Lord Glentoran Registered User
#16

coylemj said:
No, just someone with a balanced viewpoint and who doesn't favour one form of transport over another.

Do you have a source you'd like to quote for the numbers in the graphic above? I'm curious as to how they got a figure of £54 billion as the 'cost' of air pollution caused by road transport. Congestion ..... £20 billion? Sure why not - it's a nice round number. Trump couldn't do better.


Trump advocating public transport is about as likely as a fish getting out of the sea Lough next to me and hopping up on a bicycle. I haven’t done a Due Dilligence on those figures. I might in a few years when I don’t have to do my present job and can get a commission to do so. It is though an interesting perspective on the received wisdom here that roads and private cars are cost free.

2 people have thanked this post
coylemj Registered User
#17

Lord Glentoran said:
Trump advocating public transport is about as likely as a fish getting out of the sea Lough next to me and hopping up on a bicycle.


I was alluding to Trump's propensity for picking figures out of the air. Which you did with that graphic.

Lord Glentoran said:
I haven’t done a Due Dilligence on those figures. I might in a few years when I don’t have to do my present job and can get a commission to do so. It is though an interesting perspective on the received wisdom here that roads and private cars are cost free.


So you splash up a heap of numbers to expose a 'fallacy', yet you're not prepared to say where the numbers came from? That's hardly surprising considering you plucked the graphic from the source, dumped it onto an image sharing website and that's the link you posted, thereby ensuring that we can't see where it came from.

Due diligence me arse.

1 person has thanked this post
gozunda Registered User
#18

coylemj said:
No, just someone with a balanced viewpoint and who doesn't favour one form of transport over another.

Do you have a source you'd like to quote for the numbers in the graphic above? I'm curious as to how they got a figure of £54 billion as the 'cost' of air pollution caused by road transport. Congestion ..... £20 billion? Sure why not - it's a nice round number. Trump couldn't do better.


Not you then?

coylem
With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.
If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.

2 people have thanked this post
coylemj Registered User
#19

gozunda said:
Not you then?


Your viewpoint is not compromised by stating facts. No railway line in this country is commercially viable in that it cannot make a profit. Even the biggest rail zealot has to agree that that is true.

Which does not mean that I want subventions reduced or lines closed, I'm all for rail travel. But I also want decisions made based on realistic projections and not fiction.

gozunda Registered User
#20

coylemj said:
Your viewpoint is not compromised by stating facts. No railway line in this country is commercially viable in that it cannot make a profit. Even the biggest rail zealot has to agree that that is true.

Which does not mean that I want subventions reduced or lines closed, I'm all for rail travel. But I also want decisions made based on realistic projections and not fiction.


Roads and motorways are also subvented and subsidised - or is that an inconvient truth?

It's just that from your comments you don't appear to have any balanced viewpoint but favour one form of transport over the other ...

2 people have thanked this post
Lord Glentoran Registered User
#21

coylemj said:
I was alluding to Trump's propensity for picking figures out of the air. Which you did with that graphic.


So you splash up a heap of numbers to expose a 'fallacy', yet you're not prepared to say where the numbers came from? That's hardly surprising considering you plucked the graphic from the source, dumped it onto an image sharing website and that's the link you posted, thereby ensuring that we can't see where it came from.

Due diligence me arse.


Dearie me. I would have given you links but Google is your friend. It isn’t exactly hidden.

2 people have thanked this post
end of the road Registered User
#22

Del2005 said:
Where's the comparison between a railway line running on subsidies and FTP users only? Every taxpayer in the country is paying for the railway line that no one uses. The money wasted on the WRC could have improved public transport for thousands if invested in our cities, but instead we pay for a line no one uses if they have to pay with their own money.


except they are using it. and nobody has been able to say if and who are or aren't either fair paying or ftp holding passengers. if you are talking about the building costs, then that might have brought a bit of improvement elsewhere but i'd imagine not very much. if you are refering to the running cost, then it might have got you the cost of pelletstown.

coylemj Registered User
#23

gozunda said:
Roads and motorways are also subvented and subsidised - or is that an inconvient truth?


Did I ever hint or suggest that they were not? No, but go ahead and throw mud if it helps you convince yourself that I'm biased against railways.

gozunda said:

It's just that from your comments you don't appear to have either a balanced viewpoint but favour one form of transport over the other ...


And you do have a balance viewpoint? When, without the slightest hint of irony, you quote a report commissioned by a public transport lobby as if it's hard evidence for your case, whatever it is.

gozunda Registered User
#24

coylemj said:
Did I ever hint or suggest that they were not? No, but go ahead and throw mud if it helps you convince yourself that I'm biased against railways.
And you do have a balance viewpoint? When, without the slightest hint of irony, you quote a report commissioned by a public transport lobby as if it's hard evidence for your case, whatever it is.


I strongly disagree. Your previous post used the subvention of railways as a negative over and above road based transport - which recieved none of the same criticism. Perhaps if you are really interested in balance you could provide a source that argues against the points laid out in the linked rail report. No? I guess that's where the lack of balance comes in ....

1 person has thanked this post
coylemj Registered User
#25

gozunda said:
I strongly disagree. Your previous post used the subvention of railways as a negative over and above road based transport ...


What you are engaged in now is a classic case of 'whataboutery' which proves that you have run out of material and are now simply making stuff up.

Goodbye.

gozunda Registered User
#26

coylemj said:
What you are engaged in now is a classic case of 'whataboutery' which proves that you have run out of material and are now simply making stuff up.

Goodbye.


Well it would be good if you could at least engage in the discussion. But no worries. Take care ...

1 person has thanked this post
Del.Monte Registered User
#27

Del2005 said:
Where's the comparison between a railway line running on subsidies and FTP users only? Every taxpayer in the country is paying for the railway line that no one uses. The money wasted on the WRC could have improved public transport for thousands if invested in our cities, but instead we pay for a line no one uses if they have to pay with their own money.


Just repeating the same old claptrap often enough does not make it true. The WRC carried more than 350,000 passengers last year - that's a lot of FTP users and up 57% on 2011 figures. I'll put the official piece from the Irish Times here tomorrow.

Also, extending the route only as far as Tuam rather than Claremorris will be an expensive mistake in much the same way as only reopening Cobh Jn. to Midleton instead of the whole route to Youghal.

1 person has thanked this post
Del2005 Registered User
#28

Del.Monte said:
Just repeating the same old claptrap often enough does not make it true. The WRC carried more than 350,000 passengers last year - that's a lot of FTP users and up 57% on 2011 figures. I'll put the official piece from the Irish Times here tomorrow.

Also, extending the route only as far as Tuam rather than Claremorris will be an expensive mistake in much the same way as only reopening Cobh Jn. to Midleton instead of the whole route to Youghal.


One section that serves two major urban areas carried 350k, the rest carried 150k.

The whole line is an expensive mistake and throwing more money at it will be a bigger mistake. If the money wasted on it had been spend in Galway, Cork or any of our cities it would have provided a much better service to the public.

1 person has thanked this post
Bray Head Registered User
#29

coylemj said:

Your viewpoint is not compromised by stating facts.  No railway line in this country is commercially viable in that it cannot make a profit. Even the biggest rail zealot has to agree that that is true.


But some subsidies are orders of magnitude greater than others. Each DART journey requires a subsidy of about €1 per passenger. It is something like €400 on Limerick to Ballybrophy.

I reckon you could make the DART break even if you priced the hell out of passengers and closed the Howth branch.


I am not saying this should be done. It's just that saying "all rail lines make losses" hides a multitude.

5 people have thanked this post
dermo888 Registered User
#30

'It is something like €400 on Limerick to Ballybrophy'
Thats mainly due to the financial structuring of the accounts. Its a line that has high fixed costs. If they improved the service and the frequency and the speeds, that would rapidly DROP. Besides, any kind of rail based subsidy should be calculated on the lowest common denominator which is per passenger kilometre, thats the global rail accounting metric.

1 person has thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!