Varadkar as Minister for Transport and Tourism

Bunnyhopper

What are people's expectations for Leo Varadkar as Minister for Transport, Tourism, and Sport?

I live in his constituency and he was a councillor for my area before entering the Dáil. He has struck me as very ambitious and efficient, but at times quite arrogant. I haven't had a huge amount of faith in FG as a party well-disposed to cyclists and cycling but I'm curious to hear what people hope for and actually expect.

Cookie_Monster

He'll be good for cycling in Dublin anyway, as Dublin Bus will be up on the block, so ye won't have any choice but to cycle or sit in car traffic

ednwireland

Not a lot but then that applies to all politicians up here

penexpers

Makes Thatcher look human is about the description I have read of him.

Harrybelafonte

Does programme for governement state following:


We recognise the need to rebalance transport policy to favour public transport. We will therefore establish a Cabinet sub-committee on Infrastructure to explore the benefits to the public transport passenger of more diverse bus service provision.

Don't know what hi sattitude to cycling is though

Morrisseeee

Varadkar

Is that some kind of vodka ? Does it give you a sore head ?

Gipo3

Its not Vodka, but does give a sore head.

GSF

Open the Western Cycle Corridor hopefully.

studiorat

Bicycle Tax and Insurance and mandatory helmets for all.

New Haven

I think Varadkar will look at the cost effectiveness of Dublin Bus and will possibly look at taking a premises from them and franchising some routes to the private sector.

However, I think this could be near the end of the government's term of office due to current licences being valid for almost 4 more years.

The Dublin Bus Airlink and Dublin Tours licences are up for grabs soon. He could flex his muscles here through the National Transport Authority. Although, he might scrap the NRA as an unessessary quango.

biomed32

I dont hold high hopes for varadkar for public transport. Although I am part of his constituancy and have known the family for years I find him too arragant and pretty much empty promises which will result in misery over time. I am to be quite honest fairly synical of the incomming government and its a wait and see if they come foward with the promises made pre election

Diarmuid

I'm looking forward to his tenure. It's about time we got some fiscally responsible politicians in power in government. I expect Dublin Bus will finally gets what's coming to it, which can only mean a win for their long suffering customers.

I think he comes across as capable and educated, not your regular Irish politician in other words.

Chips Lovell

Diarmuid wrote: »

I expect Dublin Bus will finally gets what's coming to it, which can only mean a win for their long suffering customers.

Great, we'll go from late buses to no buses.

RobFowl

Diarmuid wrote: »

I'm looking forward to his tenure. It's about time we got some fiscally responsible politicians in power in government. I expect Dublin Bus will finally gets what's coming to it, which can only mean a win for their long suffering customers.

I think he comes across as capable and educated, not your regular Irish politician in other words.

Tend to agree though he's a bit too far to the right for my liking.
That said Bonking Boris has been good for bikes in London .
A bit of lobbying would do no harm I suspect ..........

niceonetom

I find I have no trust in him - I suspect his personal ambition far outstrips any idealism he might have, and behind the façade of the capable doctor there lies a cold, hard Thatcherite.

Luckily, cycle-lanes are difficult to privatise so they might be left to wither and die, which would be okay by me on the whole.

I'm guessing the closest he'd naturally come to cycling advocacy would be to quote Norman Tebbit.

daragh_

He has the cold dead eyes of a born Tory.

No good will come of this (cue lightning and thunder).

Jawgap

First, I think he deserves his chance. He seems capable and all the lights are on.

Second, as the spawn of Thatcher, there'll be de-regulation, more de-regulation and sell-offs. I exepct there'll be confrontation and industrial unrest on the buses and trains (the army will need to dust of its trucks to run the bus service!! - that was great fun in the 80s!) - Aer Lingus stake to be sold - minority share in the airports to be sold etc etc

Third, I don't expect he'll have much time for cycling or cyclists - Boris is a Londoner who became mayor and is obviously passionate about his city - Varadkar wants to make a name for himself to become Taoiseach.

Fourth, sport?!?!?!?!? - he lists no sports on his profile. An enthusiasm for diet Coke seems to be about as sporty as he gets, so that work will be left to the junior.

I predict 2/3 years of strikes, closures and sell-offs, but I reckon by the end of it we'll have a more efficient transport network, cheaper prices and better access.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

I find I have no trust in him - I suspect his personal ambition far outstrips any idealism he might have, and behind the façade of the capable doctor there lies a cold, hard Thatcherite.

Thatcher has an undeserved reputation for dogmatism. She produced some good soundbites ("this Lady's not for turning" etc) but behind the scenes she was pragmatic at best and timidly inconsistent at worst. The Iron Lady image is mostly a myth concocted by her fans.

tomasrojo

There's a subtle clue in his name: Vrad-'car'.

I can't believe he's in his early thirties. Maybe he's done a lot of hard livin' and hard lovin'.

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

Thatcher has an undeserved reputation for dogmatism. She produced some good soundbites ("this Lady's not for turning" etc) but behind the scenes she was pragmatic at best and timidly inconsistent at worst. The Iron Lady image is mostly a myth concocted by her fans.

... but she stole my milk - not drunk the stuff since ...

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's a subtle clue in his name: Vrad-'car'.

I can't believe he's in his early thirties. Maybe he's done a lot of hard livin' and hard lovin'.

He had a long paper round!

I'm not comepletely anti-Thatcher. She achieved an awful lot, and much of that was positive, but my fear would be that someone like Leo might attempt some of what she did, but - ironically - lack the balls to push it through to its natural conclusion.

The worst outcome would be huge industrial unrest for little or no progress. Thatcher generated the conflict (not what she wanted, I'm sure) - but she kept going, rather than turned back. Leo is a divisive personality - but has he the cajones to drive his programmes through?

Diarmuid

el tonto wrote: »

Great, we'll go from late buses to no buses.

Like when the airline industry was deregulated in 97 we went from expensive flights to no airplanes flying?

Diarmuid

Jawgap wrote: »

Second, as the spawn of Thatcher, there'll be de-regulation, more de-regulation and sell-offs. I exepct there'll be confrontation and industrial unrest on the buses and trains (the army will need to dust of its trucks to run the bus service!! - that was great fun in the 80s!) - Aer Lingus stake to be sold - minority share in the airports to be sold etc etc.

About time. The Irish government has proven again and again it's inability to even run itself competently. Why you'd want to put it in charge or any more than necessary is beyond me.

Chips Lovell

Diarmuid wrote: »

Like when the airline industry was deregulated in 97 we went from expensive flights to no airplanes flying?

Or the privatisation of British Rail?

ednwireland

Jawgap wrote: »

I predict 2/3 years of strikes, closures and sell-offs, but I reckon by the end of it we'll have a more efficient transport network, cheaper prices and better access.

honestly you think trains and buses are better and cheaper in britain since privatisation, beleive me there not
(just talking to my sister and its cheaper to drive into leeds than pay the 10 quid it cost her with the kids each way on the bus about 7 miles)

Lumen

ednwireland wrote: »

honestly you think trains and buses are better and cheaper in britain since privatisation, beleive me there not
(just talking to my sister and its cheaper to drive into leeds than pay the 10 quid it cost her with the kids each way on the bus about 7 miles)

Public transport is expensive regardless of who runs it.

If I travel with two kids and one spouse into town by public transport using commuter train and luas, it costs me at least €7.90 in Luas fares and €13.10 in train fares, a total of €21 for 30km, or 70c/km.

My car doesn't cost anything like 70c/km to run.

And that's for a single destination, the most flattering case for public transport.

tomasrojo

Diarmuid wrote: »

Like when the airline industry was deregulated in 97 we went from expensive flights to no airplanes flying?

I'm not sure about deregulation, since I've always thought that public transport is something that requires substantial subventions to work properly, but is very effective, when done well, at reducing car use, which is good for everyone, including the remaining car users. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Apparently in the UK after deregulation they went through a period of "Bus Wars", which sound far from ideal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Britain

I have to say that barring one unpleasant run-in as a passenger (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055764732), I find Dublin Bus ok, both as a cyclist and a passenger. Not superb, but ok.

I was surprised how much the drivers were paid though. €33k starting salary, if I recall correctly. Not a prince's ransom or anything, but a good bit more than I got as either a research assistant with a good degree and a M.Sc., and more than my last job in IT (admittedly, I took a 33% pay cut there). Maybe I'm just useless at finding financially rewarding work.

It would help if they simplified the fares (say a nice round flat fare for all journeys), but I don't think that will be accomplished by deregulation. Quite the opposite. I'd be very willing to believe that the more popular routes will see prices fall sharply, but good luck getting a private bus to go to Jobstown and Killinarden.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/feb/14/ten-year-olds-holding-tallaght-to-ransom/

EDIT: I think that €33k is an average, not a starting salary. I shouldn't post about things I don't know much about. Mind you, Boards would be a lot quieter if we all did that!

Jawgap

Diarmuid wrote: »

Like when the airline industry was deregulated in 97 we went from expensive flights to no airplanes flying?

I worked in the UK for 10 years. In 1992 it cost 250 pounds to fly from Newcastle to Dublin - then Ryanair came along - say what you like about O'Leary (I'd never work for him!) but coming over and back to Ireland went from a bi-annual affair (summer and Christmas) to almost a monthly trip. the only criticism I'd have is it made it easier for free-loading relatives visit us:)

Diarmuid wrote: »

About time. The Irish government has proven again and again it's inability to even run itself competently. Why you'd want to put it in charge or any more than necessary is beyond me.

Deffo - but I still doubt even the current administration has the resolve to take on the unions in the way they need to be taken on.

el tonto wrote: »

Or the privatisation of British Rail?

ednwireland wrote: »

honestly you think trains and buses are better and cheaper in britain since privatisation, beleive me there not
(just talking to my sister and its cheaper to drive into leeds than pay the 10 quid it cost her with the kids each way on the bus about 7 miles)

Further "Ooop North" privatisation worked for me! Cheaper and quicker to get to and from London / Edinburgh - easier to go cross country by train. More frequent bus services - but I suppose the effect of de-regulation will not be equal for all parts.

Maybe Leo will make the trains - what's left of them anyway - run on time.

By the way - compare the following (anyone else think Leo looks like Benito with hair!!)



.....and you can say what you like about Il Duce, but HE made the trains run on time:)

sensibleken

I would imagine he will still offer foreigners €2,000 to go home

Lumen

sensibleken wrote: »

I would imagine he will still offer foreigners €2,000 to go home

He should pay us €2,000 to stay. We're awesome. :pac:

sensibleken

Lumen wrote: »

He should pay us €2,000 to stay. We're awesome. :pac:

I'm not

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

He should pay us €2,000 to stay. We're awesome. :pac:

You'd have to lose your job first to get your Varadkar grant.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

You'd have to lose your job first to get your Varadkar grant.

What if I'm stealing your jobs and your wimmins?

edit: more seriously, I believe it is perfectly legal to deport unemployed non-Irish citizens for being a burden on the state, whether or not they are EU residents.

ednwireland

Jawgap wrote: »

Further "Ooop North" privatisation worked for me! Cheaper and quicker to get to and from London / Edinburgh - easier to go cross country by train. More frequent bus services - but I suppose the effect of de-regulation will not be equal for all parts.

Maybe Leo will make the trains - what's left of them anyway - run on time.

about the same cost to hire a small car with 2 people to get return train tickets from manchester airport to dewsbury (about a 45 min train ride)

cdaly_

Lumen wrote: »

My car doesn't cost anything like 70c/km to run.

It should though. It should cost way more than 70c/km.

Just think of the energy you expend pushing you and bike (~100kg) at a sustained 30kph. Now consider the energy expended to push a car (>1000kg) at a sustained 50kph (city speed) or 120kph (motorway). There's no way that amount of energy costs less than 70c/km.

studiorat

Diarmuid wrote: »

About time. The Irish government has proven again and again it's inability to even run itself competently. Why you'd want to put it in charge or any more than necessary is beyond me.

Privatization is not the answer though. It'll be like the Telecommunications business in Ireland. At one stage Ireland was ahead of the game, then they privatized Telecommunications. Now Ireland is lagging behind.

Why? Because they turn companies from providing a service to turning a profit for private shareholders. A CEO has about 8 years in the driving seat and during this time the legacy they want to leave behind is a good profit, usually through cut-backs rather than investment. No privatized company will want to make the long term investment of 10/15 years plus. The shareholders wouldn't allow it.

Regarding Transport, I fork out anything up to €74 a week on public transport. And another €8 one way, to bring my bike on the train.

tomasrojo

How much does it cost to have a car per year that you don't use? A few thousand euro?

Part of the reason for high car-use is that once you have one, your costs are largely fixed. Using the car does drive up your costs, but not by very much, so you don't give each car journey much thought. It also mean that for a lot of journeys you might as well take the car if your considerations are purely financial; the petrol and wear and tear for the trip is less than the fare for public transport. However, getting rid of the car and using public transport might be more economical.

Part of the reason I like car-share schemes is that you only pay for the time you're using. Which means that you weigh up each journey, and not only for the inconvenience of fetching the car from the base. That, and it's a lot cheaper than having a car full-time (or paying for a second car, depending on your circumstances).

Lumen

cdaly_ wrote: »

It should though. It should cost way more than 70c/km.

Just think of the energy you expend pushing you and bike (~100kg) at a sustained 30kph. Now consider the energy expended to push a car (>1000kg) at a sustained 50kph (city speed) or 120kph (motorway). There's no way that amount of energy costs less than 70c/km.

The energy costs substantially less than 70c/km, as evidenced by its price.

Perhaps you have a different definition of "should" than I do. Making one form of energy hugely more expensive through market interventions is counter-productive to environmental goals. IIRC petroleum products in Ireland are already above the level which encourages effective resource utilisation.

Jawgap

studiorat wrote: »

Privatization is not the answer though. It'll be like the Telecommunications business in Ireland. At one stage Ireland was ahead of the game, then they privatized Telecommunications. Now Ireland is lagging behind.

Why? Because they turn companies from providing a service to turning a profit for private shareholders. A CEO has about 8 years in the driving seat and during this time the legacy they want to leave behind is a good profit, usually through cut-backs rather than investment. No privatized company will want to make the long term investment of 10/15 years plus. The shareholders wouldn't allow it.

Regarding Transport, I fork out anything up to €74 a week on public transport. And another €8 one way, to bring my bike on the train.

I think the only people whoever thought Ireland was ahead of the game in telecoms was the Irish. I certainly remember having plenty of dealings with TE and it's various incarnations trying to get extra lines, ISDN etc and their attitude was "sure what do you want all that for - are you NASA or something!"

The cost base of various entities in Ireland, including Eircom, is bloated beyond belief.

Undercover Elephant

studiorat wrote: »

Why? Because they turn companies from providing a service to turning a profit for private shareholders. A CEO has about 8 years in the driving seat and during this time the legacy they want to leave behind is a good profit, usually through cut-backs rather than investment. No privatized company will want to make the long term investment of 10/15 years plus. The shareholders wouldn't allow it.

Actually the opposite is true. When the Thatcher government privatised BT, it wasn't (principally) for ideological reasons, but because the government couldn't fund the modernisation programme which was needed to save it. After going private, BT raised the money in the debt markets instead. Same with the railways. Same with the water companies.

By any reasonable measure, all those services in Britain are far better than they were pre-privatisation. You can argue about the cost of train travel and the insanely complicated ticketing system, but people are voting with their feet and there are more train journeys taken now than for over a century.

cdaly_

Lumen wrote: »

The energy costs substantially less than 70c/km, as evidenced by its price.

Perhaps you have a different definition of "should" than I do. Making one form of energy hugely more expensive through market interventions is counter-productive to environmental goals. IIRC petroleum products in Ireland are already above the level which encourages effective resource utilisation.

But that cost is only the cost of extraction and bears no relation to the cost of generation (you can't really quantify the 'cost' of millions of years of growth and decay).

Lumen

cdaly_ wrote: »

But that cost is only the cost of extraction and bears no relation to the cost of generation (you can't really quantify the 'cost' of millions of years of growth and decay).

Those costs are irrelevant in the big picture. If you artificially price one energy source high relative to another you'll create market distortions that lead to waste.

For instance, if petrol for cars is made really expensive but tanker oil is kept really cheap, you'll end up with goods being shipped around the world by tanker when it would be more fuel-efficient to manufacture them in Europe and ship by road.

Unintended consequences and all that.

There was a report done for the UK government on "correct" pricing of various energy sources, and it concluded that petrol/diesel was too expensive. Unforunately I can't find the link.

Ant

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and you can say what you like about Il Duce, but HE made the trains run on time:)

Sorry to disappoint you, Jawgap, but even that's not true. Don't fall for the brownshirt - or the blueshirt - propaganda. :pac:

Doctor Bob

Back on topic for a second: Michael Ring got the Tourism & Sport bits.

dited

Just noticed that Alan Kelly, Labour TD and former MEP, has been appointed junior minister with responsibility for public and commuter transport. Quite relieved that not all decisions to do with commuting will be taken by lovely Leo:D

studiorat

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Actually the opposite is true. When the Thatcher government privatised BT, it wasn't (principally) for ideological reasons, but because the government couldn't fund the modernisation programme which was needed to save it. After going private, BT raised the money in the debt markets instead. Same with the railways. Same with the water companies.

By any reasonable measure, all those services in Britain are far better than they were pre-privatisation.

I dunno about BT, but the various Train companies in the UK get £2 bn from the Government annually through the Office of Passenger Rail Franchises. And Railtrack have seriously under invested, the rail crashes illustrate this, not to mention the under communication between different operators which contributed to the major ones.

Doctor Bob

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Back on topic for a second: Michael Ring got the Tourism & Sport bits.

+

dited wrote: »

Just noticed that Alan Kelly, Labour TD and former MEP, has been appointed junior minister with responsibility for public and commuter transport. Quite relieved that not all decisions to do with commuting will be taken by lovely Leo:D

=

What's left for Leo? Planes, boats and cars?

dited

Doctor Bob wrote: »

What's left for Leo? Planes, boats and cars?

Lots of time to finalise those plans for world domination.

Jawgap

Ant wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint you, Jawgap, but even that's not true. Don't fall for the brownshirt - or the blueshirt - propaganda. :pac:

Does my introduction of Il Duce violate Goodwin's Law?:)

Undercover Elephant

studiorat wrote: »

I dunno about BT, but the various Train companies in the UK get £2 bn from the Government annually through the Office of Passenger Rail Franchises. And Railtrack have seriously under invested, the rail crashes illustrate this, not to mention the under communication between different operators which contributed to the major ones.

Because trains never crashed or got subsidised prior to privatisation?

ciotog

studiorat wrote: »

Privatization is not the answer though. It'll be like the Telecommunications business in Ireland. At one stage Ireland was ahead of the game, then they privatized Telecommunications. Now Ireland is lagging behind.

Ireland was ahead of the game based on what was planned not because of what existed. The reality was that the delivery fell apart and that's why we ended up falling behind as other countries actually implemented what they were talking about (not entirely of course but a lot more than here). Ambitious plans are wonderful but they needed competent, committed and focused delivery & oversight.