now you are stretching our belief.
Sinn Fein said their proposals were costed, and their manifesto says this:
Additional current spending measures: 12.249 billion a year
Additional capital spending measures: 9.852 billion
Giving workers and families a break – tax spend: 2.4 billion
Funding real change and a better future – tax revenue: 3.8 billion

You say SF balances their cuts with increases
Net extra spend 12.249+2.4-3.8 = 10.849 billion extra every year or 54.245 billion extra over a Dail term,
plus the 9.852 extra capital spend gives an extra unfunded 64.097 billion to add to the national debt.
That is Sinn Fein balancing, an extra 64 billion unfunded spend.

There is a big difference between proposals being costed, and proposals being realistic and fundable.
I could get a quote on a new Ferrari. That would be costed.
Could I afford it? No. Would it be practical? No.

You ask people to tell you "where have the Greens a less realistic view of how much can be spent".
If, in fairness, you think the SF manifesto is realistic the we must assume the Green arithmetic is similar.

efanton

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Now you are stretching our belief.
Sinn Fein said their proposals were costed, and their manifesto says this:
Additional current spending measures: 12.249 billion a year
Additional capital spending measures: 9.852 billion
Giving workers and families a break – tax spend: 2.4 billion
Funding real change and a better future – tax revenue: 3.8 billion

You say SF balances their cuts with increases
Net extra spend 12.249+2.4-3.8 = 10.849 billion extra every year or 54.245 billion extra over a Dail term,
plus the 9.852 extra capital spend gives an extra unfunded 64.097 billion to add to the national debt.
That is Sinn Fein balancing, an extra 64 billion unfunded spend.

There is a big difference between proposals being costed, and proposals being realistic and fundable.
I could get a quote on a new Ferrari. That would be costed.
Could I afford it? No. Would it be practical? No.

You ask people to tell you "where have the Greens a less realistic view of how much can be spent".
If, in fairness, you think the SF manifesto is realistic the we must assume the Green arithmetic is similar.

You do realise how capital expenditure works?

SF would pend 6 billion in addition to existing budgets for home building.
That does not mean they take 6 billion out of one of the governments accounts and hand over a cheque for 6 billion.
Capital expenditure is amortised. They would borrow the 6 billion and repay it back over 25 years. Even with interest added that would cost the country less than 250 million a year for that period.

And your sums are completely wrong. Their capital expenditure is the TOTAL for the entire period of government, not every year.
They would use the 6 billion over 5 years to build homes, not 6 billion every year.

In the mean time FG are spending close to 1 billion a year to rent private property for social and emergency housing.
Thats 5 billion (nearly what SF wish to spend building homes) over a government term and not one brick to show for it. Hardly the model of fiscal prudence now is it?

Xertz

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Galway is a the perfect city for public transport , small and compact for lots but due to nearly 0 bus lanes, cycle lanes or walking priority its a traffic nightmare. Buses are going to be stuck in traffic regardless of building the bypass or not due to induced demand. If you don't build for PT you get crap PT , we don't need to spend 600-700 on yet a other failed bypass in Galway.

So is Cork when you look at it.

Compact, walkable city centre that is quite a lot denser in many respects than Dublin and the majority of new build outer suburban was relatively well planned and clustered in defined satellite towns like Ballincollig, Carrigaline, Glanmire, Midleton etc.

The city’s suburbs are also not that sprawling. Overall it’s better planned than Dublin - it just has lousy public transit.

I could see everything stopping now though. Covid 19 has likely caused a fairly abrupt recession.

The Tetrarch

efanton wrote: »

You do realise how capital expenditure works?

SF would pend 6 billion in addition to existing budgets for home building.
That does not mean they take 6 billion out of one of the governments accounts and hand over a cheque for 6 billion.
Capital expenditure is amortised. They would borrow the 6 billion and repay it back over 25 years. Even with interest added that would cost the country less than 250 million a year for that period.

And your sums are completely wrong. Their capital expenditure is the TOTAL for the entire period of government, not every year.
They would use the 6 billion over 5 years to build homes, not 6 billion every year.

In the mean time FG are spending close to 1 billion a year to rent private property for social and emergency housing.
Thats 5 billion (nearly what SF wish to spend building homes) over a government term and not one brick to show for it. Hardly the model of fiscal prudence now is it?

It would help if you read my post (and not invent a fiction that you then refute).

I took the additional annual current spending and extended that for five years
then
I added the additional capital expenditure.
(12.249 current x 5) + (9.852 capital).

As a qualified accountant I know how revenue income and expenditure, and capital income and expenditure works.
Your talk about amortisation, 25 years, "cost the country less than 250 million a year", sounds great, but I do not see that in the SF manifesto.

Nowhere did I take the proposed SF capital expenditure and multiply it by five years.
Nice try.

Xertz

I wonder if some of these big infrastructure products could potentially be useful injections of activity into the economy after this COVID-19 scenario does eventually end.

We will need to keep some of these things on the schedule and also so will the EU. I foresee a very serious need for jump starting the economy probably this autumn or into 2021 and 2022.

efanton

The Tetrarch wrote: »

It would help if you read my post (and not invent a fiction that you then refute).

I took the additional annual current spending and extended that for five years
then
I added the additional capital expenditure.
(12.249 current x 5) + (9.852 capital).

As a qualified accountant I know how revenue income and expenditure, and capital income and expenditure works.
Your talk about amortisation, 25 years, "cost the country less than 250 million a year", sounds great, but I do not see that in the SF manifesto.

Nowhere did I take the proposed SF capital expenditure and multiply it by five years.
Nice try.

Why would SF NOT amortise capital spending being that is standard practice?
Especially when they separate government spending from capital expenditure in their manifesto.

At no point did SF commit to spending 30 billion on capital expenditure for housing during the election campaign, but the were very clear they would spend an additional 6 billion. So it would follow that the figures for capital expenditure were for a full term of office

ADDITIONAL CURRENT SPENDING MEASURES 12,249*

ADDITIONAL CAPITAL SPENDING MEASURES 9,852

I do agree that they made a hames of laying out the costs of their proposed manifesto by not clearly stating what might be a yearly spend and what might be a government term spend.

In the normal sized print they do say
"These allocations are in addition to what has already been pre-committed for the period 2021 -2025"
indicating that the above figures are BOTH over a full term of office.

The way I read it is they would spend an average 2.45 billion a year (12,249 billion / 5) in government spending, and an average of 1.9704‬ billion a year (9.852 billion / 5)in capital expenditure.
To try calculate in in any other way (as you have done) could not possibly allow for the surplus they promise.

efanton

Xertz wrote: »

I wonder if some of these big infrastructure products could potentially be useful injections of activity into the economy after this COVID-19 scenario does eventually end.

We will need to keep some of these things on the schedule and also so will the EU. I foresee a very serious need for jump starting the economy probably this autumn or into 2021 and 2022.

The problem will be the people losing their jobs the moment due to the virus outbreak will have no skills required for construction projects.
I would imagine many construction sites will still be in operation because the nature of the work means it relatively easy for construction workers to keep a 2 metre distance from others.

I am hoping the government releases enough money to keep small businesses currently closed solvent enough so that those jobs are available once restrictions can be lifted.
If that's not the case the this country is screwed. It will be worse than the last crash and more like the 1980's where unemployment levels were through the roof.
We simply cannot afford for that many businesses to go bankrupt and cease trading at the same time.