Is P11 anti public transport

maladroit · 13-08-2006 8:06am #1

Interesting to note that P11 is anti-public transport.

If anyone is guilty of "biased" reporting here it is you.

As if you don't know perfectly well that all these issues will come up for consideration when the railway order is under consideration.

Maladroit.

SeanW · 13-08-2006 8:51am

Umm ... Platform 11 isn't against public transport, it's against wasting money on railway projects that won't do what railways are supposed to do - serve lots and lots of people and/or goods.

Railways are an effective tool for large movements. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't work for every crackpot priest demanding that a tramway through the middle of nowhere be reinstated because, just because, with a vague reference to "social justice" or some whacko on Irish Railway News who wants to get the line going 'because I'd love to see GM loco number 124 hauling liners over the Swinford viaduct' or whatever.

Passenger railways DO work when they can move large numbers of people over considerable distances at speed and in comfort.

None of this applies to the Western Rail 'Corridor'. Because the alignment is a cheapo pile of junk that never was much good in the firstplace and the area it serves is usually low density development and one-off housing blight. P11 opposes the Northern section of the WRC because it's fundamentally stupid.

You saying P11 is anti-public transport is like someone saying the Greens were anti-environment if they opposed wasting a huge amount of money on a massive solar power plant in Siberia or a wind farm underground or something incredibly stupid like that.

popebenny16 · 14-08-2006 12:32am

Interesting to note that P11 is anti-public transport

Could you please take an hour or so to have a look at our website, do a cut and paste job and come back here with some evidence to back that up?

That would be nice.

Thanks.

Ham'nd'egger · 14-08-2006 9:33pm

popebenny16 wrote:

Could you please take an hour or so to have a look at our website, do a cut and paste job and come back here with some evidence to back that up?

That would be nice.

Thanks.

To be fair to the poster, while Platform are very much pro public transport, the odd pro P 11 supporter does advocate private operation of railways. Maybe he is getting the wrong end of the stick here, that's all.

Back on topic, rail regulations will specify specific places and circumstances whereby the horn must be blown by the driver.

popebenny16 · 15-08-2006 3:58am

Yes, I can see where you are dcoming from.

But the question remains.

Maladroit. Put up or shut up.

popebenny16 · 16-08-2006 2:21pm

Maladroit. Put up or shut up.

I'd just like to apoligise for that, it was rude. I have said before that what either myself of other members of P11 say on any internet chatboard, including our own, are our personal opinions and the official position is on the main pages of the website.

Regarding public -v- private ownership.... very thorny and emotive issue. LUAS looks a good mix of it though.

maladroit · 21-08-2006 12:01pm

popebenny16 wrote:

I'd just like to apoligise for that, it was rude. .

Thanks for that, and no worries, it came across to me as a spirited defence, not a mean one!

My own apologies for not replying sooner, I tend to travel a lot, and I don't always get the opportunity to drop in on Boards as often as I would like.

I'm familiar with the P11 website and concept, but what I was commenting on in my (admittedly snappish) post was the manner in which the debate was entered into on this particular thread.

Specifically, given the amount of detailed experience and info that the P11 team has with the processes involved in putting rail infrastructure into place ( or reviving old infrastructure), it would be known that all of the issues raised by the OP would have to be debated in the public arena, and all interested parties would have the chance to have their say on noise or other issues. It's not as if the thing could simply steamroll through and start (re)construction with no permissions.

To just agree with OP because it fit P11s own POV on the WRC, while ignoring their knowledge of all of the processes that must be gone through to get the scheme operational, seemed, in my opinion, to display bias, and play into the hands of the anti-public transport bandwagon.

Just my opinion.

Maladroit.

Hobart · 21-08-2006 12:19pm

Moved from other thread.

Chris_533976 · 21-08-2006 12:44pm

I predict this thread will be locked

Winters · 21-08-2006 1:42pm

Is Maladroit just anti P11?

popebenny16 · 21-08-2006 2:47pm

I dont think so, in fact he has raised a valid enough point. We're not, for the record, anti-public transport. We're are in fact very much pro public transport, ie we're pro moving as many people as possible by mass-transport means where possible. I think a mod may have split a part of another thread and created this one. Maladriots post (first one here) was ain reply to one of DerekP11 in what is now another thread.

Well, state owned transport, public owned transport, a mixture of the two? Who honestly cares that much, apart form the vested interests? The only vested interests that P11 are interested in are the passengers.

Hobart · 21-08-2006 3:17pm

I've split the thread out from the other thread. As long as there is no crap, such as above which was apologised for, the thread could actually be interesting.

Slice · 21-08-2006 4:15pm

What I don't understand is that P11 were originally opposed to Metro North but now are in favour of it - what's that about? And I'm not referring to the views of P11 members on Boards but actual press coverage of the P11 position on Metro North.

MarkoP11 · 21-08-2006 4:52pm

On March 18th 2005 the position was outlined as follows and noting here for the record that the RPA where asked 1 month before to respond to the issues, that history now

1) The stated capacity of 18,000 was not sufficient
2) The proposal did not serve Swords
3) No provision was made for later expansion, eg orbital metro
4) No provision for integration with Maynooth line or Red Luas
5) Demand estimates did not account for future growth
6) Cost was extremely excessive given other options
7) It would have no impact on the core congestion problem approaching the M50 ring

Following the publication of Transport 21 and further clarification on Metro the RPA where happy to confirm the following

Capacity is now inexcess 30k
A connection will be provided Maynooth line and Red Luas
Swords is go
Orbital metro is go

As a result given the go ahead had been sanctioned the finance aspect must be ignored and the significant specification changes clearly nullified the concerned

As is typical independent newspapers can't read the press release and starting quoting us as metro would be a white elephant strange that since its not to be found in the press release, http://www.platform11.org/media/press_release.php?year=2005&no=pr_038.html they ignored a request to clarrify the matter and well solictors are expensive

In the back of the report was

• Legal measures to allow 24 hour tunnelling should be in place before work begins (possible)
• The Metro should start at St. Stephen’s Green and terminate at Swords not Dublin Airport (agreed)
• A Metro station should be provided at Glasnevin Junction (Phibsborough) (Drumcondra deemed better after discussion now RPA preferred route)
• The Metro should be built to the same specification as the DART system (Luas system compat provided)
• Metro stations should be built to accommodate 6 car trains not 3 car as proposed (agreed)
• The RPA should acknowledge that Metro is not a standalone pro ject and should be designed to maximise integration with other public transport projects (agreed)
• The Metro must comply with all current and proposed Irish and EU legislation as well as following best international practice (agreed)
• Stations should be built to the highest specification to ensure efficient and safe operation (agreed)
• A separate body independent of the RPA should manage the pro ject (agreed its called the DTA)

Right or wrong the end result is much better isn't it? Would it have happened anyway we shall have to wait till the cabinet papers, I'd like to think it made a difference, wishfull possibly but at least people started to talk about it and look where we are now

dowlingm · 21-08-2006 6:43pm

It's important to be clear about what is public transport - for instance you can have public transport which is public owned, private owned or public owned but privately delivered (which I think LUAS could be described as, since RPA is a public body).

I don't recall P11 or even its members agitating for private owned public transport but definitely expressing frustration at CIE (public owned public delivered) and their unions in comparison to what Connex/SIPTU have delivered - that's not the same thing.

maladroit · 21-08-2006 11:16pm

Umm.

I'm a little concerned now that the splitting of the thread makes my original comment, which was very much in the context of a P11 reply to someone else's original post, into something that it's not.

It now looks as if I came here and started a thread of the above title with no previous context!

Apologies to anyone now upset by this, all I was tyring to express at the time was my feeling that a particular reply to a particular post could play into the hands of those who oppose all public transport projects.

That'll teach me to go posting on the web . . .

Maladroit.

popebenny16 · 21-08-2006 11:40pm

To clarify I have refreshed myself by reading every page of our website, there is no anti public transport element to P11. We get just as fustrated with connex (I'm refusing to call them by their nice re-branded identity) as we do with IE.

That'll teach me to go posting on the web . . .

Maladroit.

To be fair to you, you are not the one who decided to go stirring things.

DerekP11 · 22-08-2006 9:41pm

Hobart wrote:

I've split the thread out from the other thread. As long as there is no crap, such as above which was apologised for, the thread could actually be interesting.

I am speaking here in an official capacity and not a personal one. I see no other reason, other than mischief, for "splitting" the original thread. While I have absolutely no problem, with the original posters question (and it has been addressed very well by Platform 11 members), I fear that the moderator responsible, Hobart, has made a grave mistake in "singling out" this particular issue and "highlighting" it as a stand alone thread. One could be forgiven for thinking that the said moderator, wishes to promote a debate that cannot possibly lead anywhere and only attempt to portray Platform 11 in some kind of bad light.

I have witnessed many threads going off topic here, but action to remedy it has, traditionally been patient and fair. However, the somewhat "immediate" splitting of a thread that specifically referred to Platform 11 in a negative way, concerning the core nature of our function (public transport) is a poor reflection on the moderator responsible and is suggestive of an "agenda". Perhaps the said moderator would like to explain what is "interesting" about the question posed?

As an organisation, Platform 11, has evolved into a very transparent and accountable outfit. We continually strive to be accessible and responsible in our work. Our web site states our policy and our message board is representative of supporters/observers and members views. The current committee are contactable by email and identifiable by photos. My own number is available online as a point of contact to both the media and the public.

Derek Wheeler.
Communications & Media Officer.
Platform 11. The National Rail Users Organisation.

MG · 23-08-2006 9:06am

DerekP11 wrote:

I am speaking here in an official capacity and not a personal one. I see no other reason, other than mischief, for "splitting" the original thread. While I have absolutely no problem, with the original posters question (and it has been addressed very well by Platform 11 members), I fear that the moderator responsible, Hobart, has made a grave mistake in "singling out" this particular issue and "highlighting" it as a stand alone thread. One could be forgiven for thinking that the said moderator, wishes to promote a debate that cannot possibly lead anywhere and only attempt to portray Platform 11 in some kind of bad light.

I have witnessed many threads going off topic here, but action to remedy it has, traditionally been patient and fair. However, the somewhat "immediate" splitting of a thread that specifically referred to Platform 11 in a negative way, concerning the core nature of our function (public transport) is a poor reflection on the moderator responsible and is suggestive of an "agenda". Perhaps the said moderator would like to explain what is "interesting" about the question posed?

As an organisation, Platform 11, has evolved into a very transparent and accountable outfit. We continually strive to be accessible and responsible in our work. Our web site states our policy and our message board is representative of supporters/observers and members views. The current committee are contactable by email and identifiable by photos. My own number is available online as a point of contact to both the media and the public.

Derek Wheeler.
Communications & Media Officer.
Platform 11. The National Rail Users Organisation.

Recommended reading:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0091906814/202-1670974-4971828?v=glance&n=266239&s=gateway&v=glance

Slice · 23-08-2006 10:05am

DerekP11

I have witnessed many threads going off topic here, but action to remedy it has, traditionally been patient and fair. However, the somewhat "immediate" splitting of a thread that specifically referred to Platform 11 in a negative way, concerning the core nature of our function (public transport)

I wouldn't say that P11 is anti-public transport, and it does seem odd/suspect that a thread should be split in this way. However DerekP11, I don't think it's fair to say that P11's core function is public transport when the organisation is so obviously concerned exclusively with rail as a mode of transport. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the organisation as a lobby group for commuter rail users in the Dublin region given that the organisation is so pre-occupied with this area..?

popebenny16 · 23-08-2006 10:40am

Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the organisation as a lobby group for commuter rail users in the Dublin region given that the organisation is so pre-occupied with this area..?

enterprise · 23-08-2006 1:16pm

Slice wrote:

I wouldn't say that P11 is anti-public transport, and it does seem odd/suspect that a thread should be split in this way. However DerekP11, I don't think it's fair to say that P11's core function is public transport when the organisation is so obviously concerned exclusively with rail as a mode of transport. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the organisation as a lobby group for commuter rail users in the Dublin region given that the organisation is so pre-occupied with this area..?

"Pale Rail Lobby Group" anybody?

popebenny16 · 23-08-2006 1:41pm

"Pale Rail Lobby Group" anybody?

Was wondering when your two cents was going to appear. Didn't you read my last post?

enterprise · 23-08-2006 1:55pm

popebenny16 wrote:

Was wondering when your two cents was going to appear. Didn't you read my last post?

Thanks!

As far as I’m concerned P11's core objective is a lobby group for the Greater Dublin Commuter area. A job, which has to be said, in all interests of fairness, is done very well.

I just don't think P11 has the core strengths to be an effective lobby group for the entire country. Most of its main committee members are based in Dublin for example.

That’s my two cents worth.

aliveandkicking · 23-08-2006 1:55pm

popebenny16 wrote:

Didn't you read my last post?

Why let the truth get in the way of prejudice :rolleyes:

aliveandkicking · 23-08-2006 2:02pm

enterprise wrote:

Most of its main committee members are based in Dublin for example.

That’s my two cents worth.

Considering 4 out of the 6 committee members dont live in Dublin, that statement is completely false.

SeanW · 23-08-2006 2:57pm

Well, from my experience there are two types of P11 haters.

1: The Western "we got nothing Dublin gets everything" types and would like to see it starved of investment of any kind.
2: Trainspotters who hang around on the IRN messageboard who want to the gov't to spend loads of money on various nutter projects so they can photograph old locos hauling freight to all kinds of places or want the cravens/121 locos/<insert clapped out rolling stock type here> to be kept in service in perpetuity or until they fall to bits on the tracks.

But the most scary type:
3: People who fit both the above categories.

Anything to declare, Maladroit? Enterprise? Hobart? Ham'n'egger?

BTW, most of Ireland's rail network radiates from Dublin and that's where the most people are, AND where the worst traffic etc issues are. So that's where most (but note all) of P11s work is.

enterprise · 23-08-2006 3:08pm

aliveandkicking wrote:

Considering 4 out of the 6 committee members dont live in Dublin, that statement is completely false.

Ok I take that back. However my view is that P11 core strength is in the Dublin Commuter market.

MarkoP11 · 23-08-2006 3:23pm

There is a point to note
26 out of the 38 million journeys pa are entirely within the Greater Dublin Region, the majority of intercity passengers either start or complete there journey in Dublin, the fact the PA doesn't work in Heuston, lack of signage, lack of seats, seat reservations, catering etc impacts far on more people in Cork, Kerry, Galway and so on than it does in Dublin. Thurles and Longford are now Dublin suburban stations at 86 and 76 miles respectively out, Thurles is closer to Cork than Dublin BTW

Doing some simple math somewhere in the region of 80 to 85% of all rail passengers per annum pass through the Greater Dublin Region, it also happens to be the only place in the country where people are crushed in 5 days a week on nearly all rush hour trains. The 26 million odd Greater Dublin Region passengers are primarily commuters who use the train every day have monthly or annual tickets and thus are far more likely to complain than someone who takes the train between Dublin and Cork once a year to see a relative, thats the reality, each man woman and child makes 10 rail journeys a year on average, commuters do that in 5 days, I might have eyes on the back of my head but I won't know if the air conditioning died on such and such a intercity train unless someone tells me and that means a passenger must make the effort to get in touch, classic Irish attitude is to moan but not to take any positive action.

I'm up to my neck in crap about the problems in Cork for the last 4 months, I was standing on the concourse as the whole thing went pear shaped. The new Dublin Cork train and the strike that followed was a non Dublin issue really since only the Kildare line in Dublin terms was shut, Platform 11 was the first and only group to get the story to the press in April a full month before it happened, IE denied it and kept awfully quiet when it was going on, great fun being in Radio Kerry, East Coast, Red Fm etc without Barry Kenny in sight ah the freedom. The (Cork) Examiner was the only paper to run the story all the Dublin papers accepted Barry Kenny's word that all was well, to this day only a handful of people outside IE know what happened in Cork that morning at 4:30am, I do but cant prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Incidentally the last 5 emails I got from passengers where from Cork, Tralee, Nenagh, Clonmel and Newbridge only one of which commutes into Dublin, why did they email Platform 11? since Irish Rail couldn't/wouldn't give them an answer, we could. Strangely I cant remember the last DART passenger to get in touch, funny that ?

And the number one issue is? Car parking followed quickly by fares and timetables and everyone want to know when the old trains are heading to the scrapheap we won't be mourning the loss of the moving scrapheap that is half the IE fleet

aliveandkicking · 23-08-2006 3:34pm

enterprise wrote:

Ok I take that back. However my view is that P11 core strength is in the Dublin Commuter market.

But Why? Anyone who takes even a casual view of their website and message boards would realise it is very much a national organisation rather than the Dublin Centric organisation you seem to think it is.

Slice · 23-08-2006 3:37pm

I think concentrating on rail is somewhat baffling and it's an ineffective way to lobby for the interests of public transport users in general. I also think at times it's counter-productive in that it draws attention away from other causes perhaps more worthy of media attention.

Arguments in favour of doing so aside; to be so focused on Greater Dublin also undermine issues outside the capital. For example even though P11 do not lobby for or against the WRC, it's tone towards that campaign is distinctively negative and at times reduces the argument down to barefaced economics that implicitly relegate the status of the rest of the country as being secondary to the interests of Dublin commuters. This has the effect of undermining other public transport causes that have nothing to do with either rail or Dublin, or both. Even though I have no personal interest in the WRC (as an example) and I happen to live in Dublin, such arguments don't sit comfortably with me.

I appreciate that there are plenty of discussions on the P11 site dealing with non-Dublin issues. However I wasn't so much referring to discussion within the group but more the public profile of the group - and a quick glance at their press releases clearly show a preoccupation with Dublin that dominates media/public debate.

I admit I am playing devil's advocate here because I generally agree with allot of what P11 have to say. However, I also happen to think that P11 campaigns don't need to cannibalise on any other causes to achieve its stated goals.

Ultimately transport use (public or private) is tied to planning and spatial strategy this seems to be where the disconnect lies for P11.

Is P11 anti public transport

Comments