Are "environmental" transport projects a cash cow for developers/construction firms?

[Mayo1969]

Just thinking, hearing on the news now about the exorbitant cost of yet another new bike shed in University Hospital Kerry, following on on the Leinster House bike shed fiasco and the massive overruns or excessive costs of Greenway facilities around the country, are these "needed" projects somehow regarded as a soft touch for contractors in the new touchy feely attitude towards projects deemed environmentally friendly projects, especially cycling facilities? And I post this as a regular and passionate cyclist myself...

I think the Kerry Greenway is now projected to cost in excess of €70m up from an original estimate of circa €20m.

There is currently a grossly overengineered cycle path being constructed on the outskirts of Castlebar, alongside the N60 which is coming in at a price tag of over €4m, I think (or over €1m per km).

To put that in context, when that original stretch of road was widened back in 1969, round when I was born, the total cost of that "major" road project was £1m. Also for 50 odd years the residents of that area pleaded for the council to provide a footpath out that road, in the face of at least 20 deaths and many other injuries to pedestrians. The authorities and the NRA at the time resisted such appeals for years, so that eventually the locals, like on so many other local communities, got together and constructed a gravel path along the green verge.

Now the TII in their newfound awareness of safety issues for pedestrians (perhaps motivated by the fact that so many IPAS centres are situated in rural areas with pedestrians that are frequently oblivious to the dangers inherent in walking unlit or without hi viz on rural Irish roads) have bought in big time to large scale over-engineered cycle/pedestrian greenways. So TII's solution to this problem is rather than provide basic gravel footpaths in a wide variety of much needed rural areas, is to go whole hog and engineer 2m wide tar-macadammed cycleways with a price tag similar to the same km of rural road in specifically targetted localised areas.

In fact the reality is if the TII decided as a policy to ensure that all national primary and secondary roads had a hard shoulder, then this alone would hugely benefit both motorists and pedestrians and cyclist alike. But even if they didn't go that far and worked to ensure that every km of national primary and secondary road has a segregated gravel cycle/walkway along side the road (even if this meant purchasing the land alongside to provide same where there is insufficient green verge available) I believe this would be a much more beneficial and optimum expenditure of TII funds than these super sexy, over engineered facilities which invariable peter out between (or in some cases may not even begin at) urban centres in any case so that cyclist and pedestrians are ultimately forced back onto an inadequate and dangerous road verge in any case.

But I guess there are some people making loads of money out of the current TII policy so those vested interests have to be looked after.

 

[Fortune]

• Environmental conspiracy theory
• IPAS conspiracy theory
• Gravel at the side of a road is a good idea.

Nope.

 

[Mayo1969]

• Environmental conspiracy theory
• IPAS conspiracy theory
• Gravel at the side of a road is a good idea.

Nope.

Thanks for your extensive and considered reply! Just a few questions on your reasoning if you don't mind:

Do you think that misdirected expenditure and the tendency to go way over budget on cycling infrastructure projects is acceptable and that there are no industry contributory factors at play?

Do you disagree that the siting of many IPAS centres in rural locations has led to an increase in pedestrian and e-scooter/bike traffic on rural roads and that this increase in footfall has led TII to focus on areas of most increased foot traffic, where this increase has raised the safety tolerance to usage ratio above an arbitary acceptable level?

Have you ever had occasion to walk or cycle on the verge of a rural national primary or secondary road, and if so would you still prefer to run the risk of this as opposed to using an adjacent gravel path instead?

 

[Protocol]

The costs to construct everything in Ireland is way too high.

Tram lines, cycle lanes, everything.

 

[Leo]

Do you think that misdirected expenditure and the tendency to go way over budget on cycling infrastructure projects is acceptable and that there are no industry contributory factors at play?

Are you suggesting that only cycling infrastructure projects go way over budget??? How's the Children's Hospital coming along? The Metro?

To suggest there is an issue with cycle-related projects while ignoring the many greater fiascos suggest that it's not waste itself that annoys you, but cycling or cyclists.

Now the TII in their newfound awareness of safety issues for pedestrians (perhaps motivated by the fact that so many IPAS centres are situated in rural areas with pedestrians that are frequently oblivious to the dangers inherent in walking unlit or without hi viz on rural Irish roads) have bought in big time to large scale over-engineered cycle/pedestrian greenways.

Ah, so throw in some casual racism along with the anti-cycling views!

In fact the reality is if the TII decided as a policy to ensure that all national primary and secondary roads had a hard shoulder, then this alone would hugely benefit both motorists and pedestrians and cyclist alike.

While that may be true, it simply not possible to achieve. The costs of all the CPOs and property rebuilds would bankrupt the country.

 

[Mayo1969]

Are you suggesting that only cycling infrastructure projects go way over budget??? How's the Children's Hospital coming along? The Metro?

To suggest there is an issue with cycle-related projects while ignoring the many greater fiascos suggest that it's not waste itself that annoys you, but cycling or cyclists.

Not suggesting anything of the sort. But my concern (and the specific focus of this thread) was whether the newly discovered attractiveness and positive tokenism opportunities of cycling infrastructure in particular in recent years have made them a particular soft touch in terms of no expenses spared in order to project environmental credentials.

And rather than being anti cycling and cyclists, I have been a passionate cyclist and cycle commuter for over 40 years, and I'm aghast at the OTT expenditure on specific targeted and localised showcase cycling projects, when the same funds (€1m per km), expended more efficiently over a wider range of projects, would benefit way more cyclists (and pedestrians). After 30+ years of cycling infrastructure development there are still (and continue to have new projects created) whereby cycle tracks abruptly stop, forcing the cyclist back into invariably high risk traffic; No attempt at staged step down measures or a gradual reintegration. Just stop the cycle lane, invariably at a half way point between two termini. It's like those famous EU funded Italian motorways that just stopped in the middle of nowhere. This isn't a service to cyclists, it just reflects planners and engineers that are still way out of touch of the needs and practicalities of cyclists and still prioritise motor traffic over cyclist and pedestrians.

As for the allegation of casual racism; Nothing of the sort intended, but just making the observation that it seems to have taken the increased footfall caused by IPAS centres located in rural areas for authorities to sit up and take notice, which 50 years of local pedestrian fatalities and campaigns by locals failed to do. Easy throw out the racism card. If I suggested that there was a notable diversion from motorised to pedestrian and other forms of non motorised transport in the Gaza strip over the past 2 years you'd probably accuse me of anti semitism!

And as for the hard shoulder or pathways alongside national primary or secondary roads, well forget the CPO's and just start by utilising the vast grass verges that already exist on a considerable proportion of national primary and secondary roads that are invariably currently overgrown with brambles or scrub. Plenty of room there to accomodate 1000's of km's of basic pathways, without any need for CPO's (admittedly it might result in the aformentioned sudden stopping of pathways as above, but at least it would reclaim huge swathes of national routes for safe use by cyclists and pedestrians, and provide an impetus for filling the missing gaps into the future)

Yep I admit I'm hightly disgruntled at the expenditure, but not for the emotive reasons you seek to suggest or project onto me.

 

[Leo]

I have been a passionate cyclist and cycle commuter for over 40 years, and I'm aghast at the OTT expenditure on specific targeted and localised showcase cycling projects, when the same funds (€1m per km), expended more efficiently over a wider range of projects, would benefit way more cyclists (and pedestrians).

Why put pedestrians in brackets when much of the works are for pedestrian facilities? Reports suggest the community have been campaigning for this for years. The cycle paths do not make up the majority of the costs here. Why not talk about the traffic elements or the new bus facilities?

As for the allegation of casual racism; Nothing of the sort intended, but just making the observation that it seems to have taken the increased footfall caused by IPAS centres located in rural areas for authorities to sit up and take notice, which 50 years of local pedestrian fatalities and campaigns by locals failed to do. Easy throw out the racism card.

I'm just trying to understand why you would even suggest a small number of rural IPAS centres have made such a significant impact on the risk here. You mention 50 years of fatalities there, I presume you know there were no IPAS centres back then. We've experienced a 50% increase in population in those 50 years along with a 6-fold increase in the number of vehicles on the road. Yet you want to single out a few IPAS centres as being somehow significant???

What evidence are you basing the suggestion on? How many IPAS residents have been killed while walking along rural roads in recent years?

Yep I admit I'm hightly disgruntled at the expenditure, but not for the emotive reasons you seek to suggest or project onto me.

So why the concern about this particular expenditure while ignoring all others? If your concern is the waste of public money and the sums involved in such civil works, it makes little sense to fixate on a relatively small project.

 

[Leo]

And as for the hard shoulder or pathways alongside national primary or secondary roads, well forget the CPO's and just start by utilising the vast grass verges that already exist on a considerable proportion of national primary and secondary roads that are invariably currently overgrown with brambles or scrub.

Even where that is the case, where's the money coming from? Out of curiosity I looked up a small widening scheme close to my in-laws. They're spending €1M widening less than 1km around a busy junction with not a cycle lane in sight!

 

[Mayo1969]

Even where that is the case, where's the money coming from? Out of curiosity I looked up a small widening scheme close to my in-laws. They're spending €1M widening less than 1km around a busy junction with not a cycle lane in sight!

I presume that land acquisition and "re-engineering" the junction accounts for a considerable proportion of that €1m expenditure?

I think a €1m per km expenditure on highly engineered greenways would go a very long way towards the provision of a basic footpath alongside a road (even if it were a conservative 10:1 ratio we could have 10km's of footpath for every km of greenway) What a difference that would make to the outlying suburbs of many towns and non motoring commuters.

The reason I focused on the above project Mayo in particular is that it's the one I'm most familiar with and I have insufficient knowledge of the Kerry Greenway or KUH bike shelter, aside from the headline grabbing overspends. But maybe you have something in the fact that sections of the media seem to zone in on such extravagant cycling infrastructure overspends in an attempt to discredit the whole focus on that area.

I was actually somewhat peripherally involved in the original development of the Great Western Greenway from Westport to Achill. I remember shortly prior to its opening one particular councillor pontificating about what a waste of money it was (unfortunately I've never been able to find evidence of his utterance since). When it to be proved to be such a huge success, loads of people (including the councillors) jumped on the bandwagon and other local authorities all over the country started falling over themselves to replicate its success, so that we've had the scenario of greenways being mooted, designated and driven (excuse the pun!) through in totally inappropriate places and in the face of total lack of consideration for local concerns. Greenway development has become a considerable source of attracting funds for LA's and a way of creating and sustaining specific teams for that purpose (I won't even get into the squandering and misappropriation of subsequent greenway funding by Mayo co co, as highlighted by Primetime). The costs of greenway developments seem to have ballooned (irrespective of accepted construction inflation) in tandem with their popularity (partly I expect down to the move to CPO's instead of positive engagement with landowners)

Back to your other points, yes that community campaigned for years for safer facilities for pedestrians, including speed limits and traffic calming and were largely ignored or fobbed off and then seemingly out of nowhere comes this extravagant project with a spend of over €4m which has caused a whole lot of (albeit temporary) disruption and has resulted in narrower roadways. Of all the locals that I've spoken to, very few of them wanted or envisigoned a project of this scale - the simple request by most people was for an adequate footpath. Admittedly it will be a great facility when completed and hopefully its width and scope will provide for ample segregation of pedestrians and cyclists/e-scooter users (otherwise we may have a new scenario of pedestrians being injured by bikes or e-scooters rather than cars!) . I won't even reengage with the IPAS debate. I take your points and I apologise if I caused offence or appeared racist. That wasnt my intention.

 

[Leo]

I presume that land acquisition and "re-engineering" the junction accounts for a considerable proportion of that €1m expenditure?

It's typical of what would be required across most of the country. Realignment of the drainage works, reinstatement of walls / fences, etc. The junction itself is just a turn into a factory, the main work is wideining a few hundred meters of roadway to allow a turning lane so that passing traffic isn't held up by trucks turning right.

I won't even reengage with the IPAS debate. I take your points and I apologise if I caused offence or appeared racist. That wasnt my intention.

Raising them as a cause of systematic issues is the modus operandi of right-wing agitators. There is zero correlation with the location of rural IPAS centres and pedestrian fatalities here. Casually throwing out the suggestion without evidence isn't helpful.

I was actually somewhat peripherally involved in the original development of the Great Western Greenway from Westport to Achill.

Are you aware that the economic assessment of that scheme showed it paid for itself within 6 years. It brought almost €40M into the local economy in 2016 alone, fully supporting 200 direct and 710 indirect jobs.