Fast-Track Infrastructure legislation
- This topic has 78 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/16/story244918.html
The Government is reportedly due to publish planned new legislation today aimed at fast-tracking major infrastructure projects.
Reports this morning said the legislation would allow developers of schemes such as incinerators, roads and airport facilities to bypass the local authority planning process.
Instead, they would have to lodge planning applications with a new division of An Bord Pleanála that would deal exclusively with such developments.
Environment groups and heritage campaigners have already expressed concern about the proposed law, which they believe would be used to force through unsuitable and controversial infrastructure schemes.
Sounds good!
About 10 years over due. Good news anyway. I hope its a complete sucess. If Mc Dowell gets his end of things sorted it should be.
The Denouncer wrote:http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/16/story244918.htmlThe Government is reportedly due to publish planned new legislation today aimed at fast-tracking major infrastructure projects.
Reports this morning said the legislation would allow developers of schemes such as incinerators, roads and airport facilities to bypass the local authority planning process.
Instead, they would have to lodge planning applications with a new division of An Bord Pleanála that would deal exclusively with such developments.
Environment groups and heritage campaigners have already expressed concern about the proposed law, which they believe would be used to force through unsuitable and controversial infrastructure schemes.
😎 No harm to bypass the whingers and go directly to ABP.
If the Government would increase the appeal fee to 2000 euro instead of the current 210 it would help development in this Country..This is very good news for Dublin and it surronding area.
This legislation has no bearing or is of no benefit to the West of Ireland as “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INFRASTRUCTURE HERE”.
The West of Ireland still has, and uses, 1800’s roads and rail.
In the 1800’s it did have an Infrastructure, many double rail lines to all parts of the region. Now it has two single track rail lines going to the same place.
The roads here where built in the 1800’s, so suitable for them times, but are a hinderance in the 21st century.
The only roads built in this region since the 1800’s total approx 30 miles, plus these are not high quality or safe roads and badly planned.
Total spent, approx €60m, since the 19th century!
By far the majority of all National Routes cannot take modern vehicles as they where designed for non mechanical vehicles.
On these roads two Lorrys have to come to a stop just to pass by each other, and with great difficulty.
As a poor, improvrised nation the West of Ireland got more than it does now been part of a wealthy nation!
It was an objective one area and recieved billions in aid but has not recieved a penny of this money.
Look at other objective one areas in Europe and see what has been achieved with less aid than the West of Ireland got, notably Valenica City and Region in Spain as one example.
In Western Europe today there is nowhere to compare to the West of Ireland, it has been totally neglected and left behind, and this is getting worse, not better the richer we become.
Simply it is the only region in Western Europe with 3rd world infrastructure.
And to show the contempt this government and every Irish government has to this region since the foundation of the state, one of many examples is the Castlebar to Westport road.
This is the most congested section of road in Co. Mayo. it is a very dangerous road which has had many fatalities and which again was built in the 19th century.
20yrs ago they planned a new road, since then no money has been given.
Under the jokingly named NATIONAL???? DEVELOPMENT PLAN the road was to be completed in 2004.
It recieved nothing and the local Authority has to wait, (from the NRA), until “at least” 2015 MAYBE!
By then the two laned road planned will not be able to cope with the increase in traffic!
Simply the West of Ireland should be governed by the European Union for approx the next 20 years until it has 21st century infrastructure and services.
There should also be a National Enquiry to investigate where these Billions of Euros have gone, and this investigation should also involve the European Parliment and its courts.
It is simply a national scandal that a people and its governments should allow part of its own country to end up in a mess like it now is.
Foreign Aid budget from the Irish Government totals 1.5bn Euros a year, total spent in the West of Ireland well, a fraction of that, therefore people in Africa recieve more from the so called Irish Government than a region of its own country!!!!!!!!
Only intelligent people who are willing to discuss this matter in an informative and intelligent way reply please.As we know, Sean, there is no need for infrastructure in the west or north west or midlands. After all, nobody lives there and those who do are simply SUV driving selfish shxxes who have no respect for the country they live in, the environment or their urban neighbours. In addition, they are selfish sociopaths into the bargain. They have the infrastructure they deserve – none.
This is a summary of most of the threads you will find in Archiseek. The vision you will find propagated here is a peculiarly 19th century one – lets move everybody to the cities and leave the country as some form of idyllic pastoral haven that can provide respite to the fevered brows of our city slickers. At no time will you find any understanding of the concept of balanced regional development that treats all of the provinces equally, nor you will find any understanding or attempt to undertsand the chicken and egg phenomenon. By this I mean that people do not seem to realise that by continually building Dublin up and by continually depopulating the countryside, the country becomes progressively worse in terms of its development. The converse is the case, people argue – why put infrastructure in the west, when all of the people live in th east. It seems too challenging to imagine that if there was infrasturcture in the west, there would not be so much of a need for it in the east as people could live happily along the western seaboard. These are difficult concepts which sadly receive no understanding here. The imbalance in Ireland’s infrasturcture is matched only by the imbalance of opinion within the planning and architectural community.
No one has ever said that infrastructure should not be built; however no infrastructure should be built unless the likely effects are properly scrutinised. Moving the process away from the people it will serve eliminates their right to make comment upon same truely making it an enforced centralised dictat straight from Dublin.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0217/1882951013HM1M50.html
The €1 billion project to widen the M50 motorway around Dublin has been delayed because of the Government’s change of policy on tolling,
In the light of the Government’s new policy on tolling, the National Roads Authority (NRA) was forced to withdraw the major portion of the project and launch a new tendering process.
Work was due to begin before the end of this year and was scheduled for completion by 2010. It will now be at least 2011 before it is finished.:rolleyes:
PDLL-
Which Archiseek are you reading? The same one as me? Presumably not, as I can’t recall anyone here ever advocating that the entire population should move to Dublin. We wouldn’t have to accommodate just you either, we’d have to find somewhere for the chip on your shoulder too. And I get the feeling it wouldn’t be happy in an apartment. Only a detached house would do. So Sligo can keep you, thanks.If you dislike the arguments here, by all means engage with the meat of the matter, but don’t disappear for a while and then reappear with a gross misrepresentation of our positions. Yes, ‘positions’ plural. You seem to think that the ‘imbalance’ of opinion on these boards somehow reflects a certain bias in the minds of the board members. Did it ever occur to you that the opinions expressed here might be carefully considered and that they might reflect the national state of play? This might not tally with your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man who just wants a simple house to sell on the open mar… sorry, for his ailing grandmother, but stop and think for a second. There is no bar to membership of this forum (save in exceptional circumstances), and it is not intended solely for professionals in the built environment field. There is a higher likelihood certainly of members having a professional interest in the area, but it’s not a pre-requisite. Having said that, I’d think that the opinion of someone who studied planning for anywhere between 2 and 4 years would be at least as valuable as the opinion of a landowner with a desire to develop their waterlogged field, whereas you seem to think studying planning in some way blinds a planner to the realities of life in the countryside. In fact, I’d think that a planner’s opinion is more valuable, actually, but all that the counter-argument requires is a statement of the equivalence of the positions- a ‘fair hearing’ in layman’s terms. I suspect, really, that the reason why you think we’re all such thick-skulled patronising Dubs is because we disagree with you. If so, fine, but if you’re going to engage with the debate please keep to the points we’re making instead of putting words in our mouths. And if the forum bothers you that much, may I be the first to suggest, respectfully, that you do your heart a favour and pay no attention to these ravings of a self-interested mob of misguided busybodies? I hear there’s a vacancy over on the forums at http://www.congesteddistrictsboard.com .
Lastly, balanced regional development does not mean making sure that every square inch of the country is built on, contrary to what you seem to think. It means selecting a few centres in a spatial hierarchy and developing them to achieve a critical mass of population and development that will support employment and services. That is what many on the anti-one-off side are arguing for. If you are arguing for it too, which is one interpretation of your post above, then might I remark on what a welcome transformation this is? Next thing we know you’ll be keeping your stroller off the bike paths of the capital. (Chance would be a fine thing.)
@ctesiphon wrote:
I can’t recall anyone here ever advocating that the entire population should move to Dublin … Only a detached house would do. So Sligo can keep you, thanks.
Thank you Ctesiphon for your response and your personal slurs. Very constructive. Indeed, nobody has ever explicitly said that the whole population of the state should move to Dublin. Implicitly, however, the central thrust evident in many threads is that infrastructural development in this country should be focussed primarily on the major urban centres (Dublin and the few token towns and cities on the western seaboard). It has been argued both implicitly and explicitly that infrastructural projects of any substance (rail line, motorway or dual carriageway at the every least) that would help stimulate real economic and population development along the western seaboard are largely a waste of time unless, of course, they connect these outlying satellite cities with Dublin. Hence a rail line along the western seaboard connecting nearly 2 million people has been seen as a folly that would distract valuable investment away from Dublin. Indirectly, therefore, the vision of Ireland propagated in various ways throughout Archiseek is one which has Dublin at its centre and then 5 or 6 reasonably sized cities dispersed around the state (none of which would be connected to each other by serious transport infrastructure except by way of travelling through Dublin). Sound familiar now?
@ctesiphon wrote:
If you dislike the arguments here, by all means engage with the meat of the matter, but don’t disappear for a while and then reappear with a gross misrepresentation of our positions.
I am sorry if I have not maintained a 24 hour vigil and if my occasional absence away from the computer some how weakens my point of view or my interpretation of ‘your’ positions. I will dedicate more of my personal resources to a round the clock observation of Archiseek, if of course that helps you accept some of the points I might occasionally make.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that the opinions expressed here might be carefully considered and that they might reflect the national state of play? This might not tally with your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man who just wants a simple house to sell on the open mar… sorry, for his ailing grandmother, but stop and think for a second.
I am sure that many of the opinions expressed on Archiseek are carefully considered by those that express them. Just because they are carefully considered, doesn’t mean that they are correct or are the only version of events. I never said that ‘you’ (plural) were ‘attacking the little man who just wants to sell his house on the open mar…’. I am glad that you have chosen to speak on behalf of all Archiseek members, Ctesiphon.
@ctesiphon wrote:
I suspect, really, that the reason why you think we’re all such thick-skulled patronising Dubs is because we disagree with you. If so, fine, but if you’re going to engage with the debate please keep to the points we’re making instead of putting words in our mouths.
Or perhaps the reason you choose to be so belligerent is because someone has presented an equally valid and alternative perspective on issues which doesn’t fit in with some version of social reality churned out of a lecture hall in UCD. It is, as noted above, you Ctesiphon who is putting the words in the mouths of other Archiseek members – your use of the royal ‘we’ implies that your ego is either running amok or that you had some high-level meeting of all Archiseek members and are expressing a common position shared by all.
@PDLL wrote:
Implicitly, however, the central thrust evident in many threads is that infrastructural development in this country should be focussed primarily on the major urban centres (Dublin and the few token towns and cities on the western seaboard). It has been argued both implicitly and explicitly that infrastructural projects of any substance (rail line, motorway or dual carriageway at the every least) that would help stimulate real economic and population development along the western seaboard are largely a waste of time unless, of course, they connect these outlying satellite cities with Dublin. Hence a rail line along the western seaboard connecting nearly 2 million people has been seen as a folly that would distract valuable investment away from Dublin. Indirectly, therefore, the vision of Ireland propagated in various ways throughout Archiseek is one which has Dublin at its centre and then 5 or 6 reasonably sized cities dispersed around the state (none of which would be connected to each other by serious transport infrastructure except by way of travelling through Dublin).
Would you oppose a multi hubbed infrastructure network, where Cork Limerick and Galway became significant centres of gravity?
@Frank Taylor wrote:
Would you oppose a multi hubbed infrastructure network, where Cork Limerick and Galway became significant centres of gravity?
Frank – I remember years ago when the Goverment first released its plan for the development of a motorway network in Ireland, a map was published in the Irish Times. Perhaps it was because it was published in black and white but the effect of that map was quite stark. There were lovely big thick black lines linking Dublin with Galway, Cork, and Limerick. There were no lines above Galway and there were no lines down the left han-side of the map. That map encapsulated development in Ireland. North-west – nothingess. The other cities – extended satelite suburbs of Dublin.
I would love to see regional hubs developed – I would never argue against this. They should, however, be integrated and that means that there should be a viable transport infrastructure connecting [Derry]-Letterkenny-Sligo-Galway-Ennis-Limerick-Cork. This infrastructure should be independent of the transport connections to Dublin. This would facilitate proper balanced regional growth. Without this, the western seaboard will continue to haemorrage its population to the eastern seaboard. If people are serious about addressing developmental problems in Ireland, they will have to start thinking about stimulating serious economic growth in the west and that means infrastructure. Ie- put in the infrasturture and the population will follow, rather than the current plan of let the people populate an area around Dublin and then address it with infrastructural ‘solutions’. Chicken and egg.
I think it was a mistake to build six motorways out of Dublin and a better approach would have been to make a grid like pattern with Dublin only connected directly to Limerick, Waterford and Belfast.
It is true that you can build infrastructure before the population arrives but you gotta have a plan for how this is going to happen.
@Frank Taylor wrote:
I think it was a mistake to build six motorways out of Dublin and a better approach would have been to make a grid like pattern with Dublin only connected directly to Limerick, Waterford and Belfast.
It is true that you can build infrastructure before the population arrives but you gotta have a plan for how this is going to happen.
Again, I agree 100%. This is why there is an urgent need to reconsider what is happening in this country in terms of regional planning. You do not require 4 years of undergraduate planning courses to realise that the current way things are going is not sustainable or desireable. What I mean by that is that continually building infrastruture in a knee-jerk manner around a very limited part of the country is in nobody’s benefit. Dublin is becoming a patchwork quilt of temporray and unsustainable infrastructural solutions while the rest of the country suffers an infrastructural deficit. In case it is automatically assumed that I am anti-Dublin or anti-Dublin development, I have – in other posts- always argued for a metro for Dublin, for example. What I resent strongly is the priveleging of Dublin at the cost of fair, equitable and balanced developement across the state. Of coruse, when I say this – which is to many a fair-minded approach – I will be accused of ‘playing the old balanced development’ card (as I have been in other threads).
PDLL I hope for ur sake that you are trolling and don’t expect those views to be taken seriously outside Citywest hotel and country club or inchidoney
Paris and Northern France have a simliar radial pattern of infrastructure to Ireland with 7 motorways emanating from the capital.At least Paris is inland and a more natural hub. The Swiss have a multi-hubbed motorway network and a more balanced development and power balance. This could be mostly due to geography (having to build through the valleys).
4 motorways in Meath is crazy.
@Thomond Park wrote:
PDLL I hope for ur sake that you are trolling and don’t expect those views to be taken seriously outside Citywest hotel and country club or inchidoney
What do you mean ‘trolling’? Why wouldn’t these views be taken seriously. Why would the idea of connecting every major centre of population along the west coast with proper infrastructure not be taken seriously? Truly, I cannot understand why the balanced and sustainable development of the whole of the republic wouldn’t be taken seriously.
Withdrawn
PDLL-
Are you deliberately misrepresenting the positions of others, or do you just not understand them?Nowhere did I say that I was speaking for the entirety of the Archiseek membership. In fact, I specifically stated that there are “positions plural“. ‘The royal “we”‘? Please. Not only would I not be so rude as to attempt it, I wouldn’t waste my time trying to summarise the complexity and diversity of the others’ opinions. As you might recall from the Cycling thread, I stated specifically there that I speak only for myself. To refresh your memory:
I do not claim to speak for road users, less still do I claim to speak for motorists. I speak for myself, a cyclist who uses bike paths, a pedestrian who uses footpaths, and a road user who uses roads for cycling and for public transport.
You seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you automatically believes the same thing, whereas nothing could be further from the truth, but it suits your broad brush strawman debating style.
For the record:
I think there is serious merit in balanced regional development, for the definition of which see my last post.
I think that regional centres should be connected by a network of quality transport corridors.
I think these corridors should be serviced by a quality network of public transport.
I think development should be concentrated within existing areas at all scales.
I think the fast-track infrastructure is flawed and politically motivated, like so many of the decisions taken in this country by politicians that you mistakenly ascribe to brainwashed planners. But I apologise for getting back on topic. What am I thinking?Allow me to quote your statements from above, ctesiphon.
@ctesiphon wrote:
PDLL-I can’t recall anyone here ever advocating that the entire population should move to Dublin. We wouldn’t have to accommodate just you either, we’d have to find somewhere for the chip on your shoulder too
@ctesiphon wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that the opinions expressed here might be carefully considered and that they might reflect the national state of play? This might not tally with your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man
@ctesiphon wrote:
I suspect, really, that the reason why you think we’re all such thick-skulled patronising Dubs is because we disagree with you.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Next thing we know you’ll be keeping your stroller off the bike paths of the capital. (Chance would be a fine thing.)
Now I’m no expert, but that looks very much like the royal ‘we’ to me. There are two alternatives: either you, my dear man, like to talk on behalf of others, despite thefact that you point out the ‘diversity of opinion that exists’, or you are schizophrenic and are unaware that you move repeatedly between ‘I’ and ‘we’.
@TP wrote:
PDLL I hope for ur sake that you are trolling and don’t expect those views to be taken seriously outside Citywest hotel and country club or inchidoney
This one will not be withdrawn
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
