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
What An Bord Snip Nua means for infastructure and transport
Options
Comments
-
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »What are the chances the private operators will keep the routes that aren't breaking even or that government will impose and enforce such conditions on them ?
...
but selling off the family silver to cover short term debt is on the agenda
All of the expressway routes are profitable, so the question of shutting them down if they don't break even does not arise.0 -
I would heartily endorse Zoney`s suggestion.
As anotherlostie points out the ERC and it`s commissioning editors Mssrs Cowen and Lenihan draw back from accepting the simpler and easier methodoligies as practiced in places such as New Zealand (For Road Traffic liability cover)
There is one very good reason for this....The need to provide sufficient trough space for the usual collection of Consultancy Proffessionals and Approved Tenderers to operate and new hi-tech Road Pricing system.
The reason for a congestion charge is to deal with the causes of congestion, by funding public transport and new roads, and manage demand so that fewer new roads are needed.
You cannot do this with a petrol tax.
The reason for this is that congestion is time-sensitive.
The congestion all happens within a few hours of the day and the deepest congestion is only for a few months of the year, and only happens at a relatively small number of pinch points.
If you want to deal with congestion, you must deal with demand, rather than just building more supply. You need a method of charging for road use that can charge a different price depending on the location, the time of day and time of year.
Loading tax on petrol just does not work as a resolution to congestion. Lots of countries have higher petrol prices than us. They still have congestion.
Insurance is a different matter. The likelihood of accidents involving serious injury or death is more or less in proportion to the number of miles travelled and the speeds involved. It has nothing to do with congestion.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »All of the expressway routes are profitable, so the question of shutting them down if they don't break even does not arise.
You assume a private operator would run them more sensibly than Bus Éireann. Given the way some private companies run, I wouldn't assume that, especially if it's some big operator with little interest in Ireland that just picks it up as yet another service to run.
Private companies screw up all the time and it's not really the case that one can take solace from them mounting debts or going out of business (or selling off again a run-down service to someone else to run it down even more).
Obviously depending on who runs it, it might be far better than BÉ - but it depends on how sane the process is for selling off the service. Given how our govt. thinks, probably there is no intention to use any form of franchise/licence that can be withdrawn/revoked if the operator acts the muppet, so we'll be entirely at the mercy of the new operator.0 -
I assume nothing! You misunderstand me.
The expressway routes are all profitable as it stands. Bus Eireann operates them profitably. At least that is what Bus Eireann says.0 -
I wouldn't doubt that BE Expressway services are profitable, unfortunately, I do think they are badly run. Some bus facilities are extemely poor and a few depots are quite frankly left with vehicles in poor condition.
The express services are profitable helped in no small part to the short distance journeys done on these services which, speaking fom experience irritates the hell out of the longer distance passengers.0 -
Advertisement
-
antoinolachtnai wrote: »Insurance is a different matter. The likelihood of accidents involving serious injury or death is more or less in proportion to the number of miles travelled and the speeds involved. It has nothing to do with congestion.
Correct - my personal experience bears this out. When I moved from Galway City to the county my insurance premium went up for the very reasons that you mentioned.The express services are profitable helped in no small part to the short distance journeys done on these services which, speaking fom experience irritates the hell out of the longer distance passengers.
Again giving a Galway perspective, we have an interesting situation with bus services to Dublin. Two operators, BE and Citylink are running stopping services, and one, GoBus is running a non-stop service. It will be interesting to see which wins out.0 -
What suggestion? That service levels would degrade if public transport operators were privatised?I would heartily endorse Zoney`s suggestion.
The couple of examples we have in Dublin of private operation (the Luas and the Aircoach) would suggest the exact opposite. The Luas and the Aircoach are cleaner, more efficient, have friendlier staff and are generally popular with the public; contrast with the public's impression of IR and DB drivers and staff.
Now, you can make all sorts of excuses about the disadvantages faces by IR and DB but I'd be pretty confident that if you put IR staff in charge of the Luas, it would go to sh*te within days.
A government run regulator/department in charge of government owned operators is a recipe for the mess we have in Dublin just means the entire system is going to be disfunctional and rubbish.
How is it better to have incompetence in regulation coupled with incompetent operators? Surely if you believe government incompetence is a major reason for the failures of public transport in Dublin, you'd prefer to see them involved in as little as possible.
It all smacks to me of old style 70s commie ideology. Zoney's single supporting evidence is the railtrack fiasco in the UK while there are hundreds if not thousands of small, medium and large European cities with absolutely top class public transport systems run by private operators. Evidence is more convincing to me than didactics.0 -
Just a few words on that point. Amtrac was a private company for a long time until it was nationalised in the 70s. Nationalised because of serious financial difficulties within the private operators... It's only alive now because of state involvement, though the NE and possibly some of the NW would be profitable by themseves.gjim wrote:Amtrak in the US is another example of a woeful nationalised transport operator.0 -
Amtrak is on the up these days, especially given that the VP of the US was a daily Amtrak commuter.0
-
Amtrak was also one of the slowest, dated and heavily unionized railways in the western world. FFS you had one attendant per car on some trains. It is only relatively recent that they have taken on major engineering programmes such as Talgo and Acela Express on the northeast corridor. This route is competing well with Air travel.To_be_confirmed wrote: »Just a few words on that point. Amtrac was a private company for a long time until it was nationalised in the 70s. Nationalised because of serious financial difficulties within the private operators... It's only alive now because of state involvement, though the NE and possibly some of the NW would be profitable by themseves.0 -
Advertisement
-
antoinolachtnai wrote: »All of the expressway routes are profitable, so the question of shutting them down if they don't break even does not arise.
the question that arises is how selling of a profitable part of the business will save the state any money.
Surely it is blindingly obvious that selling of a profitable section of the company will just mean less cross subsidy of loss making routes with the profit form profitable routes and mean that those services will either have to be cut or subsidised from the state.0 -
the question that arises is how selling of a profitable part of the business will save the state any money.
Perhaps,shltter the tactic is not designed to SAVE the State money.
There are so many other forces at play in present day Ireland that any form of rational infrastructural decision making has gone out the window.
Given the obscene amounts of money which we supposedly had to play with we have precious little to show for it in infrastructural terms.
Fleets of nice shiny new vehicles do not a functional system make.
Other posters line up to cry for a "Privatized system like London has" without realizing that our administrators would run a mile from the operational costs of the "London Model"
There are other Northern European models which are equally attractive and far more operable for our situation BUT in true European style they dont offer any big payday`s to either the Tendering agency OR the successful operators.
Part of our problem is the inflated expectations we have of Profit combined with sod all understanding of the term "Common Good". :PMen, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Makes complete sense but why stop there?Surely it is blindingly obvious that selling of a profitable section of the company will just mean less cross subsidy of loss making routes with the profit form profitable routes and mean that those services will either have to be cut or subsidised from the state.
The government should nationalise profitable businesses, hand them over to the transport operators and allow their profits to subsidise public transport.
Nationalize Ryanair, give it to IE? Bingo, cheaper rail tickets for everyone!
Nationalize Tescos, give it DB? Bingo, loads of money available to upgrading the fleet!
A win, win for the common good?
No. The government should be involved in providing services which society has deemed important for the public good when the private sector/market fails to provide such services. Significant swathes of the public transport system qualify under this criteria, other areas are debatable, but it certainly excludes running airlines, ferries, taxis and busy inter-city bus routes, for example. The issue of profit is a complete red-herring; some bits of the airline, ferry, taxi and bus industries are profitable, others are not. The important point is that the private sector are providing these services so there is NO reason at all for the government to get involved.0 -
I would heartily endorse Zoney`s suggestion.
Before we go anyplace we need to first ditch this "Bord Snip Nua" business.
There is absolutely nothing Tabloid about the workings and findings of the Expenditure Review Committee`s
Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, if you please. The Expenditure Review Committee was the original 1987 body.0 -
Colm McCarthy's theory of public transport in Dublin seems to be that metro and commuter rail investment only makes sense in the absence of sprawl. He has consistently advocated a bus based solution for Dublin transport combined with restrictions on car use such as road pricing. He has opposed all major rail projects in Dublin as 'Rolls Royce projects' not suited to our population density.
In 2004 he predicted that the Luas would not achieve even half the 20m passengers a year predicted by the RPA and would need a heavy annual subsidy to operate.
In one way I think he's right that bus lanes and car restrictions would probably have had a better rate of return then DART spending. In the very city centre, however, it seems that buses will never achieve the required capacity and some segregated system is needed.
His sprawl argument falls down if it's possible to densify the areas surrounding the underground stations in Dublin. Thankfully, his predictions for the Luas were well off the mark as it carried 27 million last year and is breaking even.Economist casts doubts on the viability of Luas
Tim O'Brien
Dublin's Luas system, due to commence operations in nine weeks time, needs to carry a similar amount of passengers as the city's DART system just to cover its operational costs, an economist has claimed.
Luas expects to carry 20 million passengers in its first year of operations at an expected "fare box" revenue of €20 million.
It has also said it expects to pay the international transport operator Connex €20 million a year to run the system.
However, a leading economist, Mr Colm McCarthy, of DKM Consultants, has cast doubt on the viability of the system based on its own projections, pointing out that projected passenger numbers for the two unconnected lines are similar to those for the entire DART system.
Iarnród Éireann has confirmed its DART service between Howth, Malahide, Portmarnock and Greystones carried 21.6 million passengers in 2003.
According to Mr McCarthy, the Luas lines are extremely unlikely to meet their target of 20 million passengers in their first year of operation.
If the target is not met, Luas will potentially be unable to meet its financial obligation to pay Connex its fee of €20 million.
The figures also cast doubt on the financial viability of other extensions of the Luas to Cherrywood and the Docklands, for which private sector companies in the vicinity of the lines have been required to contribute.
Commenting after the British National Audit Office reported new tram lines across the UK had failed to achieve predicted passenger numbers - sometimes by 45 per cent - Mr McCarthy said difficulties with such systems were now "a worldwide phenomena".
Speaking to The Irish Times, Mr McCarthy said the real equation "is that trams generally cost twice as much, take twice as long and carry half the numbers, and this has been borne out by experience right across the world".
Asked if there was any reason to imagine that the Republic could be more accurate in its projections, Mr McCarthy insisted that Luas was already over-budget and over-time.
"Two legs of the treble are already up. I would love to be able to say that this is only 'mickology' but it is a worldwide thing."
However, Mr Ger Hannon, from the Light Rail Procurement Agency, said the agency was tired of hearing that Luas was over-budget and late.
He insisted that the system's passenger targets were to the highest international standards, and added that the Government had accepted that from the moment the contract was signed to the present, Luas was on budget.
As regards time, he conceded that the system may be about eight weeks off schedule.
Mr Hannon also insisted that the agency's estimates for passenger numbers were conservative, with eight million or nine million on line B, the Green Line to Sandyford; and 12 or 13 million on the Tallaght line in the first year of operation.
© 2004 The Irish Times0 -
I'm so glad McCarthy was not allowed to "investigate" metro North. No doubt he would have snipped off the project.
McCarthy is a pretty decent economist but when it comes to public transport he has a blind spot.
Luckily, the fact that he was so utterly and embarassingly wrong about luas will detroy any argument he might like to make against metro north.0 -
Sadly, our third rate journalists and politicians are not anoraks like some of us (myself included) and appear not to keep files on overpaid buffoons like Colm McCarthy - or if they do, they are too lazy to check them to see what said individual has come out with in the past. Therefore these experts can spout more rubbish and the media pick it up and run with like it had been handed down from Jesus Christ himself. Ed 'Nuclear Power' Walsh, Vincent 'Mad Dog' Browne and Garret FitzGerald are other 'experts' that the media and politicians love and their previous gross mistakes are ignored.0
-
It's not about ideology, it's about what works.
Ironic then that all your "facts" are ideologically tainted inaccuracies.The evidence all over Europe and our experience in Ireland of public transport nationalisation supports the very opposite conclusion to the one you've arrived at.
Experience would show that many of the best public transport operators across Europe are publicly owned. SNCF, DB, NS, etc.Rubbish. I wish people in Ireland would look just a little beyond screw ups in Britain before coming to conclusions on what works and doesn't when it comes to public transport. Private public transport operators are the norm all across Europe. I'm currently in a city with a population of less than 1/2 a million which has at least 10 different private operators running buses, trams, trains and even ferries but you'd never know it because there is a single brand and a single ticketing system (translated, the public transport authority's catch phrase is "one ticket for everything").
Those regimes require two things not readily available in Ireland. Strong, well run government regulation and a stable commitment of substantial public money to pay for it.The bus system in London is far better now being run by various private operators than it was 15 years ago when it was publicly owned and run to the extent that it is my preferred mode when I'm visiting the city.
Private operators had been allowed access to London from 1984 and by the mid 90's there were numerous privately operated services. By this time London buses had been broken up into seperate business units and were sold off.
It was not until TfL was set up to take control of the network that the decline brought about by privatisation was stopped.Most agree that the Luas in Dublin (privately operated) is managed far better than anything IR do.
Most with any insight would agree that the day-to-day running of a newly purpose built self-contained tram line is far easier than the complete management of an extensive complex network of services running on lines built over a century ago.
Most would also agree that what little Veolia have control over is not always a model of best practice either. There are huge problems with staff morale in LUAS. Fare evasion and anti-social behaviour have been allowed to get out of control particularly after dark. In comparison IE's measures on DART to cut down on fare evasion and scumbags have been much more sucessfull.When Dublin had one of the most extensive tram systems for a city of it's size in the world, it had all been built and operated by private companies. Since nationalisation under CIE, the Dublin tram system was dug up and the rail system went into decline for decades.
Except that Dublin's tram system had been in decline since the turn of the century and was mostly gone before CIE had formed in 1944. The rest of the tram network was closed BEFORE CIE was nationalised in 1950. The only exception was the Howth hill tramway which was closed by CIE shortly after they took over the GNR in 1958.
The rail network was in serious decline before Nationalisation and this decline and financial difficulties of the various companies was a major part of the nationalisation in the first place.Amtrak in the US is another example of a woeful nationalised transport operator.
And the US is a perfect example of why allowing private companies free reign over all the profitable parts of public services and then being forced to use public funds to plug the inevitable gaping holes of necessary but essential services is a bad model to emulate.0 -
You might have been able to prove the irony if you had pointed out these inaccuracies and proven the ideological taint. Instead you've given a bunch of opinions hidden behind weasel words (in the wikipedia sense) like "Experience would show...".Ironic then that all your "facts" are ideologically tainted inaccuracies.
And I could list many more systems operated by private owners. But I guess that would prove my ideological taint while this is a demonstration of your pure objectivity?Experience would show that many of the best public transport operators across Europe are publicly owned. SNCF, DB, NS, etc.
So to compensate for the lack of well-run government regulation in Dublin, we add some badly-run public operators and I guess the theory is that the two sets of incompentence will balance each other out right?Those regimes require two things not readily available in Ireland. Strong, well run government regulation and a stable commitment of substantial public money to pay for it.
Yes Ireland was starved of investment in public transport as it was in schools, hospitals and everything simply because we had no money. And there is a more than reasonable case to be made that IE for example has been catching up in terms of investment. But the fact remains that their levels of service and customer care remains very poor despite the large public investment over the last 10 years.
The decline brought about by privatisation? Before privatisation, there was no decline? Of course, you can deny that this is what you said but this is clearly what you are implying; you talk like a politician.Private operators had been allowed access to London from 1984 and by the mid 90's there were numerous privately operated services. By this time London buses had been broken up into seperate business units and were sold off.
It was not until TfL was set up to take control of the network that the decline brought about by privatisation was stopped.
TfL has only existed since 2000 so you need to think a little more about whatever point it is you are trying to make. TfL has been wonderful for many aspects of London public transport, so what? I wouldn't dream of arguing against such a position. My argument is in defense of private operators - not one against publicly controlled regulation. Is this getting a bit subtle for you?
At no point have I even suggested that strong publicly controlled regulation and control is not required to have a successful public transport. Why would I since I believe the opposite. So you wont get me to fall into a simple minded "private is good, public is bad stance".
Where did I ever claim otherwise? Of course running brand new infrastructure is easier. I made a very simple point; do you believe that IE would do a better job of running the Luas or that DB would do a better job of running AirCoach?Most with any insight would agree that the day-to-day running of a newly purpose built self-contained tram line is far easier than the complete management of an extensive complex network of services running on lines built over a century ago.
"Most would agree", really? It may stick in your anti-private sector craw, but most Dubliners I know would not agree at all that the DART was safer, had happier staff and was run more professionally than the Luas.Most would also agree that what little Veolia have control over is not always a model of best practice either. There are huge problems with staff morale in LUAS. Fare evasion and anti-social behaviour have been allowed to get out of control particularly after dark. In comparison IE's measures on DART to cut down on fare evasion and scumbags have been much more sucessfull.
Ideological taint, indeed.0 -
But the privatization of buses in London has not stopped. Almost all London bus services are operated (under contract) by private operators as I understand it.0
-
Advertisement
-
antoinolachtnai wrote: »But the privatization of buses in London has not stopped. Almost all London bus services are operated (under contract) by private operators as I understand it.
At the basic level of who owns and operates the buses that is correct. All are owned by private companies with one exception, when a small operator went out of business and no suitable replacement could be found TfL bought the failed business' assets and ran those contracts themselves.
At a wider level what has changed in the last 10 years since the GLA and TfL were formed is that control of the entire network has returned to a public body. TfL dictate every aspect of all bus services operating in Greater London (Coach services to other parts of the country and a handful of services from Heathrow are the only exception I know of). They determine the routes, times, frequencies, fares, design, livery and type of buses to be used. They take all the fare revenue and have even had a direct input into the pay levels of driver's in the private operators.0 -
You might have been able to prove the irony if you had pointed out these inaccuracies and proven the ideological taint. Instead you've given a bunch of opinions hidden behind weasel words (in the wikipedia sense) like "Experience would show...".
Oh FFS get some perspective. Shall we go through all your posts on this thread and count all the facts you have given that are actually "opinions hidden behind weasel words"?
I suppose an honest reason as to why you posted that completely incorrect fact about CIE being responsible for the destruction of Dublin's tram network is out of the question. That it fits with your ideological worldview is in no way relevant of course.0 -
At a wider level what has changed in the last 10 years since the GLA and TfL were formed is that control of the entire network has returned to a public body.
There is some change in the degree of control, but this has really always been the case. These routes were always run on contract. They used to run them on 'net' contracts, I think and now it's all 'gross' contracts, so that is different. But it's quite a while since they operated net contracts.0 -
At the basic level of who owns and operates the buses that is correct. All are owned by private companies with one exception, when a small operator went out of business and no suitable replacement could be found TfL bought the failed business' assets and ran those contracts themselves.
At a wider level what has changed in the last 10 years since the GLA and TfL were formed is that control of the entire network has returned to a public body. TfL dictate every aspect of all bus services operating in Greater London (Coach services to other parts of the country and a handful of services from Heathrow are the only exception I know of). They determine the routes, times, frequencies, fares, design, livery and type of buses to be used. They take all the fare revenue and have even had a direct input into the pay levels of driver's in the private operators.
Transport for London have no real extra powers in relation to buses over that which London Regional Transport had prior to 2000. They are perhaps using their powers slightly more effectively than LRT did but that may be due to TfL being effective under the control of the Mayor of London rather than national government as LRT was.
When tendering was first introduced, LRT did not prescribe what livery operators had to use. London Buses had been using red since time immerorial (or 1933, at least) and so when private operators started using their own livery there was a bit of an outcry. When the contracts were next re-tendered, LRT placed clauses in the new contracts requiring operator liveries to be 80% red.
Where TfL really differs from LRT is its scope of transport modes - LRT was strictly just London Buses and London Underground. Now, TfL is over the Docklands Light Railway, taxis, hackneys, roads, the Victoria coach station, and Thames river services too. The only area of transport in London it does not have control over is mainline railway services, even here it is involved in provision through London Overground.0 -
No but you could answer the challenge to your defense of IE as operators compared to Veolia.Oh FFS get some perspective. Shall we go through all your posts on this thread and count all the facts you have given that are actually "opinions hidden behind weasel words"?
I'll admit I misrepresented the case with CIE and the tram system but there still was a tram system when they took over. Formal nationalisation happened later. Before that the entire tram system (and the national rail network for that matter) had been built and operated by private companies.I suppose an honest reason as to why you posted that completely incorrect fact about CIE being responsible for the destruction of Dublin's tram network is out of the question. That it fits with your ideological worldview is in no way relevant of course.
You see what I did there? I actually addressed the points in your message. I didn't just snip out the awkward questions and I admitted that I had painted an inaccurate picture. I did not resort to second guessing your motives or your political world view (although you've made it pretty clear).
Could you do me the courtesy and address some of my challenges to your ludicrous claims regarding IE and Veolia's relative performance as operators?
And there is no need to infer anything about ideology - why you felt the need to bring it up is a mystery. Public debate has advanced a little since the 70s and most people can look around the world (unless they are blinkered) and see what WORKS - not what reinforces their beliefs.
I pointed out some simple and uncontestable facts.
First that the existence of private operators is not a threat to a public transport system and in fact they form the backbone of many of the most admired urban public transport systems in Europe.
It is also a fact that it was private operators who historically are responsible for most of the initial investment in public transport infrastructure all over the world.
It is also a fact that most of the most miserable public transport experiences in the world are those run by public operators. And yes there are superb public operators too and there is much to learn from them.0
Advertisement