Transport plan a surreal wish list of excess

lods

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0328/1224293222497.html

Transport plan a surreal wish list of excess

Mon, Mar 28, 2011

OPINION: Riddling Dublin with uncosted rail networks is an odd idea taking no account of our means, writes FRANK McDONALD

TEN YEARS ago, the then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat coalition adopted Platform for Change , an ambitious transport strategy for the greater Dublin area with a price-tag of €22 billion. Most of it was to have been delivered by 2010, including a metro running from Swords to Sandyford via St Stephen’s Green.

The Dublin Transportation Office, which drafted Platform for Change , was being unrealistically optimistic. Indeed, apart from building the Sandyford and Tallaght Luas lines and upgrading Dart and suburban rail services, none of the major public transport projects envisaged in 2001 were delivered.

By contrast, most of the major road schemes in the office’s strategy were implemented in full – the M1, M2, M3, M4, M50 (and its €1 billion upgrade), N7 “improvements”, M7, N9 and N11. All that’s left outstanding are the Eastern Bypass and a new orbital route (call it the M50 bypass) from Drogheda to Newbridge.

“One of the things that has bedevilled transport planning in Dublin is that what was intended as a seamless garment only arrives in patches,” one seasoned observer puts it. Or as Gerry Murphy, chief executive of the National Transport Authority, put it: “There was no engine of delivery for public transport as there was for roads.”

And Murphy knows that well, having been in charge of public-private partnerships for the National Roads Authority prior to taking up his new post. Even throughout the 3½ years when the Green Party was in Government, transport investment was still skewed in favour of roads by a ratio of at least two to one.

Now, the big-ticket public transport schemes are being wheeled out again – this time by the transport authority, which is holding public consultations. Apart from dropping two Luas lines that probably would never have happened anyway, it regurgitates the existing plans – without pricing them.

The absence of even ballpark estimates is quite remarkable. Given Ireland’s financial plight, one might have expected a serious review based on what we can afford. Instead, schemes that would cost billions are put forward simply because they were judged in-house by the transport authority to meet “all” of the strategy’s objectives: “Identified measures were assessed and taken forward where appropriate, based on their technological, political and legal feasibility; the contribution they are likely to make in meeting the objectives of the strategy; and their performance, based on a standard approach to transport appraisal set out by the Department of Transport.”

Thus, it includes not only Metro North, but also Metro West, a city centre link between the two existing Luas lines (with an extension to Grangegorman and Broombridge) and two new Luas lines – one from Lucan to the city centre with a possible extension to Poolbeg, and the other running from the southwest via Kimmage to the city centre.

In addition, the strategy endorses plans to extend the Luas Green Line from Bride’s Glen to Bray, where it would link up with the Dart line, as well as an extension of Metro North southwards from St Stephen’s Green (with tunnelling from St Stephen’s Green to Ranelagh) “enabling its services to run onto the Green Line”.

It also foresees implementation of Dart Underground linking Heuston with Docklands via St Stephen’s Green and completion resignalling and other projects associated with it, including electrification of the Maynooth and Kildare rail lines (so that they could run through the city centre tunnel) and extra track between Balbriggan and Connolly.

Taken together, these rail schemes would cost billions of euro. They are also based on population projections for the greater Dublin area that assume it will increase by 39 per cent between now and 2030. This is unlikely given the number of young people leaving Ireland.

There are numerous other, less costly, measures to promote walking and cycling; restrict traffic speeds in town centre, residential and school areas; and improve bus services – for example, by upgrading existing quality bus corridors. But this is being proposed while Dublin Bus services are contracting as its fleet is cut to save money. Murphy accepts “buses have been taken out of the system” and says “the big challenge is the level of subvention”, which is much lower in Dublin than in most European cities.

As for the enormous investment proposed in its strategy, he insists there’s nothing wrong with taking a long-term view. “We’re looking at a 20-year horizon, so it could be delivered on a phased basis,” he says. Despite constraints on public spending, “we can do an awful lot over the next three to four years”.

Following public consultation which concludes on May 6th, the authority (where 40 per cent of the 95 staff are drawn from the old Dublin Transportation Office) will finalise a six-year “implementation plan” within nine months. Indeed, a draft – unseen by the public – has been submitted to the department.

This is the biggest transport wish list to be put forward for Dublin since the transportation office had a go 10 years ago. In the best of times, it would be vaultingly ambitious and probably not achievable. In the worst of times, with Ireland burdened by €100 billion of debts, it seems quite surreal.

© 2011 The Irish Times

What is actually achievable? The idea that we can lower the speed in the city anymore seems bizarre . Theres a need for a bigger subvention to Dublin Bus quickly to stop anymore deterioration in the system.

Sponge Bob

95 staff, doing what ?????

lods

Sponge Bob wrote: »

95 staff, doing what ?????

posting on boards:rolleyes:

OurLadyofKnock

"Taken together, these rail schemes would cost billions of euro. They are also based on population projections for the greater Dublin area that assume it will increase by 39 per cent between now and 2030. This is unlikely given the number of young people leaving Ireland."

Now this is a sublime example of why McDonald is an arse and why this country gets nowhere. IRELAND HAS THE HEIGHEST BIRTHRATE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Our population is still heading for major growth. The "young people leaving in droves!" has been shown to not be true at all. This was political rethoric thrown about during the election. I live in Sligo and the local schools are exanding to meet future demand in students and they are concerned it may not be enough. Out population is booming still and will for decades to come unless a famine happens.

I love the "logic" also that some agency has too many staff - the solution: do not build the infrastructure...

Honestly, have you ever come across a more ****-for-brains concept in your life and yet this is how 90% of Irish journalists are and it has held this country back for decades. Nevermind Dublin transport is crap and the city is falling behind in global business rankings as result. One elitest on his bicycle says there are too many staff in one office so let's build nothing!

Jack Noble

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Now this is a sublime example of why McDonald is an arse and why this country gets nowhere. IRELAND HAS THE HEIGEST BIRTHRATE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Our population is still heading for major growth. The "young people leaving in droves!" has been shown to not be true at all. This was political rethoric thrown about during the election. I live in Sligo and the local schools are exanding to meet future demand in students and they are concerned it may not be enough. Out population is booming still and will for decades to come unless a famine happens.

And even a cursory check on the records shows Dublin's population has expanded year-on-year for more than a century and a half - despite all the emigration through the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

I take nothing McDonald says seriously and haven't for more than a decade. All opinion and little fact or fact-based reasoning. Very lazy editing on Madam's part - hopefully her successor will be more diligent when it comes to McDonald's work.

markpb

Sponge Bob wrote: »

95 staff, doing what ?????

The old Taxi Regulator office has been subsumed into the NTA as has the bus licensing department from the DoT. I assume there are others. Presumably there are also support staff like management and HR, payroll and accounts departments.

I do support the NTA but I don't see why it was necessary - why not subsume that work into the DoT and reduce the overhead. Since it's budget is set by politicians, they can't claim to be independent.

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

The old Taxi Regulator office has been subsumed into the NTA as has the bus licensing department from the DoT. I assume there are others. Presumably there are also support staff like management and HR, payroll and accounts departments.

I do support the NTA but I don't see why it was necessary - why not subsume that work into the DoT and reduce the overhead. Since it's budget is set by politicians, they can't claim to be independent.

Mark I could not disagree with you more with regard to keeping it within the Department.

Look at the difference in the approach since the bus licensing section was taken out of the Department. There is a sea change in attitude and we are finally seeing licences being issued based on customer needs rather than being not issued at all for fear the department would be sued. Examples have been the DB route 37 which has (I understand) finally got the green light to serve Blanchardstown SC, the recent BE changes in South Wexford and in Cavan.

Moving the function out of the department into an organisation staffed by transport professionals rather than civil servants who were just worried about their own skins was for me one of the most important changes that has been made.

We have also for the first time got reasoned arguments for the fares changes.

From my perspective as a customer, I have to say that the NTA seems to be doing all the right things.

markpb

lxflyer wrote: »

Mark I could not disagree with you more with regard to keeping it within the Department.

Look at the difference in the approach since the bus licensing section was taken out of the Department. There is a sea change in attitude and we are finally seeing licences being issued based on customer needs rather than being not issued at all for fear the department would be sued. Examples have been the DB route 37 which has (I understand) finally got the green light to serve Blanchardstown SC, the recent BE changes in South Wexford and in Cavan.

Moving the function out of the department into an organisation staffed by transport professionals rather than civil servants who were just worried about their own skins was for me one of the most important changes that has been made.

I agree with all that What I don't understand is why it was necessary to introduce a lot of overhead to achieve it? Why couldn't those people be hired into the civil service, why are NTA less afraid of being sued than DoT? I *fully* support the NTA and I think they're doing great work, what I don't understand is why we need an NTA for the DoT, a HSE for the DoHAC, etc. There's something fundamentally wrong with the way the civil service or government works if they have to spin off their core functions in order for them to work.

DWCommuter

Lets be clear on this. McDonald hasn't said the GDA population won't increase. He has said that it won't increase by 39% by 2030.

It may be his opinion and some may want to misrepresent it via historical figures that record small annual increases whereby the birthrate marginally outstrips the death rate/emigration. But this just ignores the likely probability that the 39% figure was arrived at in wealthier times. No doubt we should expect gradual increases in the population, but even history may not be an accurate barometer of what will happen.

If you are going to diss the claim then I'd like to see what you can back it up with.

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

I agree with all that What I don't understand is why it was necessary to introduce a lot of overhead to achieve it? Why couldn't those people be hired into the civil service, why are NTA less afraid of being sued than DoT? I *fully* support the NTA and I think they're doing great work, what I don't understand is why we need an NTA for the DoT, a HSE for the DoHAC, etc. There's something fundamentally wrong with the way the civil service or government works if they have to spin off their core functions in order for them to work.

Because the civil service is incapable of operating in a commercial environment, nor do they have the necessary expertise to handle this sort of thing properly.

The changes in attidude post-creation of NTA speaks volumes to me about the total inadequacy of the civil service and government.

They do not live anywhere near the real world.

dynamick

Here's the CSO population projections for the GDA
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/poppro.pdf
They have a number of projections for various assumptions.

Population is affected by the availability of jobs and quality of life both of which are partly determined by the availability of high quality public transport. So, without wanting to make a 'build it and they will come' argument, a decision to defer public transport because of low population projections could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

McDonald should really consider taking a little time to learn the very basics of transport economics when his views are so influential.

Sponge Bob

Didn't realise they now had taxis as well Still, if it comes from McDonald it is automatically highly suspect, maybe because the DTA has no cycle to work policy which would irk McDonald dreadfully.

Jack Noble

DWCommuter wrote: »

Lets be clear on this. McDonald hasn't said the GDA population won't increase. He has said that it won't increase by 39% by 2030.

It may be his opinion and some may want to misrepresent it via historical figures that record small annual increases whereby the birthrate marginally outstrips the death rate/emigration. But this just ignores the likely probability that the 39% figure was arrived at in wealthier times. No doubt we should expect gradual increases in the population, but even history may not be an accurate barometer of what will happen.

If you are going to diss the claim then I'd like to see what you can back it up with.

Here's the CSO's population predictions for 2011 to 2026. It dates from December 2008.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/poppro.pdf

It uses six scenarios to estimate population growth. One of the scenarios predicts Dublin's population will fall by 100,000 by 2026. The other scenarios show Dublin's population increasing. All scenarios show the rest of the GDA (the Mid-East) growing between 39% and 73%.

It also has a table on population growth nationwide between 1961 and 2006. It shows the population of Dublin grew by 65% in that time and that of the GDA grew by 83%.

dubhthach

Here's the CSO population/migration estimation from April 2010
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/popmig.pdf

As can be seen the current Birth rate is the highest in the last 35 years. The natural increase (Births exceeding deaths) is about twice the rate for 1989 for example

Sponge Bob

The problem is that all planning is done on the basis of a Projection 'synthesis' exercise carried out by the Dept of the Environment post census. It will be revisited in 2012 but some of ye may laugh at the current version from 2007 I did link this before apropos some mad number somewhere

http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/WhereareweNow/RegionalPlanningGuidelines/File,165,en.pdf

robd

Yet another of Frank's pro bus, anti rail articles. He's be writing them for years.
He never took back his prediction that Luas would be an utter failure. Pointless to pay any attention really.

strassenwo!f

Sponge Bob wrote: »

95 staff, doing what ?????

According to Frank, around 40% of them came from the DTO.

Does it really take around 37-38 people to maintain a journey planner?

monument

History has a way of repeating its self, just two different newspapers...

From the Sunday Independent on June 3, 1979... It says Dart was a waste and the planned expansion to other areas of Dublin should be shelved, the plans were and we got sub-standard QBCs and the car dependent Dublin we have today.

So the electrification of the Dublin-Bray suburban line has been approved. There can be few projects in the history of the State for which there was less jusification. Here we had a railway line which does about 2% or urban transport and in doing so loses nearly as much money as do the Dublin buses, which carry twenty times as many passengers.

The line is wasteful of fuel; there is good evidence to show that petroleum imports whould be saved if it were closed and all its passengers used cars, one person to a car.

So what does the government do? Does it put more money into the more economic bus services, which serve the poorer areas? Not on your life. It proposes to spend nearly £50m, much of it on imported machinery, so that even more — four times more — half-empty trains parade up and down the line, using a system (electrication) which is inherently less fuelefficient than the current diesel system — and far less efficient than buses.

You and I — the taxpayers — would have to fork out less if instead of electrifing it the government bought a brand-new car for each of the line’s present adult passengers to do their suburban travel in; and in doing so they would use less fuel than the proposed system would....

Click for larger version and the full article...

monument

As well as the birth rates, and as others have mentioned: Irish Times, Saturday March 14: "Expert says Irish emigration wildly exaggerated"

Sponge Bob wrote: »

95 staff, doing what ?????

To be fair, the NTA is now doing a bit -- it's 2030 strategy, the taxi regulator is now part of it, so is the bus licensing section of the DoT, (or it should be transferred by now?), it is dealing with the Public Service Obligation contracts, and it is being used as the funding approval and oversight body for (at least some) of the Smarter Travel projects. It is behind the real time bus information.

Oh, and the NTA's staffing levels are likely to grow given all that it is supposed to do.

DWCommuter

monument wrote: »

History has a way of repeating its self, just two different newspapers...

It won't repeat itself if we learn from it and learning from it appears hard to do. I take all my current beliefs from history because Ireland never learns from it in relation to rail projects.

Sponge Bob

DWCommuter wrote: »

It won't repeat itself if we learn from it and learning from it appears hard to do.

This is what Jim Mitchell had to say about the DART in 1984 (he was the FG minister in 1984 and was not missing an opportunity to bos FFers, FF appointees to CIE, CIE themselves and their 1979/1980 plans) I would point out by way of context!!

Link, there is more in there . I had a notion it cost IE£180m in the end to serve a population ( Howth - Bray) of at most 500,000 near the line. Higher density development followed of course.

In recent years CIE has been engaged in a heavy programme of capital expenditure. The principal features of this programme include the electrification of the Howth-Bray line, the ongoing renewal of the CIE bus fleet and the acquisition of 124 new carriages for the board's mainline rail services. Since 1981 CIE's capital [ expenditure programme has been running at a rate of approximately £60 million annually. The board's yearly depreciation provisions have been in the order of £15 million to £20 million. The difference between programmed expenditure and depreciation provisions has been and is made up each year by long term borrowing.The major element of the board's capital borrowing during the period is accounted for by the Howth-Bray electrification project. When the system comes into operation later this year it will account for nearly £113 million of CIE's long term borrowings including loans from the European Investment Bank. The capital allocation for 1984 is £21.3 million.
There has been a good deal of comment — much of it misinformed — and controversy about this project in recent months. The fact that, in its early years at least, the scheme will not, in strict financial terms, pay for itself is one of the criticisms. I am glad of this opportunity to set the record straight, even if I am unable to remove all doubts about the financial wisdom of this project.
The Howth-Bray electrification scheme was submitted to my Department by CIE in 1977. At the time passenger carryings had been showing an upward trend and there was clear and growing evidence of demand for commuter services on the line. Much of the equipment then in use had reached the end of its useful life and was in urgent need of replacement or refurbishment. The electrification proposal was the first stage in the proposals recommended in the Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study in 1975. Briefly that study recommended the provision of an electrified rapid rail transit system for the Dublin area. The system recommended included provision for the incorporation of existing commuter rail links, an underground network in central Dublin and links to the new towns such as Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown.


In submitting their proposals for Howth-Bray CIE did so on the basis that the scheme would be financed by grant capital. This in fact is the basis on which the scheme was first approved in 1979 at a then estimated cost of £46.4 million, March-April 1979 prices. However, within a matter of weeks the Government of the day in July 1979 decided, in effect, that the project should be financed by loan capital.

The decision to fund the Howth-Bray scheme on the basis of loans rather than grant finance is of fundamental importance. The DRRTS recognised that the financial appraisal was sensitive to accounting assumptions. Furthermore, the study indicated that less reliance could be placed on the results of the financial appraisal than on the results of the cost benefit analysis. This factor assumed greater significance in the light of the decision to fund the project entirely by loan finance and, of course, in the light of the prevailing high interest rates. Senators may get some appreciation of this aspect from the fact that of the £113 million capital cost of the project nearly £27 million is capitalised interest charges, whilst the remaining £86 million represents the original capital cost adjusted by inflation for the intervening years. No provision was included in the original project cost of £46.4 million approved by the Government of the day, for the roll up of interest charges during the construction phase.
The new system is projected to carry 81,000 passengers per day in 1987. However, even if this level is achieved there will still be substantially increased operating losses on the line. In current prices total losses on the line will, it is projected, amount to some £20 million per annum. Most of this loss, will be attributable to the ongoing interest charges on the borrowings of £113 million.


I would not wish my remarks to be taken as indicating a definitive view either of mine or the Government on the proposals in the Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study. However, I must make it clear that all future projects, whether for transport or otherwise, must have regard to the full financial and social implications involved. As I said on another occasion, I would not be prepared to seek Government approval for a project of this nature put forward in the same way as the Howth-Bray project.

dubhthach

£113 million in 1984 is equivalent to about €317 million in current currency

Handy website here for calculating current value of historic prices:
Irish Inflation Calculator

The original 1979 price of £46.4 million works out as €271 million (rounded up). That just shows level of inflation between 1979 and 1984 which ran on an average of 14.6% per year over that period.

Sponge Bob

Most of any cost overrun on DART was inflation matching. The highest inflation in Ireland occured in 1981, 20%. A lot of the rest was caused by whining by rich Dubs about bridge raising exercises in places like Blackrock pre instalation of overhead wires. As the word "DART" was a marketing exercise undertaken towards the end of the project it was known as the "electrification" scheme over most of its lifetime

Dáil Éireann - Volume 354 - 13 December, 1984

Written Answers. - Howth/Bray Electrification Scheme.

Mr. Wilson Mr. Wilson

38. Mr. Wilson asked the Minister for Communications the amount to date of capitalised interest charges on the Howth/Bray electrification scheme, Dublin; and the total amount of capitalised interest charges estimated for the final total cost.

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell) Jim Mitchell

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell): Interest charges were capitalised on the Howth/Bray electrification project up to 30 June 1984; it is estimated that capitalised interest charges up to that date amounted to £27.5 million.

Mr. Wilson Mr. Wilson

39. Mr. Wilson asked the Minister for Communications the total amounts received from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Investment Bank for the Howth-Bray electrification project up to 31 December 1983; and the estimated funds available from both sources in 1984.

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell) Jim Mitchell

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell): The amount received from the European Regional Development Fund in respect of the Howth-Bray scheme up to 31 December 1983 was £10.7 million; a further £0.3 million was received in 1984; and a final £0.3 million will be received from the fund in early 1985. The amount borrowed from the European Investment Bank in respect of the scheme up to 31 December 1983 was £54.4 million; no further amounts are receiveable from the bank.

Mr. P. Brennan Mr. P. Brennan

2660

Mr. P. Brennan asked the Minister for Communications if he will explain in detail the reason the extension of the Howth/Bray electrification scheme to Greystones cannot be justified on either financial or social grounds; and if his refusal of the extension is final.

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell) Jim Mitchell

Minister for Communications (Mr. J. Mitchell): The decision not to extend the electrification to Greystones was taken by my predecessor in the Fianna Fáil Government (Mr. John Wilson). Following representations I met deputations on this subject and listened to the case put attentively. I undertook a detailed analysis of all the factors before I endorsed my predecessor's decision.

The extension would cost in excess of £9 million, and would give rise to additional losses on the rail line of the order of £1.5 million annually. In my view these costs could not be justified, particularly in the current financial climate, and in view of the fact that adequate public transport services will continue to be provided to Greystones. I have no plans to review the matter.

In the mid 1990s the service was subsidised by 1.5p per journey .

Even by the mid 1990s the 7km to Greystones was estimated to cost IE£11m
seeing as inflation was utterly irrelevant c 1985-1995.

The extension including 10 new Dart trains which were 65% EU Funded and Malahide cost a grand total of IE£ 75m in the late 1990s but the cost to the exchequer was maybe half that after EU funding.

It is very hard to make out costs given the tendency of IE and Ministers to big up Investment/Spending numbers rather than big up value for money to the TAXPAYER at a time when EU funding made up much/most expenditure of this nature.

Dáil Éireann - Volume 525 - 07 November, 2000

Written Answers. - DART Service.

The DART fleet has comprised 80 carriages since services commenced between Howth and Bray, a distance of 33.2 kilometres, in 1984. Ten new carriages were recently delivered. Four of these units are in service since October with the extension of DART services to Greystones and Malahide, which added an additional 14 kilometres to the system. The remaining six are due to enter service this month.

A further 16 carriages have also been delivered recently and will enter service in the spring of next year following commissioning. Twelve more carriages have been ordered and are due for delivery in 2002 and will be in service by summer 2003.

As these carriages come into service, capacity will increase. The following is indicative of the anticipated increases in carrying capacity of the DART:



Fleet


Capacity

1984-September 2000


80


14,000

October 2000


84


14,700

November 2000


90


15,750

Spring 2001


106


18,550

Summer 2003


118


20,650

Scheduling of DART services is a matter for Iarnród Éireann. However, I am informed by the company that every available carriage is in service at peak hours.

OurLadyofKnock

That Sindo editorial has a fierce smell of the gargle off it too. Look at the sheer snobbery of it they way it goes on about people in Blanch and Tallaght.

There really is something profoundly dysfuctional with Irish journalism. We all know it has been traditionally ravaged with addiction problems and the resulting mental defects when combining the "wet brain" with the typewitter. But it also speaks so much about the quality of individual who is drawn into Irish journalism. So many of them are vicious, biggoted morons lost in their pathological world view where they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Shocking, and they are as bad as ever. They have way too much influence too.

DWCommuter

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

That Sindo editorial has a fierce smell of the gargle off it too. Look at the sheer snobbery of it they way it goes on about people in Blanch and Tallaght.

There really is something profoundly dysfuctional with Irish journalism. We all know it has been traditionally ravaged with addiction problems and the resulting mental defects when combining the "wet brain" with the typewitter. But it also speaks so much about the quality of individual who is drawn into Irish journalism. So many of them are vicious, biggoted morons lost in their pathological world view where they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Shocking, and they are as bad as ever. They have way too much influence too.

The article highlights how history repeats itself and of course this time its MN thats in a similar firing line. I think that article should be posted up in response to any anti MN talk. I live in a state of constant despair at both Irish journalism and politics ability to repeat its own mistakes and learn virtually nothing over the course of a generation.

Jack Noble

DWCommuter wrote: »

The article highlights how history repeats itself and of course this time its MN thats in a similar firing line. I think that article should be posted up in response to any anti MN talk. I live in a state of constant despair at both Irish journalism and politics ability to repeat its own mistakes and learn virtually nothing over the course of a generation.

As I see it, the problem with the Irish media re Dart in the 1980s, Luas in the 1990s and again with Metro/DartU now is that certain commentators and editors decided we don't need Dart/Luas/Metro or we can't afford D/L/M - and then frame their coverage/commentary/opinions from either or both of those starting points.

Frank McDonald and Kevin Myers are two of the most guilty parties in this regard - but their editors are equally culpable. Have Geraldine Kennedy or Gerry O'Regan every questioned what these two write and why they write it?

RTE's coverage and that of Newstalk/Today FM is similar - they start with the same premise and work from there.

To the best of my knowledge, no one in the media has asked the fundamental question - why are these projects planned?

No media organ has yet examined in detail the thinking behind these rail projects or the medium and long-term benefits to the city, the country, the economy and the population in general. There is no mention of the future and media coverage is framed in the present and the short-term costs in terms of funding and disruption during the construction period.

OurLadyofKnock

DWCommuter wrote: »

The article highlights how history repeats itself and of course this time its MN thats in a similar firing line. I think that article should be posted up in response to any anti MN talk. I live in a state of constant despair at both Irish journalism and politics ability to repeat its own mistakes and learn virtually nothing over the course of a generation.

We really need a NAME AND SHAME website of all these articles profiles of the journalists and others (their photo if possible) and what papers/insititutions and highlight below them what really happened.

Bring it right up to date with McDonald and the Luas and not to mention the bordeline psychotic convulsions of the Sunday Business Post on the day before the opening of the Green Line were "an unnamed expert" said it was the worst train system ever built.

Then promote this webpage every time one of these gob****es makes a statement and send them to all the journalists and politcians who spouted this ****e and let them know they are being watched and archived in the open for all eternity. That'll tone down their hysteria down I bet.

I know you and Judgement Day have loads of these articles and what not. If someone could donate a domain and set it up they would be doing this country a great service.

I think we need to get more organised against these ignorant vicious loons. Since Platform11 ended there has been nothing to fight these cretins.

baalthor

Jack Noble wrote: »

As I see it, the problem with the Irish media re Dart in the 1980s, Luas in the 1990s and again with Metro/DartU now is that certain commentators and editors decided we don't need Dart/Luas/Metro or we can't afford D/L/M - and then frame their coverage/commentary/opinions from either or both of those starting points.

Frank McDonald and Kevin Myers are two of the most guilty parties in this regard

Don't forget TCD's Sean Barrett !