Is the alternative coalition suitable for our long term national transport strategy?

DerekP11 · 26-05-2007 11:05pm

Irish and Proud wrote:

Going by the above, you may not be politically affiliated to any party, but you certainly don’t come across to me as impartial in your viewpoints - I guess you are ABFF! :eek: :rolleyes:

I maybe wrong about trains reaching 125mph, but I can assure you that the Northern Commuter Line which I regularly travel has improved vastly in the lifetime of the outgoing government - my sister travels on it everyday from Balbriggan (at rush hour) and says it's very busy, but OK. She also says that it’s rarely more than two minutes late - so there you go mate! I have travelled the LUAS several times and it's excellent - pity they didn't join up the two lines though, but what you conveniently omit is the fact that they joined the Red Line up to the DART at Connolly (not in the original plans), and will join the Green Line to both the Red Line and Maynooth Line. I hear that the Maynooth Line itself is way over capacity, but the Docklands station was built to allow more train schedules - these are being introduced in phases!

Finally, the tone of your reaction to me could only be described as extreme arrogance. If you have to rubbish and ridicule people with viewpoints contrary to yours, then that in itself signals a major flaw in your argument! People who are confident in themselves see no need to put others down - not that I’d be a big enough fool to let you get to me!!!

That is all!

You talk like a politician and I assume you think like a politician, therefore Im probably wasting my time with you. So I say you're planning on using this response as a means to claim that because Ive reacted in this fashion, Im losing the argument. (very old school and very boring) Well, you're wrong. Im not arrogant nor am I losing any argument. Im knowledgable on rail matters. You on the other hand, have no clue whatsoever. (more arrogance???) Everything you have said on this thread is nothing more than political baloney. I don't have to be arrogant to see and state that fact. Your understanding of rail transport in this country is either based on politics or a very very simplistic viewpoint. Therefore you are either a FF prophet or just plain ignorant.

So Irish and Proud? Which one is it? Afterall you only joined this forum in the run up to election day, which means you probably missed years of debate on various rail horror stories that the last FF lead Government precided over.

Irish and Proud · 26-05-2007 11:19pm

dowlingm wrote:

Niall1234 - I doubt there is anyone on this board who thinks it's the sole solution - but rail is way too little of the solution as it stands. Your reference to urban/rural ratios seems to me to be reminiscent of a census in the 1980s rather than the 2006 census, especially since Ireland is no longer urban or rural - suburban is a huge, new part of Irish demography.

The main problem with railways regarding commuting is the last mile. In short, railways are very efficient, but because of their linear remit, they are not very flexible compared to road transport (ie. I would have to walk or cycle at least 3 miles to get to my nearest station). However, if the Greens do get into government with FF, we might see more connecting buses from rural towns to trains in several areas - this would make rail travel a lot more viable for many people (ie. if my nearest village/small town had a feeder bus, I'd only have to walk approximately one mile each way). Such services would also reduce the need for local car travel and thereby large car parks at train stations - this would also help in cutting fuel consumption.

Irish and Proud · 27-05-2007 12:16am

DerekP11 wrote:

You talk like a politician and I assume you think like a politician, therefore Im probably wasting my time with you. So I say you're planning on using this response as a means to claim that because Ive reacted in this fashion, Im losing the argument. (very old school and very boring) Well, you're wrong. Im not arrogant nor am I losing any argument. Im knowledgable on rail matters. You on the other hand, have no clue whatsoever. (more arrogance???) Everything you have said on this thread is nothing more than political baloney. I don't have to be arrogant to see and state that fact. Your understanding of rail transport in this country is either based on politics or a very very simplistic viewpoint. Therefore you are either a FF prophet or just plain ignorant.

So Irish and Proud? Which one is it? Afterall you only joined this forum in the run up to election day, which means you probably missed years of debate on various rail horror stories that the last FF lead Government precided over.

I do come from a FF background, but kept an open mind regarding other parties up to a couple of years ago. Since then, it has become apparent that there's a concentrated anti FF effort which I think is an insult to Irish democracy. FG, Lab and others have spent their time in opposition heckling the government instead of what they're supposed to do - trying to get their policies implemented. This means urging the implementation of policies which are common with those of the government, while questioning ones that differ and putting forward an alternative. This didn't happen (I‘ve watched some Dail sessions on RTE) - instead the government was slated and heckled at every opportunity, while making mountains out of molehills regarding any controversy. Need I say more??? :rolleyes:

The behaviour described above has hardened my FF stance to the point where I’m about to join the party - I’m so disgusted at the level of recent FF bashing, but now the people from all walks who were involved (including those in media, forums etc) have been given a clear message by the people of this country.

Election 2007:
41.6% of first preference votes went to FF (same as 2002)
FF are on course to win 78 seats and the FG/Lab pact won’t reach that number
According to the exit poll, 53% of the people prefer Bertie Ahern over Enda Kenny
According to the same poll, well over 50% would like some form of coalition involving FF

Well done ABFF! :rolleyes:

BTW, I've been reading this forum for quite some time, but decided the join it when the level of government bashing became more apparent - I just wanted to level things up a bit - some people were just a total disgrace! :mad:

That is all.

DerekP11 · 27-05-2007 12:51am

You are trully beyond help and you don't commute by rail on a regular basis.

That is all, thank you and goodnight. You may have the last word and let it stand as a reminder to all rail commuters, that politicos really don't care above and beyond the "spin".

Irish and Proud, you are PJ Mara in disguise. Well done.

27-05-2007 12:57am

Irish and Proud wrote:

OK, you've got some good points there, but it's not an Irish solution to an Irish problem, but an English solution to an Irish problem. You have heard that many new motorway type roads in England have been simply called dual carriageways, because the word 'motorway' is virtually taboo over there!

I don't understand what you mean by an English solution??,
UK Dual carriageway specs are different to those of motorway -

no hard shoulders
same speed limit as motorway
non grade separated junctions
traffic light controlled junctions
roundabouts
farm/field access from carrageway
speed cameras every few miles

Also many recent new roads in the UK are creating new routes (A14 in Northants for example) rather than replacing an existing route (new N6 for example).

dermo88 · 27-05-2007 1:37am

I judged Fine Gael on their past record, based on their performance in both 1982-1987 and 1994-1997. There was very little investment in the first instance, and in the second some catchup. However, there was a nasty element of abuse of CIE by their then Transport Minister, Michael Lowry, which I did not forget, and pointed out.

In the 1997-2007 period, Transport played catchup. Fianna Fail held the transport portfolio, and while investment has been unprecedented in all angles of transport, it is still a case of playing "catchup".

Lets look at the alternatives that the opposition had.

Olivia Mitchell would have gotten the transport portfolio under Fine Gael.

Who gets Transport this time. The Greens? Fianna Fail?

Because of our planning process, our tendering process and the beertent at the Galway races, its a poisoned chalice portfolio. Its almost as bad as Health .

Will the Interconnector go ahead, on time, on budget?
Will Navan go ahead?
Will the spin end?
Will the messing around end?

We'll get the spin and messing around. Eventually we will get there, but it will be a case of 5 years late, overbudget, and incomplete.

It will be better than nothing, but thats not what we should be aspiring to in Ireland. Watch out for the economic toilet mopping operation as the property market goes down, and a huge source of existing revenue plummets.

Under Olivia Mitchell, the rail network would be screwed. Meanwhile, lots of new rolling stock. Its good, but its not good enough.

Marks for the previous Fianna Fail administration, 55% C3.

Marks given for:

OnTrack2000
Mini CTC almost completed on all radial routes
New Railcar fleet, CAF stock, Rotem DMU's
Luas Green and Red Line (Not good enough)
Ennis line improved.

Marks deducted for:

No Interconnector
Green and Red line NOT linked up, and Ballymun Luas NOT done, as proposed under the original plan.
No Navan
Midleton late
CTC project messed up.
Metro North and Metro West.
Phoenix Park Tunnel.
Ticketting Fiasco.

The list goes on.

Who gets marks. For all her faults, Mary O'Rourke gets a high mark, and goes in as the best transport Minister for rail in my lifetime, and scores 70% for saving the Intercity rail network, but gets marks deducted for fudging around with Luas. Seamus Brennan gets a fail. Martin Cullen gets a fail, and I'd rather someone new took over, who can act on their word instead of talk. I'm trying to be kind to them. However, because of the time lag of transport related projects, the groundwork laid in one term goes forward to the next one. Therefore, its not a rewarding portfolio such as Finance, or Justice, where the measures taken are relatively instantaneous.

Going back further again, Jim Mitchell RIP gets a 55% mark for creating Iarnrod Eireann, but gets marks deducted for cutting investment, but that has to be looked at in view of the dire fiscal climate of the time.

Albert Reynolds gets a decent mark for forcing CIE to introduce Maynooth commuter.

This term, action, and no more poxy lines on maps. But lets hope that the groundwork and plans have been prepared and are ready to be implemented quickly in the next 5 years. But don't hold your breath. We'll come back in 2012 and we will still be disillusioned.

Feel free to disagree.

bk · 27-05-2007 12:26pm

What I think many people forget is that 5 years ago we were all complaining about road projects coming in very late and way over budget.

Yet lessons have been learned and problems fixed and at an incredible pace, we have the biggest road building project in Irelands history, with roads coming in well under schedule and under budget.

Of course many people don't want to give FF any praise for that, I do.

What I'm hoping is that the RPA and CIE can learn these lessons from the NRA and that future rail projects will come in on time and on budget.

Actually I think CIE have, their projects seem to quietly come in on time and budget (DART station lengthening, Dock land station, new Cork intercity trains and timetables), but my fear about CIE is that they seem to shy away from the bigger projects like higher speeds to Cork and in particular the interconnector. Unlike the RPA with Metro, CIE they have done an awful job at promoting the interconnector, most people haven't even heard of it and that puts in in danger of being delayed or canceled if there are cut backs.

The RPA definitely need to learn from the NRA. The first two Luas lines were late and over budget, but I'll give them some slack, we haven't built new rail infrastructure since the DART, so it was all new for them, hopefully they have learned their lessons and the new Luas and Metro projects will be much more efficient.

Victor · 27-05-2007 1:04pm

bk wrote:

Yet lessons have been learned and problems fixed and at an incredible pace, we have the biggest road building project in Irelands history, with roads coming in well under schedule and under budget.

Instead of complete by 2006 and costing 5-6 billion, it will be 2011 and be perhaps 15 billion - under schedule and under budget? :boggles:

Metrobest · 27-05-2007 1:45pm

Victor wrote:

Instead of complete by 2006 and costing 5-6 billion, it will be 2011 and be perhaps 15 billion - under schedule and under budget? :boggles:

The thing is, the original figures weren't plausible. I think we're now getting a more realistic delivery of the roads in terms of budgets and construction times.

Victor · 27-05-2007 2:05pm

Metrobest wrote:

The thing is, the original figures weren't plausible.

Indeed, but why were implausible figures agreed to and promised? Why didn't heads roll?

bk · 27-05-2007 3:46pm

As Metrobest said, the original figures were bs. What is happening now is far more realistic and on target. I'm hoping that the same lessons can be learned in the big rail projects coming up.

Irish and Proud · 27-05-2007 4:43pm

Deleted User wrote:

I don't understand what you mean by an English solution??,
UK Dual carriageway specs are different to those of motorway -
no hard shoulders

same speed limit as motorway

non grade separated junctions

traffic light controlled junctions

roundabouts

farm/field access from carrageway

speed cameras every few miles

Also many recent new roads in the UK are creating new routes (A14 in Northants for example) rather than replacing an existing route (new N6 for example).

You're quite right there mate, but what I really mean is that the English authorities tend to favour dual carriageways with free-flow conditions similar to motorways (ie. A42, A34, parts of A55 etc), which in turn, have almost the same environmental effect as their counterparts. However, these roads can be referred to as expressways (ie. A55 North Wales Expressway - mostly grade separated). Once such a road isn't a called a motorway, the authorities have far less trouble getting them built for the most part. Although HQDCs in Ireland are built to motorway spec, they're not so called, possibly for reasons similar to those in England - so by way of terminology, it's probably an English solution to an Irish problem.

I'll leave it there.

Irish and Proud · 27-05-2007 5:00pm

Victor wrote:

Instead of complete by 2006 and costing 5-6 billion, it will be 2011 and be perhaps 15 billion - under schedule and under budget? :boggles:

So, the government is completely responsible for the inflated costs?

Many walks of life are also culpable for the above - farmers raising their land prices, construction wage, safety (well that’s not such a bad thing!) and material costs rising, more litigation by property owners etc. With the Celtic Tiger has come more money, with more money has come more greed. If we, the people, shouldn't have to take responsibility, what else can you expect - communism? :eek:

As for timing, the blame also lies between both the government and the people - it's simple mate, if we want a better country, then we all have to take more responsibility and do more of what’s in the national interest - now I know you do something, but many people aren't. If in doubt, just look at the litter on our streets, the binge drinking and drug culture - clear evidence of apathy.

I'll leave it there.

27-05-2007 8:25pm

Irish and Proud wrote:

You're quite right there mate, but what I really mean is that the English authorities tend to favour dual carriageways with free-flow conditions similar to motorways (ie. A42, A34, parts of A55 etc), which in turn, have almost the same environmental effect as their counterparts. However, these roads can be referred to as expressways (ie. A55 North Wales Expressway - mostly grade separated). Once such a road isn't a called a motorway, the authorities have far less trouble getting them built for the most part. Although HQDCs in Ireland are built to motorway spec, they're not so called, possibly for reasons similar to those in England - so by way of terminology, it's probably an English solution to an Irish problem.

I'll leave it there.

Yes, an expressway (UK) is somewhere between a traditional dual carriagway and a motorway in specification, closer to motorway than dual carriageway, imho. (it's a motorway without a hard shoulder, emergency phones & restrictions to certain types of driver)

In the UK, Motorways are built by central government as part of national transport policy, as such they generaly don't benefit the locals, long distance traffic only traffic passing via the area. Most dual carriageways connect local towns together and are seen as more beneficial to the local population.

If this is an "English solution to an Irish problem" what's the Irish solution??

Irish and Proud · 27-05-2007 10:54pm

Deleted User wrote:

Yes, an expressway (UK) is somewhere between a traditional dual carriagway and a motorway in specification, closer to motorway than dual carriageway, imho. (it's a motorway without a hard shoulder, emergency phones & restrictions to certain types of driver)

In the UK, Motorways are built by central government as part of national transport policy, as such they generaly don't benefit the locals, long distance traffic only traffic passing via the area. Most dual carriageways connect local towns together and are seen as more beneficial to the local population.

If this is an "English solution to an Irish problem" what's the Irish solution??

In the 70's and 80's, the ‘Irish Solution’ (old saying I'm referring to!) would have been to 'fix' the initial problem of poor quality inter-urban roads by piecemeal - in other words, if any town along a major route became a bottleneck, the traditional solution by past governments would be to fund a short term cheap-fix several years later - like a mishmash of alternative streets joined up with short stretches of new road - ie. N9 through Carlow (now being properly by-passed), N6 through Ballinasloe (also being properly by-passed), former N18 through Ennis, former N4 through south Sligo etc.

Even when we had some money in the early to mid 1990's to build motorways, people would object and only some stretches would be built, because the political will wasn't there to get the full job done - ie. only parts of the M7 were built by 2000. The current government is in effect using the English solution of terminology by building long stretches of HQDC thereby avoiding the taboo M word while getting the job done - whether this is deliberate or not, I don't know!

I'll leave it there.

27-05-2007 11:15pm

Irish and Proud wrote:

In the 70's and 80's, the ‘Irish Solution’ (old saying I'm referring to!) would have been to 'fix' the initial problem of poor quality inter-urban roads by piecemeal - in other words, if any town along a major route became a bottleneck, the traditional solution by past governments would be to fund a short term cheap-fix several years later - like a mishmash of alternative streets joined up with short stretches of new road - ie. N9 through Carlow (now being properly by-passed), N6 through Ballinasloe (also being properly by-passed), former N18 through Ennis, former N4 through south Sligo etc.

Even when we had some money in the early to mid 1990's to build motorways, people would object and only some stretches would be built, because the political will wasn't there to get the full job done - ie. only parts of the M7 were built by 2000. The current government is in effect using the English solution of terminology by building long stretches of HQDC thereby avoiding the taboo M word while getting the job done - whether this is deliberate or not, I don't know!

I'll leave it there.

I understand you now, Motorways are often percieved as being not a benefit to the people who live next to them, but a HQDC is OK :rolleyes:

The UK solution in the 60's & 70's to town centre bottlenecks was generally to make most of the side streets surrounding the centre oneway, thus making the town into a big roundabout, try finding a town without one - except Milton Keynes.

Irish and Proud · 27-05-2007 11:36pm

Deleted User wrote:

I understand you now, Motorways are often percieved as being not a benefit to the people who live next to them, but a HQDC is OK :rolleyes:

In England, the terminology tactic is not actually targeted at local residents, but at national protest groups such as those involved in the M3 Tyford Downs and A34 Newbury By-pass confrontations. With this in mind, it is said that terminology does make quite a difference because many of the protesters involved in such confrontations are extremely ignorant.

In Ireland, we were exposed to non-local protests, although to a lesser extent - ie. M1 Broadmeadow Estuary, N11 Glen of the Downs, N4 Sligo Relief Road, and R118 Church Road widening in Dun Laoghaire etc. This may have prompted the government to build HQDCs instead of motorways - but I don't know.

I'll leave it there.

Irish and Proud · 28-05-2007 12:16am

dermo88 wrote:

In the 1997-2007 period, Transport played catchup. Fianna Fail held the transport portfolio, and while investment has been unprecedented in all angles of transport, it is still a case of playing "catchup".

That's a very fair point - many public transport services remain wholly inadequate today, but the outgoing government had started from a very low base in 1997 - ie. we now have LUAS, but it's bursting at the seams in rush hour - yet the LUAS was a massive undertaking which at the same time is yielding many economic and social benefits. The same would apply to commuter rail.

dermo88 wrote:

Watch out for the economic toilet mopping operation as the property market goes down, and a huge source of existing revenue plummets.

This is why we must get the inter-urban motorways done! We need to create an economic spin in order to offset the property slump. We also need to increase our competitiveness as a nation.

dermo88 wrote:

Marks for the previous Fianna Fail administration, 55% C3.

I think that's fair and balanced - I would deduct marks for lack of proper urban planning causing our transport chaos (-40%) and project delays etc (-15%). So yes, 55% is about right!

dermo88 wrote:

Seamus Brennan gets a fail..

Disagree - the man didn't get enough of a chance. On the roads front, he performed extremely well - he was a major force behind the ‘Design and Build’ regime which included fixed price contracts. He came across as a 'don't bulls*** me' person and I'd say CIE was next on his hit list - he clearly wanted to give the taxpayer value for money - he stood up to people which is something that has to be admired!

dermo88 wrote:

Albert Reynolds gets a decent mark for forcing CIE to introduce Maynooth commuter.

Regarding the above, fair play to him!

, but he performed very poorly on the roads front when he led two governments from 1991 to 1994.

dermo88 wrote:

This term, action, and no more poxy lines on maps. But lets hope that the groundwork and plans have been prepared and are ready to be implemented quickly in the next 5 years. But don't hold your breath. We'll come back in 2012 and we will still be disillusioned.

As far as the inter-urbans are concerned, they'll most likely be done.

If the Greens get into power, they'll want the inter-connector built.

Also, most LUAS lines should be done

, especially with the Greens, although I don't know about the metro. We do have more challenging times ahead regarding the economy.

I'll leave it there!

D'Peoples Voice · 28-05-2007 1:06pm

Victor wrote:

Instead of complete by 2006 and costing 5-6 billion, it will be 2011 and be perhaps 15 billion - under schedule and under budget? :boggles:

victor,
I originally thought this too, but I must admit that was because I believed the spin coming out of the CIF. However, after learning that there is a competitive[\b] tendering process advertised across the whole EU, it meant that the Government got the best deal possible, or should do at least:o .

Anyway only last week the CIF said they were going to go to the European court to 'find against' Ireland in the validity of this tendering process, becuase it meant that developers had to take on all the risks of delays. This they felt was leading to Irish companies losing out to foreign companies. Now, if as you say, these contracts were being agreed at twice the price, then do you not agree that there would be some buffer zone for the companies to cover any possible fines for delays.:rolleyes:

aboitiz · 18-06-2007 6:54pm

Metrobest wrote:

Any stark statistics to prove that, or just another slice of empty rhetoric from you?

I can only speak about the city bus lines in Spain and I can tell you that it's "vox populi" that since the eighties some public lines that were once in private hands have improved dramatically their conditions. Good investment and good public management (rare in Spain before). On the other hand the private and only one bus service in the province of Malaga, Portillo SL, is an absolute disaster as far as I know and many of you probably know from your holiday time.

It maybe fails "private competitivity" or maybe public management can be good sometimes.

Regards.

Metrobest · 19-06-2007 10:54am

aboitiz wrote:

I can only speak about the city bus lines in Spain and I can tell you that it's "vox populi" that since the eighties some public lines that were once in private hands have improved dramatically their conditions. Good investment and good public management (rare in Spain before). On the other hand the private and only one bus service in the province of Malaga, Portillo SL, is an absolute disaster as far as I know and many of you probably know from your holiday time.

It maybe fails "private competitivity" or maybe public management can be good sometimes.

Regards.

I don´t know about the bus services in Andalucia so I can´t comment on the quality of public Vs private services in that relatively poor region, but I do know that Barcelona has a number or private bus operators which are fully integrated into the city transport system. They do the job for lower levels of subsidy than the public operators and that is why they are there - in a city dominated by socialists and left wing ideologies.

Even the socialist dogs on the street know that competition works and that private companies do the job better than inefficient state monopolies like CIE.

In the Irish context, where CIE does face competition, such as the inter-city bus routes to Belfast and Galway, it is evident that competition is good for everyone as the services are more frequent, cheaper and faster. It is not hard to make the leap of faith to believe that bus services in Dublin will benefit similarly, like Barcelona, through the introduction of private bus operators into an integrated system.

aboitiz · 19-06-2007 4:01pm

Malaga and its Costa del Sol are not precisely “poor areas”.

Indeed Barcelona Public Transport is integrated too by some private companies serving some lines as the Airport and other tourist lines but keeping most on the public management. I can't tell you the level of subsidy but Catalans are known by their finance administration skills so therefore they probably endeavour to have it low. With regards to the ideology, I can't tell you if it's necessary to be left or right to serve with proper criteria the needs of population. I think that is an old debate overcome by some other circumstances and goals as serving well your electorate for the benefit of people and for perpetuating yourself in power.

Is always clean competition? Are private companies always more efficient? I used in my message the adverb “sometimes”. I spoke about the places that I know like Malaga or my own country, the Basque Country where the people level of satisfaction about the Public Transport run by Public Management (bus, Metro, train...) is quite high. Obviously these places are very few to get final conclusions.

You know better than me CIE, their current capacity to face competition and the good performance of an integrated system. I had the pleasure of staying in Ireland for a long time and checking that Public Transport needed urgent measures for its improvement. I hope that all the big investment made in the last years it’s accompanied by a better service in all senses through competition or not.

dermo88 · 19-06-2007 4:53pm

Some countries are better than others. Privatisation does not always work, nor does Nationalisation.

In the British experience, if there is local authority subsidies, regulation and supervision, such as in West Midlands country, then you have an acceptable level of service. Its surprisingly good value for money.

By contrast, Bristol, or anything owned or operated by First Group leaves a lot to be desired. First Group are the herpes of British public transport.

Dublin Bus is inadequate, but before we judge them, lets look at their farebox/cost ratio. Not only is it one of the lowest in Europe, its one of the lowest in the world. This is the legacy of the hard times of the 1980's, when it was forced to be efficient.

No matter what form it takes, the subsidy will need to increase, fares reduced to truly reflect the quality of the service delivered.

markpb · 19-06-2007 5:00pm

dermo88 wrote:

Dublin Bus is inadequate, but before we judge them, lets look at their farebox/cost ratio. Not only is it one of the lowest in Europe, its one of the lowest in the world. This is the legacy of the hard times of the 1980's, when it was forced to be efficient.

The environment in which DB operates is just as much a problem as the subsidies. New or modified routes have to go through the seemingly anti-DB bureaucrats in dept. of transport, new (or extra) buses have to be approved by the minister for transport, road closures happen without DB being consulted or even informed and the level of funding and work put into bus priority measures by the city is laughable.

Metrobest · 20-06-2007 1:11pm

aboitiz wrote:

Malaga and its Costa del Sol are not precisely “poor areas”.

Indeed Barcelona Public Transport is integrated too by some private companies serving some lines as the Airport and other tourist lines but keeping most on the public management. I can't tell you the level of subsidy but Catalans are known by their finance administration skills so therefore they probably endeavour to have it low. With regards to the ideology, I can't tell you if it's necessary to be left or right to serve with proper criteria the needs of population. I think that is an old debate overcome by some other circumstances and goals as serving well your electorate for the benefit of people and for perpetuating yourself in power.

Is always clean competition? Are private companies always more efficient? I used in my message the adverb “sometimes”. I spoke about the places that I know like Malaga or my own country, the Basque Country where the people level of satisfaction about the Public Transport run by Public Management (bus, Metro, train...) is quite high. Obviously these places are very few to get final conclusions.

You know better than me CIE, their current capacity to face competition and the good performance of an integrated system. I had the pleasure of staying in Ireland for a long time and checking that Public Transport needed urgent measures for its improvement. I hope that all the big investment made in the last years it’s accompanied by a better service in all senses through competition or not.

Being from the beautiful Basque country you´ll no doubt be familiar with the transformation of Bilbao and its wonderful modern new metro. That´s the kind of thing we need in Dublin but, Aboitiz, if like me you grew up in Ireland and endured years of terrible CIE service, you might feel the same way as I do: that CIE has a culture that cannot adapt to transport in the modern age.

Luas aside, I have yet to hear from a visitor or temporary resident in Ireland who looks at Dublin´s public transport system and thinks that they would like a similar system in their home city. Is that because CIE gets a ´small´ subsidy or is it because CIE is so badly managed? I choose the latter explanation.

The propensity to deliver poor service may not be as strong in other nationalised bus operators in EU cities, but I do have a gut belief that we can´t get better services in Dublin just by pouring more subsidies into the begging bowl of Dublin Bus.

Is the alternative coalition suitable for our long term national transport strategy?

Comments