'Sustainable' transport solutions from the Ryanair boss

FYI

In a letter to the Irish Times today Michael O'Leary writes:

"The Dublin metro makes even less sense than wasting €50 million on electronic voting machines. Linking Dublin airport to St Stephen's Green will not encourage any early morning passengers from around the city to do anything other than drive to the airport on the already congested M50. The airport metro will carry fewer than 20 per cent of passengers using Dublin airport. Wasting €1.5 billion (at current estimates) providing airport access for this small visitor group, who are already well served by competing bus services, is economic lunacy.

If this Government knew anything about transport - and it doesn't - then it would scrap this madcap plan to waste €1.5 billion of taxpayers' money building an airport metro which passengers neither want nor need. This money would be far better spent building an outer orbital ring road outside the M50, relieving the intolerable congestion on the M50, and providing better access to Dublin airport for cars and buses, which is how the overwhelming majority of passengers will continue to get there." [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2006/0907/index.html#1156791454267]

Here he makes a few slightly suspect statements:

"Linking Dublin airport to St Stephen's Green will not encourage any early morning passengers from around the city to do anything other than drive to the airport on the already congested M50"

Presumably this is because the Metro will not run at 5 O'clock in the morning, yet how busy is the M50 at this time?

Since the plan is to provide links between existing infrastructures such as the LUAS, the DART and Dublin Bus, why would people refuse to use the service?

"The airport metro will carry fewer than 20 per cent of passengers using Dublin airport."

With air travel on the rise and future growth needs to be met, this figure of 20% seems extremely low. And stating that the public service will "provid[e] airport access for this small visitor group" also seems a little unlikely. Do the majority of people not travel into Dublin City on arriving in Dublin airport? Would those that don't change their route if an efficient mode of transport was available. Certainly a guaranteed metro trip trumps a 25 euro taxi.

"This money would be far better spent building an outer orbital ring road outside the M50, relieving the intolerable congestion on the M50, and providing better access to Dublin airport for cars and buses, which is how the overwhelming majority of passengers will continue to get there."

Firstly, could someone, as I am unsure, tell me how many buses run on the M50 to the airport and from which locations do their trips originate?

This is though beside the point and appears only a diversion used by Mr. O'Leary to enhance his point. His solution, quite simply, is to build more roads, wider roads and most importantly, roads to the airport. Does this sound like a sustainable solution?

Martin Cullen wrote; "It is not an airport rail link. It is designed to provide a high-quality rail service along a north-south corridor, meeting existing transport requirements in that corridor, serving the airport and facilitating major residential development in the Swords area." [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2006/0904/1156791362886.html]

Therefore Mr. O'Leary is not just protesting a proposed airport link, he is protesting a public transport initiative. He proposes an alternative though, yet one that takes no account of economic or environmental factors. He suggests increase car use, promoting further car use. While improved public transport encourages people to move from road to 'rail', Mr. O'Leary's solution simply ensures we will have the same (if not worse) problems, of congestion, pollution etc, in 10 years time.

This is all completely predictable though. For a man that makes his money through air travel in a time of 'a bit of a climate crisis' [http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9548]

"The Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, recently described climate change as "probably the greatest environmental threat facing the global community". Most scientists would agree; indeed, they would go further by saying it is the greatest threat to the survival of humanity on the planet." [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/1997/1124/archive.97112400046.html]

[http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php]

to suggest a solution our transport woes is more roads for more cars is not surprising. Air travel has a serious impact on global warming, and Mr. O'Leary's ruthless and successful attempts to increase that pollution and his bank balance evidences his disregard for the environment and those that live in it.

"Aircraft emissions that go directly into the stratosphere have more than twice the global warming effect of emissions from cars and power stations at ground level and, based on the Government's own calculations, the effect of the 2030 emissions will be equivalent to 44.3 million tons of carbon - 45 per cent of Britain's expected emissions total at that date.

That growth alone, the environmental audit committee says, will make Britain's 60 per cent CO2 reduction target "meaningless and unachievable". The clash of interests cannot be ducked any more, say the green groups. "The convenience we enjoy in covering huge distances in a short time is one of the fast-growing threats to life on earth," said Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth.

"Aviation is an increasing source of climate-changing pollution and we must take steps to curb it now. Planes pump out eight times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a train. A return flight to Australia will release as much carbon dioxide as all the heating, light and cooking for a house for a year."

Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director for Greenpeace, said: "The simple fact is the boom in cheap air travel cannot be reconciled with the survival of those things we most value about the planet, and will ultimately kill millions of people." [http://www.energybulletin.net/6372.html]

No one is suggesting the governments approach to providing sustainable transport solutions has been anything less than abysmal, but Michael O'Leary's offering is just plain ridiculous and short sighted.

Why does Michael O'Leary want another M50?

oscarBravo

Moved from Politics. Mods, deal with as you see fit.

SeanW

MOL just doesn't get it. The Metro project is a commutation and general urban transport project that happens to also serve the Airport on its way.

Even if "only" 20-25% of airline passengers use it, that's 20-25% of 20 million? Which adds nicely to the other uses for the Metro, such as Swords to CC service, connection from the Green Luas line to other railways and service for Airport workers.

The only thing an outer M50 would achieve is giving Michael O Leary's "taxi" a shortcut here and there ... it certainly wouldn't do much for a modal shift or quality of life for people.

jd

I didnt't get the IT Thursday-can someone pm me the full text of the letter?
jd

markf909

jd wrote:

I didnt't get the IT Thursday-can someone pm me the full text of the letter?
jd

The letter is here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054986835&page=2

Navan Junction

Madam, - It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry when you publish another rant from Michael O'Leary of Ryanair (September 7th). The champion of low fares seems to have a bee in his bonnet about anything the Government tries to do to sort out our ailing transportation infrastructure. In many cases I agree with him, but on this occasion I believe he is sorely mistaken.

Anyone who has flown into Dublin Airport on a Sunday evening over the past few months can easily see that public transport facilities are inadequate to cope with passenger demand. A metro line is long overdue, and the Minister for Transport is to be commended for his plans to build one.

- Yours, etc,

RICHARD BANNISTER, Pembroke Square, Dublin 4.

Madam, - While I am usually quite a supporter of Michael O'Leary, it is ridiculous to propose more roads in place of a metro. The €1.5 billion cost of the metro would hardly build 10 kilometres of Mr O'Leary's proposed "outer orbital ring road". (Perhaps using the Ryanair definition of "outside the M50", he may be proposing an "orbital" road in Mayo!)

Anyway, no amount of road can satisfy the Dublin commuter.

- Yours, etc,

MARK SUGRUE, Egham, Surrey, England.

Madam, - Michael O'Leary's criticisms of Mr Cullen's grandiose, expensive and long-term proposals to build a metro to the airport are well made. But why confine our concern to airport traffic? Is it not time to adopt a radical approach to the whole traffic problem and not just that of the airport?

If I drive into the city centre I spend a significant sum for the privilege of parking my car. If I was charged that amount or more in a "congestion charge", as in some cities including London, I would not have taken the car out of my own garage. That kind of decision by a large number of people would reduce traffic congestion, road maintenance and environmental damage. We would, however, need a reliable and very frequent public transport system.

For most areas of the city, including the airport, that merely means the purchase, by competing companies if thought necessary, of the required number of buses. The revenue collected through a congestion charge could help provide what Mr O'Leary calls "an outer orbital ring road" and easy access to additional car parking space at the outskirts instead of in the city centre.

As an ordinary person this would seem to me to provide a reasonably short-term and relatively inexpensive solution to our present problems. At least let us hear from the experts why it should not be done. In addition, let us hear more on the issue from prominent and qualified commentators such as Michael O'Leary.

- Yours, etc,

A. LEAVY, Shielmartin Drive, Dublin 13.

Ham'nd'egger

Using the logic of per centages, as less than 20% of the worlds air passengers use Ryanair and over 80% don't use it, it is clear that air passenger do not want this waste of money and it should be closed immediately.

Mad Finn

When MOL says: "Linking Dublin airport to St Stephen's Green will not encourage any early morning passengers from around the city to do anything other than drive to the airport on the already congested M50" he has a fair point, if that's all the metro will do.

If, on the other hand, the metro interconnects as seamlessly as possible with other transport links into and out of St Stephen's Green and if in the course of its travels out to the airport it intersects with the Dart and other Luas lines, then the great tax paying Irish public will have a delicious opportunity to prove Mr O'Leary wrong.

Unfortunately, the powers that be at CIE/Dublin Bus are so ignorant of the requirements of the travelling public that they will probably not make the right choices that will provide for an efficient NETWORK of public transport to serve the needs of travellers, including air travellers.

I can foresee, for example, a decision to locate the Metro station at the opposite corner of St Stephen's Green to the Luas stop.
I can foresee the Metro stopping at the far end of O'Connell street to where the Tallaght Luas stops.
I can foresee, in other words, a transport body that has made ZERO effort in its history to encourage the provision of a NETWORK as opposed to a random collection of point to point routes, failing completely to make the facilitiation of transfers between one route and another a priority.

Dublin Bus cannot or will not:
provide through ticketing from one bus to another on standard tickets
provide automatic vending machines at its bus stops to facilitate cashless busses
facilitate transfer ticketing between Dart and Luas (and presumably Metro) routes.

All of this has been commonplace in Europe for at least 20 years. But Dublin Bus is still 'looking into the technology' that will facilitate it.

Ironically, in its philosophy of route provision, CIE is much closer to point-to-point Ryanair than any traditional airline that will facilitate transfers between its own routes and rivals.

wwhyte

Mad Finn wrote:

I can foresee the Metro stopping at the far end of O'Connell street to where the Tallaght Luas stops.

This, at least, seems to be fixed in the current Metro proposals. Thank God.

shltter

wwhyte wrote:

This, at least, seems to be fixed in the current Metro proposals. Thank God.

I wonder if his opposition has anything to do with ryanairs relationship with Aircoach

Sarsfield

I honestly don't get what he's up to. MO'L isn't stupid, that's quite clear. He knows perfectly well that the Metro is part of a rail-based public transport service for Dublin. It's certainly not just a line to the airport like, for example, the Stansted Express. It's akin to claiming the DART is nothing but a rail service to Dun Laoghaire ferryport! He has nothing to lose from Metro. Any involvment with Aircoach is not valuable enough to have a material effect on his view on Metro. I'm sure I heard them selling Dublin Bus tickets on a flight the other day although I may be wrong.

Is he just using this as another opportunity to get Ryanair into the papers as the self-appointed defender of the taxpayer? Anything that's publicly funded seems to be bad in Michael's view. I find it hard to have any respect for him. He run's a good airline but he seems to think he's more than that. God complex?

Navan Junction

I'd say it's related to increased landing charges. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually is in favour of it but is playing a strategy to undermine the RPA using Ryanair as a cash cow to fund it..

Sarsfield

Navan Junction wrote:

I'd say it's related to increased landing charges. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually is in favour of it but is playing a strategy to undermine the RPA using Ryanair as a cash cow to fund it..

D'oh! Never thought of landing charges. That's most likely it.

Victor

How about the DAA charging the RPA a passenger handling charge?

antoinolachtnai

But what he says is all true. Most people don't want to go into the city from the airport. Metro will only carry a relatively small proportion of the passengers.

Yes, sure, the metro is part of a big suburban development plan, but the only reason the plan has been developed is because it was decided beforehand that a metro should be put out to the Airport. The major developments around Swords were then tacked on in order to justify the whole project and make it viable.

There is nothing wrong with motorways if they are kept clear of congestion and aren't overused. There's an easy way to achieve this - high tolls on the roads. Use these tolls to subsidise regular bus services around the M50.

Re early morning trips causing congestion - they do, because every car that goes to the airport early in the morning has to return to base (or somewhere) later in the morning, during the rush.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote:

But what he says is all true. Most people don't want to go into the city from the airport. Metro will only carry a relatively small proportion of the passengers.

1) It is estimated that at least 20 - 30% of passengers will use it, it is particularly handy for business travellers who travel to/from the UK for a day with little baggage.

Also you can go to numerous stops in the North side of the city or take Metro West to go to a number of Dublin suburbs.

It will also make Dublin much more attractive to foreign business, businessmen coming from London will be able to get the Metro from the airport right into the city centre or change to the LUAS to go to the IFSC.

2) Many thousands of people who work at and around the airport will likely use it.

3) There will be tens of thousands of people living in Swords who will use it daily.
(I have friends living in Swords, it often takes them up to 2 hours to get the bus into town!!!)

4) It will serve tens of thousands of people all over the north side of Dublin city, including locations like Drumcondra, Griffith Avenue, Ballymun, etc.

5) It will serve the thousands of students studying at DCU.

6) It will serve a massive park and ride facility at the edge of the M50.
This in particular is a great feature that is completely over looked, but will likely become one of the most popular features of the Metro. Many people who live outside the M50 will likely use this and therefore help reduce traffic inside the M50. This will likely become very handy once congestion charging is introduced.

If the Metro was just going to the airport I would agree with him, but he is completely ignoring that it is a comprehensive transport system that the north side of Dublin city badly needs. So no, he doesn't have a point.

antoinolachtnai

A park-and-ride on the edge of the M50 would just make the M50 clockwise far more congested. If there is a congestion charge introduced in Dublin, the M50 will almost certainly be subject to it.

I wouldn't call it a 'comprehensive transport system' for the north side of the city. It doesn't cover such places as Finglas, for instance. It could be part of such a system, but in and of itself it isn't that.

Why not build Metro West first? That is certainly an alternative, that might well serve more people (I don't have the numbers handy).

Victor

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Re early morning trips causing congestion - they do, because every car that goes to the airport early in the morning has to return to base (or somewhere) later in the morning, during the rush.

One of the real problems with the airport is the number of workers driving there, typicly all showing up between 7-9am. Yes I know many have been there since 4am, but its the peak time ones are the problem.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

A park-and-ride on the edge of the M50 would just make the M50 clockwise far more congested. If there is a congestion charge introduced in Dublin, the M50 will almost certainly be subject to it.

Its called "tolling the whole M50".

spacetweek

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I wouldn't call it a 'comprehensive transport system' for the north side of the city. It doesn't cover such places as Finglas, for instance. It could be part of such a system, but in and of itself it isn't that.

I can't understand how BK's points he's listed aren't enough to convince you of the overwhelming importance of this project. If only 2/3s of his benefits applied, it would still be a worthwhile project.

Finglas is being served by a future Luas extension of the Green Line from Liffey Junction to Metro West at the N2/M50 junction.

dowlingm

I would suggest that while metro will be attractive to foreign business visitors, it will be for reducing the demand for taxis by the rest of us rather than them using it themselves!

aliveandkicking

antoinolachtnai wrote:

A park-and-ride on the edge of the M50 would just make the M50 clockwise far more congested. If there is a congestion charge introduced in Dublin, the M50 will almost certainly be subject to it.

Doubt it, driving inside the canal rings will more likely be the point of congestion charging.

Why not build Metro West first?

Metro West is being built first, see the timelines here

Ice_Box

Busses are a quick fix that should at least be tried. Most busses lead to the city centre but most of the people stuck on the M50 are not going there.

antoinolachtnai

aliveandkicking wrote:

Doubt it, driving inside the canal rings will more likely be the point of congestion charging.

I doubt it! The city centre actually isn't that congested compared to the M50 (and I live/work in the city centre). There are actually a lot of anti-congestion measures in place in the city centre already.

Putting a perimeter at the canals would shift a lot of traffic into the inner suburbs and along the canals. There is not a lot of capacity there. It wouldn't be pretty.

Metro West is being built first, see the timelines

No arguing with you, that's what that document says. However, have you seen this one:

http://www.transport21.ie/PROJECTS/METRO_-_LUAS/Metro_North.html

and

http://www.transport21.ie/PROJECTS/METRO_-_LUAS/Metro_West.html

which seems to suggest something different.

maxheadroom

antoinolachtnai wrote:

No arguing with you, that's what that document says. However, have you seen this one:

http://www.transport21.ie/PROJECTS/METRO_-_LUAS/Metro_North.html

and

http://www.transport21.ie/PROJECTS/METRO_-_LUAS/Metro_West.html

which seems to suggest something different.

Metro West is being built first - it's also being built in 3 stages. Metro North, while being started second, will be completed first (according to T21 anyway, lets see how it works out...)

spacetweek

maxheadroom wrote:

Metro West is being built first - it's also being built in 3 stages. Metro North, while being started second, will be completed first (according to T21 anyway, lets see how it works out...)

Not really, Metro West will be complete from Tallaght to Blanch (the crucial bit) by the time Metro North opens.

I think the reason we haven't heard anything about Metro West is because it'll be an easier build than North, at-grade mainly.