Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish government subsidises internal flights
Options
-
21-02-2009 11:30am#1Join Date:Posts: 6185
Did anyone else read the article in the Irish Times about internal flights?
Apparently the tax payer pays over €140 per passenger. For an average flight, this adds up to €15,000...!!
And more money is given to develop regional airports:Our flights of folly don’t end with generous PSOs to fund short-haul flying. Many more millions are poured into subsidising regional airport development, with almost €100 million in the National Development Plan for this very purpose. Its next major subsidy is that aviation fuel is tax and duty free, while airline tickets are VAT-free.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0219/1224241416646.html
And the only thing that will turn it around is the inclusion of flight emissions under the ECTS - forced to act properly by the EU...again.
Was anyone else aware of this?0
Comments
-
There might be an issue for this in terms of economics
However in terms of polution the case is not so strong .A 80% full 737 retruns ~60MPG per passenger seat.So if the passenger took his 30MPG car from Dublin to Knock he would have used twice as much fuel compared to the Aircraft.If the car took two people then its even Stephens.If the car had four people in it it would be twice as fuel effient as the plane option .But how many passengers are single people traveling there like busness man or worker traveling to fix something whatever
Now the short haul planes that Air Arran use are turbo props and best I can figure becuse they are propellers planes (turbo props)the fuel effiency is nearly double the 737 roughly 100 MPG per passenger seat @80% capassity
So it takes more than three people in a car to match the ability of the Air Arran planes in terms of fuel.
There is the other factor more cars on the road taking several hours to get from Dublin to Knock whatever will slow down commersial trucks and help create more polution
If ROI made more roads that creates polution as more traffic would travel on the ever expanding roads
Norway decided the cost of building road was tooo big and decided that most small town even vilages would have an airport.The ticket cost between locations was set low like 20 to 30 euros and the Norway government subsidizes this .Norway figures it cheaper to that make roads which costs gazzilions .
When i lived and worked in the canary islands i would commute between islands on commuter planes as the cost to build and operate big fast hydrofoils was nearly as expensive than aircraft solutions.Also the plane was a lot faster and they both use about the same amount of fuel per passenger seat
When you compare the fuel figures for high speed trains that use gobs of fuel compared to slow coach fuel efficient trains you find that fast trains and planes are more similar.Fast Trains cost gazzilions to set up and require several thousand paseengers a day to make a profit
Aircraft need a few runways a few planes and a few crew and can move the same amount of people as fast trains for a lot less capital costs than building very big expensive highways or high speed trains
If you want to get to Dublin Donegal in 45 minutes with planes that will happen soon as in now it exists.With high speed trains we will never see it as you need gobs of money years to contruct and then there isnt eneough people every day going betweeen Donegal and Dublin to pay for it.Highways are similar they cant pay for themselfs with the low volume of traffic
So it looks like the choice is subsidise expensive planes or subsiidize mega expensive highway roads
I think planes are cheaper more fuel efficeint and way cheaper than building roads or high speed trains
Ireland is really only starting to follow the european norm that speed of planes make them faster and givin volume much cheaper solution for governments than most would believe possible and not so bad on fuel as the the aircraft oposition would make out .
However the regime is so strapped for cash today with losing 9 billion with mega expensive banks .It makes aircraft cost mega cheap in comparison .As a result I think planes will stopped from getting any money.Then it back to mega slow bone shaker busses with no working toilets stuck in every bottle neck village or dirty slow trains on the way to Knock ,Donegal,Kerry whatever
Derry0 -
Yes I was aware of the outrageous level of PSO subsidy. However I expect that these payments will be removed in 2011.
Derry, Ireland is not an enourmous and spread out country like Norway. I don't see how the choice of transport between Donegal and Dublin is either subsidised flight, motorway, or high-speed rail. Roads already exist to Donegal and AFAIK are not overflowing with capacity. I don't see why high-speed rail is necessary when you can have ordinary speed rail, as it used to exist in Donegal.0 -
The whole point of having the PSO route is to have a working airport and commutable route to these area to try and stimulate economic growth and encourage large corporates to set up in the area. As soon as the area begins to expand and can stand on it's own the PSO is phased out. And it's much better that an aer arann 42 seater wins the contract than a Ruainair 320 seater.0
-
The whole point of having the PSO route is to have a working airport and commutable route to these area to try and stimulate economic growth and encourage large corporates to set up in the area. As soon as the area begins to expand and can stand on it's own the PSO is phased out. And it's much better that an aer arann 42 seater wins the contract than a Ruainair 320 seater.
Err Ryan Air 737 are more like 180PAX to 200PAX .It really is no big deal if its one 180 PAX 737 or three Air arran 40 PAX planes that fly the people thats a commersial issue .If The traffic can support a larger plane like a 737 then it can make commesial sense to use the larger planes .If the costomers prefer more frequency the smaller 40 PAX planes might have the commesial edge
Japan has two Islands close to each othor which have opted to use 650PAX 747 jumbo jets for commuters who go to work between the two Islands some few minutes flight away.They dont even fold up the aircrafts wheels the other airport is so close .Japan chose that solutions as cheaper than making a tunnel .The fast ferries and the jets compete with each other for the trafffic but the route supports a few jumbo jets that do the few minutes inter island flight .
Havng flown a few times across ROI in aircraft its a no brainer if the price is cheap enough to opt to fly as all other modes are usualy painfully slow
Ball park the both planes 737 PAX and Air Arran 40PAX from Dublin to Gaway return as a example would probaly use less than €20 euros maybe even less than €10 euros worth of fuel return per passenger(hard to get the exactfigure out of the airlies as they gaurd comersial data fairly well)
The only reason I dont fly more often is the cost so for me its often the Dublin Galway cheapo bus for €16 euros return or my small economic car for €25 euros of petrol Galway Dublin return
Derry0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Yes I was aware of the outrageous level of PSO subsidy. However I expect that these payments will be removed in 2011.
Derry, Ireland is not an enourmous and spread out country like Norway. I don't see how the choice of transport between Donegal and Dublin is either subsidised flight, motorway, or high-speed rail. Roads already exist to Donegal and AFAIK are not overflowing with capacity. I don't see why high-speed rail is necessary when you can have ordinary speed rail, as it used to exist in Donegal.
Totally agree. Norway is huge compared to Ireland. Having lived there, I can also tell you that they have an excellent national rail system that is lightyears ahead of ours so viable alternatives exist.
Proper investments in rail should be a priority, both for passengers and freight. Subsidising polluting air travel is just insanity on the part of the government.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
taconnol wrote:Totally agree. Norway is huge compared to Ireland. Having lived there, I can also tell you that they have an excellent national rail system that is lightyears ahead of ours so viable alternatives exist.
Norway has billions in oil revenue to support its railway system, Ireland does not.
I suppose other forms of transport aren't polluting.:rolleyes:taconnol wrote:Subsidising polluting air travel is just insanity on the part of the government.
As hick pointed out these subsidies are there to allow fast, reliable transport links to underdeveloped regions to encourage economic growth. Removing them would be insanity, you only have to look at what happened with Aer Lingus in Shannon to see that.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
So say Sweden or France or SPain or Germany or Denmark. It doesn't matter and it doesn't take away the fact that we have the most ****eous rail system in Europe.jackofalltrades wrote: »Norway has billions in oil revenue to support its railway system, Ireland does not.jackofalltrades wrote: »I suppose other forms of transport aren't polluting.:rolleyes:
You're really trying to compare air travel with other forms of transport like rail in terms of pollution?? This is such an asinine comment.
Shannon could not exist in a free market: it was/is subsidised to the hilt. The departure of Aer Lingus was inevitable.jackofalltrades wrote: »As hick pointed out these subsidies are there to allow fast, reliable transport links to underdeveloped regions to encourage economic growth. Removing them would be insanity, you only have to look at what happened with Aer Lingus in Shannon to see that.
And the point isn't to let these places go hang as you suggest is the only alternative. The point is to invest in more sustainable modes of transport like rail, which can be just as fast and reliable as air flight.0 -
So say Sweden or France or SPain or Germany or Denmark. It doesn't matter and it doesn't take away the fact that we have the most ****eous rail system in Europe.
You're really trying to compare air travel with other forms of transport like rail in terms of pollution?? This is such an asinine comment.
Shannon could not exist in a free market: it was/is subsidised to the hilt. The departure of Aer Lingus was inevitable.
And the point isn't to let these places go hang as you suggest is the only alternative. The point is to invest in more sustainable modes of transport like rail, which can be just as fast and reliable as air flight.
I will agree that rail is a very good solution from a CO2 emmision point of view,
Mode of Travel gCO2/ passenger km
Petrol engine 185.2
Diesel engine139.8
Hybrid engine 124.3
Rail 72.1
Air 211.3
Bus 55.9
http://www.lcea.ie/docs/2007/LC-CCS%20APPENDIX%202-Transport.pdf
but rail and its parent company recieve a lot of subsidies too.....
and rail is generally not a good answer for business passengers.
We need the airports around ireland to compete in the global market, and to encourage business to set up outside Dublin.....
We also need better roads and a better rail service, but closing the regional airports would not be a good idea....0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Do we have figures on the comparative subsidies? I have no problem with rail being subsidised as it has many more advantages to flights. I would be extremely surprised if it had the same level of subsidies as flights. I mean we have less rail network now than we did in the 1930s, yet never have we flown so much from Knock, Cork, Galway... And you think that subsidies might be comparable??but rail and its parent company recieve a lot of subsidies too.....
Why? Business people are perfectly happy to use rail in other countries. In fact, they save time (no being there 2 hours before hand, checking in, etc) and money (it's cheaper)and rail is generally not a good answer for business passengers.
I think this is somewhat delusional. Out National Spatial Strategy is a joke and a total sell-out to the parochial politics that has destroyed this country.We need the airports around ireland to compete in the global market, and to encourage business to set up outside Dublin.....
I recommend this article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0331/1206752248397.html
I'm not suggesting closing them. But if they can't survive on their own, I don't see why we should force them to stay open, if a viable rail alternative can exist instead.We also need better roads and a better rail service, but closing the regional airports would not be a good idea....0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm the furthest thing you'll ever meet from a Green-type person, but even I think subsidising the small Airports is ridiculous. For a country the size of Ireland there's virtually no need for an Airport outside Dublin, let alone setting up several. And of course we've got the classic Irish problem of Economies of Scale. Perhaps if one was set up and run properly it would have a chance to break even, but no, open loads of smaller ones instead, try and have one in every county :rolleyes:
Is the new €5 tax on flights coming in soon charged on domestic flights too?0 -
We need the airports around ireland to compete in the global market
This argument has been failing for decades.Do we have figures on the comparative subsidies? I have no problem with rail being subsidised as it has many more advantages to flights. I would be extremely surprised if it had the same level of subsidies as flights. I mean we have less rail network now than we did in the 1930s, yet never have we flown so much from Knock, Cork, Galway... And you think that subsidies might be comparable??
The average internal flight ticket is subsidised by about €71, and the average rail ticket it subsidised by abouy €7.0 -
I'm not trying to comapre them I was simply pointing out how describing aviation as polluting is silly when you consider that every form of transport pollutes.taconnol wrote:You're really trying to compare air travel with other forms of transport like rail in terms of pollution?? This is such an asinine comment.. comment.taconnol wrote:The point is to invest in more sustainable modes of transport like rail, which can be just as fast and reliable as air flight.
Rail is a good option on the continent where there are fast, reliable trains which have a time advantage over flying up to a certain time length. Trains in Ireland are nowhere near the level of speed and reliability that they are on the continent.taconnol wrote:Why? Business people are perfectly happy to use rail in other countries. In fact, they save time (no being there 2 hours before hand, checking in, etc) and money (it's cheaper)
For buisness people flying into Ireland an onward connection is actually quite a practical option espically with baggage interline and airport lounges that and renting a car at your final destination is an option and an airport but not at train station. Leaving the airport and catching a train would need a lot of time allowances for traffic/getting taxi's.0 -
jackofalltrades wrote: »I'm not trying to comapre them I was simply pointing out how describing aviation as polluting is silly when you consider that every form of transport pollutes.
Well today I am going to be a big time polluter driving from dublin to Galway to attend a monday morning miday funeral in galway.Then I will drive back tonight.The car is a petrol Volvo V40 I am borrowing for the day from my friend and gets ~30MPG roughly ~38 liters to go ~270 miles return estimate distance or 9 gallons return
Cost in petrol is ~€43 return not counting tolls and coffes en route so probably about ~€60 total
There is private bus from ~€16 return but its like nearly 4 hours and the toilets often dont work so it a Bladder burster on the night section return as most gargage en route close the toilets after 7 pm.
Sabena (such a bad experience never again) and not sure its shedule times can get me to the funeral on time
CIE bus I think is like ~€40 and not sure what the toilet story is but on lots of shorter journies I did with CIE Buses the toilets are broken or dont exist event though they said the bus service came standard with a toilet .
Several other Dubliners I know all booked to fly Dublin to Galway return for Monday today.
Cost for train €50 euros return cost for plane €70 euros return same day
One of them is getting old and fragile to go in a car or train return one day so would need overnight stop if they dont fly . One of them suffers medical issues and driving or train are not a real option and is in busnesss so overnight stop isnt an option.One of them has work and young kids and the long journey and late shedules of trains or overnight stop isnt an option.
Several others logically figure the costs in going with the car stopping in route for food and other stuff makes flying return cheaper.I recon 15 total today will fly Air Aran Dublin Galway return who on thursday had no plans to go to Galway.
Some have jumped onto planes to come from as far away as UK and further afield
Without the fly option at those prices they would probably not go to Galway at all which would be sad within all the family effected.
As most of the flyers will get for each seat on the plane Air Arran some ~100MPG per passenger seat they are all using some 3 gallons of fuel each return compared to my polluting 8 gallons return
Normally I would fly but I may want to go outside Gaway to check out something and renting a car for that would not be affordable option for me so I will be a poluter and drive my car to Galway
But anyway as global warming from CO2 is a myth anyway so that means CO2 isnt a pollution ,then this means the polution issues are worse from me as I dump my pollution mostly benzines and complex molicules that are not burnt completly in car engine in the faces of the locals on route like other motorists or villages whatever.The planes pollution will have 20,000 feet to fall down from the sky and will be more spread out abit like the local electricity high tower exhast stack which spreads out the pollution high up in the sky
So the flyers will be classed as polluters and I will look so green driving but now we see its not so clear as the media wants to paint it
Chow got to go drive to Galway
Derry0 -
Do we have figures on the comparative subsidies? I have no problem with rail being subsidised as it has many more advantages to flights. I would be extremely surprised if it had the same level of subsidies as flights. I mean we have less rail network now than we did in the 1930s, yet never have we flown so much from Knock, Cork, Galway... And you think that subsidies might be comparable??
According to my searches, the airports had €100million in subsidies between 2002 and 2008.... thats a lot alright, and would agree better ways to spend money, but CIE parent company of rail services had €800 million in subsidies..... last year alone.....
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0219/1224241416646.html
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/cie-losses-soar-despite-8364800m-state-subsidy-1441689.html
I must assume that you are in favour of letting CIE be on its own, and if it fails (which it will without €800m a year subsidies) so be it???????
Internal flights only need between 30min and 60 min check in.... I have flown enough to know...Why? Business people are perfectly happy to use rail in other countries. In fact, they save time (no being there 2 hours before hand, checking in, etc) and money (it's cheaper)
so much simpler to fly for business and generally quicker , despite what you think, also I get a good seat and its cheaper.......
I think your thoughts are delusional, everybody is entitled to an opion, like the journalist, who is to say who is right, but to make them comments and not have a grasp for the subsidies is not clever IMO.I think this is somewhat delusional. Out National Spatial Strategy is a joke and a total sell-out to the parochial politics that has destroyed this country.
I recommend this article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0331/1206752248397.htmlI'm not suggesting closing them. But if they can't survive on their own, I don't see why we should force them to stay open, if a viable rail alternative can exist instead.
show me a viable rail alternative in Ireland????????0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
You're talking about subsidies to the airports - now add in subsidies to the airline companies.According to my searches, the airports had €100million in subsidies between 2002 and 2008.... thats a lot alright, and would agree better ways to spend money, but CIE parent company of rail services had €800 million in subsidies..... last year alone.....
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0219/1224241416646.html
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/cie-losses-soar-despite-8364800m-state-subsidy-1441689.html
No, I am in favour of investing in a more sustainable alternative: ie rail, rather than throwing money at airports and flight companies. What exactly are we going to do when the carbon emissions from flights are included under the ECTS?I must assume that you are in favour of letting CIE be on its own, and if it fails (which it will without €800m a year subsidies) so be it???????
Hang on-that just is not true. Let's take a train to Cork from city centre:Internal flights only need between 30min and 60 min check in.... I have flown enough to know...
so much simpler to fly for business and generally quicker , despite what you think, also I get a good seat and its cheaper.......
Luas to Heuston - 15mins (plus 15 mins waiting time)
Heuston to Cork - 2hours 50mins
Cork train station to city centre - 5mins in car/10mins walking.
Total time (generally): 3.5hrs
And with the train:
Aircoach to Dublin airport - 20-40 mins, depending on time of day (plus 1hr waiting time)
Dublin-Cork airport 45mins (??-the website says 1hr but I'm guessing it's less?)
Cork airport to city centre - 15mins in bus
Total time (generally): 3 hrs
So for the sake of 30mins (generally), you would rather go through the chaos and mess that is Dublin airport with it's weight & liquid restriction, rather than through Heuston? Really?
I'm not sure of the pros/cons of a high speed link down to Cork that would reduce journey time to about 2hrs...
Your point about it being cheaper - well that's exactly what we're talking about here.
If you read the article, you'll see that the authors are not journalists.I think your thoughts are delusional, everybody is entitled to an opion, like the journalist, who is to say who is right, but to make them comments and not have a grasp for the subsidies is not clever IMO.
Argh! That's the point!! We haven't invested and so rail is the less attractive option!show me a viable rail alternative in Ireland????????0 -
You're talking about subsidies to the airports - now add in subsidies to the airline companies.
No that is the figure of our PSo's to airlines... so 100million over 6 years... compared to 800million for one year of CIE... from the article I linked:
Taxpayers’ money comes in the form of direct subsidies known as Public Service Obligations (PSOs). These are handed out to airlines to prop up internal flights. These subsidies amount to an average direct subvention of over €140 for every single passenger on an internal flight made on the six routes covered by PSOs. Between 2002-2008, these cost the taxpayer almost €100 million. This is no small beer.No, I am in favour of investing in a more sustainable alternative: ie rail, rather than throwing money at airports and flight companies. What exactly are we going to do when the carbon emissions from flights are included under the ECTS?
I am not sure, but high speed trains only emit 1/4 less CO2 than planes per passenger.Hang on-that just is not true. Let's take a train to Cork from city centre:
Luas to Heuston - 15mins (plus 15 mins waiting time)
Heuston to Cork - 2hours 50mins
Cork train station to city centre - 5mins in car/10mins walking.
Total time (generally): 3.5hrs
And with the train:
Aircoach to Dublin airport - 20-40 mins, depending on time of day (plus 1hr waiting time)
Dublin-Cork airport 45mins (??-the website says 1hr but I'm guessing it's less?)
Cork airport to city centre - 15mins in bus
Total time (generally): 3 hrs
So for the sake of 30mins (generally), you would rather go through the chaos and mess that is Dublin airport with it's weight & liquid restriction, rather than through Heuston? Really?
Yep, I would take that plane every time, its cheaper, its quicker( you just proved it is, despite you saying it isn't) its more comfortable, the waiting lounge is vastly better than any of the train stations, I can make calls and use my laptop much easier than at a train station.I'm not sure of the pros/cons of a high speed link down to Cork that would reduce journey time to about 2hrs...
its great to hear these idea's, and I am not against trains, but whats the costs on putting this in? whats the running costs? whats the profit or loss on running this venture???
Idea's are great but picking idea's out of the air might sound good but have you really thought about the physical costs to putting in a high speed network train system in ireland and the ongoing costs??
Argh! That's the point!! We haven't invested and so rail is the less attractive option!
exactly... our rail network sucks.... so whats our options? serious options here? from a green and a cost perspective?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I'll take your word for it-I had heard high figures like that.I am not sure, but high speed trains only emit 1/4 less CO2 than planes per passenger.
Ok this is great. You are a normal person and these are the sort of things that are a decision-maker for a normal person:Yep, I would take that plane every time, its cheaper, its quicker( you just proved it is, despite you saying it isn't) its more comfortable, the waiting lounge is vastly better than any of the train stations, I can make calls and use my laptop much easier than at a train station.
Cost-it could be brought down significantly without government subsidisation through the increased use of our rail systems for freight. At the moment only 0.5% of our freight goes by rail. Add in the currently-externalised carbon cost and train journeys would definitely be lower than plane journeys.
Comfort-I personally find the better trains more comfortable than an economy seat on a plane with more space. Also, I must point out the weight and liquid restrictions in place for flights.
Waiting area-you're absolutely right. Train stations are not a v nice place to be with insufficient seating and a lack of services like free broadband, etc
Calls/laptop-I think it's only fair to point out that you can't use either during the flight, whereas you can on a train. In relation to the waiting area, it comes back to providing a decent space.
Other important things need to be considered like allowing people to bring their bikes onto trains, sufficient good-quality parking at train stations, a more frequent service etc.
No, it isn't even just about a high-speed network: with all the stuff I talked about above, it's about improving the whole experience for the passenger from start to finish. A quicker train journey is important but probably the least cost-effective measure to implement.its great to hear these idea's, and I am not against trains, but whats the costs on putting this in? whats the running costs? whats the profit or loss on running this venture???
Idea's are great but picking idea's out of the air might sound good but have you really thought about the physical costs to putting in a high speed network train system in ireland and the ongoing costs??
I think getting freight onto trains would be a win-win scenario. We get more trucks off the roads (reducing congestion, CO2 emissions and other related pollution) and help increase the revenue of the rail networks.exactly... our rail network sucks.... so whats our options? serious options here? from a green and a cost perspective?
Unfortunately our rail network and trains have suffered years of neglect and a lack of investment. It may take a lot of money and some time to set things on the right track. But ultimately, it is just unsustainable for us to be so incredibly reliant on such a polluting, inefficient mode of transport.
I'm afraid I would need some more time to come up with a point-by-point plan!0 -
So say Sweden or France or SPain or Germany or Denmark. It doesn't matter and it doesn't take away the fact that we have the most ****eous rail system in Europe.
I'm sorry but I don't think these are valid comparisons, if we start to plan our transport strategies in the way industrial giants and (post)colonial powers do then we are setting ourselves up for failure. I'm not disagreeing with the improvement of rail, just that we have to approach it in a different manner to the countries listed above.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
brianthebard wrote: »I'm sorry but I don't think these are valid comparisons, if we start to plan our transport strategies in the way industrial giants and (post)colonial powers do then we are setting ourselves up for failure. I'm not disagreeing with the improvement of rail, just that we have to approach it in a different manner to the countries listed above.
Not fair in what way? Even if I compare us to Ireland of the 1930s, modern Ireland comes off looking bad.
It's not about blindly copying other countries but seeing what works in other places, learning from it and applying the lessons here. For example, the M25 was built around London in the 1970s and engineers rapidly expanded the number of lanes as latent demand emerged. But after increasing the lanes to 6 in each direction, they finally realised that more lanes was not going to solve the problem and that probably their exits were too close together, encouraging local traffic to use the motoroway. Fast forward to the 1990s and all the same mistakes are made on the M50 around Dublin. Why?
Apart from demand management, modal shift is probably the most important feature of any plans for a more sustainable transport network.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its not a fair comparison because you are referring to large industrial nations and countries that have accumulated huge quantities of wealth from foreign colonies as a means of developing their economies. Ireland doesn't have that 'luxury', despite its involvement in the EU. A slightly closer comparison might be Korea, but again there are issues. Korea had a serious heavy industry drive in the 50s and 60s along with policies of protectionism and import substitution. These avenues are not open to us. Basically what I'm saying is this is an issue of development, and we have to factor in rail as an element of development. I'm not saying the government have done things right or that they shouldn't change policies, only that if we are looking to learn lessons it should be from the right people and places.0
-
Not fair in what way? Even if I compare us to Ireland of the 1930s, modern Ireland comes off looking bad.
Similar decline in rail transport has occurred in most countries because it is, and always will be, a desperately uneconomic form of transport.
There is hardly a rail system, in any country, that does not still exist solely because it is heavily subsidised by the government.
The Swiss have a stunning rail system, and they use it a lot, to the tune of an average 40 train trips, per person per year. Yet even this gold standard is propped up by subsidies.
To bemoan subsidisation of internal flights because of cost, and to suggest rail as a lovely alternative economic warm-fuzzy-eco feeling alternative is to deny the economic reality that rail would need to be far, far more heavily subsidised to be a remotely credible alternative.It's not about blindly copying other countries but seeing what works in other places, learning from it and applying the lessons here. For example, the M25 was built around London in the 1970s and engineers rapidly expanded the number of lanes as latent demand emerged. But after increasing the lanes to 6 in each direction, they finally realised that more lanes was not going to solve the problem and that probably their exits were too close together, encouraging local traffic to use the motoroway. Fast forward to the 1990s and all the same mistakes are made on the M50 around Dublin. Why?
Because in order to pay for the infrastructure in a user-pays model, you want to maximise the number of users.Apart from demand management, modal shift is probably the most important feature of any plans for a more sustainable transport network.
Rail is hardly 'sustainable' in an economic sense.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Good points. Do you have a better comparison then, apart from Korea?brianthebard wrote: »Its not a fair comparison because you are referring to large industrial nations and countries that have accumulated huge quantities of wealth from foreign colonies as a means of developing their economies. Ireland doesn't have that 'luxury', despite its involvement in the EU. A slightly closer comparison might be Korea, but again there are issues. Korea had a serious heavy industry drive in the 50s and 60s along with policies of protectionism and import substitution. These avenues are not open to us. Basically what I'm saying is this is an issue of development, and we have to factor in rail as an element of development. I'm not saying the government have done things right or that they shouldn't change policies, only that if we are looking to learn lessons it should be from the right people and places.
I don't just look at things as purely from an economic standpoint. And even if you look at it from an economic standpoint, there are many, many issues to factor inSimilar decline in rail transport has occurred in most countries because it is, and always will be, a desperately uneconomic form of transport.
-increased attractiveness as a destination for investment
-the cost of gridlock to business and individuals
-reduced accidents and road-deaths
-reduced CO2 emissions, and therefore lower fines under Kyoto.
Over half of the government's Transport21 plan was earmarked to be spent on roads and road-related transport. Now how much subsidies are other forms of transport receiving? I don't have all the figures but I think they're needed in order to compare like with like.
You can engage in a proper debate without resorting to dismissive, childish vocabulary as above.To bemoan subsidisation of internal flights because of cost, and to suggest rail as a lovely alternative economic warm-fuzzy-eco feeling alternative is to deny the economic reality that rail would need to be far, far more heavily subsidised to be a remotely credible alternative.
As you can see, I'm not bemoaning the subsidisation of internal flights purely on a cost basis. It's far more complex than that.
Hah no. You give far too much praise to the planners of the M50. It was more a result of successful lobbying by owners of parcels of land along the M50.Because in order to pay for the infrastructure in a user-pays model, you want to maximise the number of users.
Even if you were right, it is short-term thinking. Strategic infrastructure planning isn't about making a quick buck. As it stands, the effectiveness of the piece of infrastrucutre has been seriously compromised by overuse by local traffic and is limited in its ability to provide for its initial function. And now there's talk of a further ring-road outside the M50? I'd laugh if it weren't my money in question.
I use sustainable in the Brundtland sense of the word.Rail is hardly 'sustainable' in an economic sense.0 -
A better comparision would be Greece or one of the smaller, resource poor east European countries.0
-
from a green perspective, whats more damaging to the enviroment,
continuing to support internal flights and higher pollution from airplannes than trains
or
to rip up hundreds, if not thousands of miles of land, bring in huge heavy polluting construction machinery for many a years to lay the new railways....
don't forget the damage making the new steel tracks will do, the damage cutting down the trees for sleepers, if not wooden sleepers then the concrete sleepers are massively polluting during manufacturing...
transporting all the neccessary items around the country by truck to the individual sites.....
I don't know the answer but there would be a lot to weigh up to see if it is a greener alternative.....0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
True - the more I learn about environmental issues, the more I realise that almost nothing is black and white and there are no easy answers. A few points:
- We seemed to have no qualms doing that for the roads, robtri. Trains do not only facilitate a modal shift from airplanes but also from private cars.
- The use of sustainably sourced trees as a building material is actually excellent as it acts as a carbon store.
-there are new technologies in cement that either have dramatically lower CO2 emissions (ecocem) or actually absorb CO2, again acting as a carbon store (new UK company).
You have to look at these things long term. For example, there are certain types of petroleum-based insulation that have quite a high level of embodied energy and could be considered quite unsustainable. However, if you look at the life of the product when fitted in the wall of a house, it actually ends up being carbon neutral by the end of its lifecycle. So, while the impact of the construction of railways has to be considered, it's really the long-term impact that is most important.
Also, what about the impact of building an airport, airplanes, noise pollution, impact on nearby residents etc etc etc.0 -
]
To bemoan subsidisation of internal flights because of cost, and to suggest rail as a lovely alternative economic warm-fuzzy-eco feeling alternative is to deny the economic reality that rail would need to be far, far more heavily subsidised to be a remotely credible alternative.
Rail is hardly 'sustainable' in an economic sense.
You are not taking account of the climate as an externality, and that is why it appears uneconomic.from a green perspective, whats more damaging to the enviroment,
continuing to support internal flights and higher pollution from airplannes than trains
or
to rip up hundreds, if not thousands of miles of land, bring in huge heavy polluting construction machinery for many a years to lay the new railways....
don't forget the damage making the new steel tracks will do, the damage cutting down the trees for sleepers, if not wooden sleepers then the concrete sleepers are massively polluting during manufacturing...
transporting all the neccessary items around the country by truck to the individual sites.....
I don't think you understand the difference between the climate and the local environment. The construction of airports involves similar work as you have complained about above, and far more metals and concrete.0 -
You are not taking account of the climate as an externality, and that is why it appears uneconomic.
I don't think you understand the difference between the climate and the local environment. The construction of airports involves similar work as you have complained about above, and far more metals and concrete.
I do understand, but the airports have been built, it has been suggested that we need to invest in a proper railway and no one has suggested anything about building airports, so I am not sure where you are coming from here,0
Advertisement