Proposal for a new Department of Infrastructure

Would be interesting to see what such a department would consist of. There is already a Department of Transport but it currently has a shared minister also overseeing Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Transport already covers a lot of what could be considered for the Department of Infrastructure (Roads, Public Transport, Maritime, Aviation, etc.) but also includes things which aren't Infrastructure (Coast Guard, Air Accident Investigation, Motor Tax, etc.).

The big item which faces the same problems in terms of delivery as infrastructure and is a similar constraint on the economy is housing. That could potentially be split from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and put into Infrastructure.

Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications also contains a large element of what could be considered for Infrastructure. Plus NDP Delivery, which is largely infrastructure delivery, is under Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

OPW owns/leases the vast majority of State buildings in all central government sectors.

Is there any developed policy proposal on this? As above, sounds like a election cote getting policy that very likely hasn't been properly thought out at all.

You can’t really link the structure of departments to the cancelling of these projects - the country was virtually bankrupt.

The department for expenditure is already quite a large department.

The danger of a department for infrastructure is that it could end up being too large, and hence ineffective, in some ways similar to how Eamon Ryan’s portfolio is so large some have said he’s stretched too thin.

I don't think buildings, particularly office buildings, should fall under infrastructure. The private sector developes buildings which the state can choose to use if they wish, that isn't the case for most of what is commonly considered infrastructure.

As an aside, I'm not even sure that OPW owns/leases the vast majority of State buildings when you consider that Health and Education buildings are not under OPW, same for prisons, local authority buildings, etc. Then you have the commercial semi-State companies which are also separate (DAA, An Post, Bord na Móna, CIÉ, Coillte, EirGrid, ESB and Gas Networks Ireland, etc.).

Bringing lots of things under one department wouldn't make sense. For specialist sectors such as Health, you'd lose the connection to people on the ground who will use the buildings and the knowledge of the latest technology advances in the sector. There is a clear logic in having a motorway planned and overseen by experts in motorways, but other things are different and you don't stay an expert for long if you are siloed away from what is happening at the coalface.

A Department of Infrastructure should be focused on delivering national infrastructure, not some unnecessarily broad, unwieldy home for everything and anything construction related. That is a recipe for getting little done. It should have a limited and defined remit based on something, preferably the NDP. It shouldn't be open to the minister of the day messing with order or priority.

Another area where a Department of Infrastructure could be very beneficial would be in strategic utilisation of state assets across multiple agencies for a common purpose. For example, the state owns multiple duct networks across several agencies including TII, IÉ, ESB, Waterways Ireland, etc. AFAIK, each use their network for whatever commercial gain they can get. Ideally, a coordinated approach under the Department of Infrastructure would see the network as a whole in line with national policies (for example, removing/minimising access charges on the basis that user companies continually invest in latest technology and robust broadband for the country, and ensure competition).

Another Department? There are a few Departments which are important for Infrastructure: Energy, Transport, Housing ,etc. There are also specific bodies dealing with infrastructure such as Transport Infrastructure Ireland. How many more decision making bodies do we need when the situation is already full of bodies which have to consult, co-iordinate, delay etc. ad nauseam? And that's before we even get to the Planning mess.

The only role I can see is where there are interactions between different areas, e.g. Housing and Transport, then maybe we need some sort of oversight body which makes sure that these interactions are taken into account. Should this be a full Department? Not necessarily.

If this speeds up infrastructure projects in this country, then it cant come soon enough. I would like to see it take state projects planning approval away from ABP and keep it in house.

Housing and public transport are not infrastructure, even if they require it. Transport regulation is not infrastructure either.

Pretty clear as written. Strictly speaking, Housing is not infrastructure. Public transport is not infrastructure. Regulation of transport is not infrastructure.

"Infrastructure" covers the things that are needed to support housing, transportation, and so on. Fibre optic networks are infrastructure, broadband and TV services are not. Electrified railways are infrastructure, commuter train services are not. Roads are infrastructure, buses are not. The water, electricity distribution and sewage systems that make land suitable for building on are infrastructure, but houses, offices and schools are not.

Yes, from a policy standpoint, you can claim that schools are part of the necessary infrastructure for education, but unlike the things I mentioned above, a school isn't something that underlies many different services in the way that a paved road, or a water supply or a data communications link does.

Is AirCoach infrastructure?

You're confusing the services with the infrastructure that they require. MetroLink is the only thing that your argument sounds alright for, because it's a vertically integrated system, but even there, there's a difference between the tracks, signalling stations and rolling stock (the infrastructure) and the number and frequency of trains that are run (the service). The latter is limited by infrastructure, but is not a decision that should be made by any "infrastructure" agency.

@bkI'm not confused at all. I made a very clear distinction between what is a service and what is infrastructure, and after telling me I'm wrong I think you then agreed with me. Did you misread my post?

I never mentioned Dublin Airport, but of course air and sea ports are infrastructute, because they facilitate services. That doesn't mean the regulation of passenger air travel should be under a "Department of Infrastructure".

I never claimed motorways are not infrastructure, only that AirCoach isn't. That example just reiterated my point: just because something requires a particular kind of infrastructure, it does not follow that it should be brought under a putative department that manages that infrastructute. Public transport uses roads, so does freight, so do private cars. We still need the roads in good order even if one of those uses stopped tomorrow.

Some infrastructure, however, is so closely tied to a service that it makes no sense to seaparate it: look at the UK trying to split railways into track and trains to see how bad things can be.

But you would also be removing the non-infrastructure stuff like much of CIE and NTA, and the majority of Environment, climate & communications.

Pulling so many disparate functions into one mega-department sounds like a recipe for confusion and delay.

I wouldn't object to one department to oversee and manage the fixed infrastructure provided by the state (ports, roads, rail, communications, power and water/sewage), but the idea that such a department should become a service regulator simply because those services use that infrastructure is silly.. on that logic, nothing escapes the reach of the department.