Irish Times - Proposal to bring train journey times between cities below two hours

monument

BluntGuy wrote: »

I think the burden of proof has shifted to your side to demonstrate why his figures are incorrect, preferably using your own figures.

Interesting discussion btw.

I'll have a look at gathering some data, but it may take a while (I mean months or more), a lot of it may be hard to fish out or not at all estimated yet. It's a hard area to get solid data and that likely isn't helped by people with very extrema views on both sides and industry on more than both sides funding research.

IBM estimate that congestion costed Dublin €2 billion in 2008, but that's likely a higher end estimate given they want to sell traffic systems to tackle congestion. I could just go with their estimate and defend it to further my side of the debate but that would just be wrong when I'm not fully sure how they came up with the figure.

MYOB wrote: »

Clearly you've got a better idea than roads if you're going down that path.

A full scale alternative to take the majority of intercity travel? No, given the recent investment in roads, it wouldn't be very prudent to try to replace them wholesale any time too soon. But that's not to say there should not be investment in rail, there should be.

My main point it is easier to criticise the cost of rail and harder to see the full costs of the road network. Why? Because most of the costs of rail are on the one balance sheet, with rail there's far less cost to health or economic costs from accidents or pollution, rail's affect on walking and cycling is generally positive compared to road transport's often negative affect on those, and costs are more often front loaded for rail (ie take a railway line and motorway which carry the same amount of people the same distance, the railway is more expensive to build but its maintenance is a fraction than that of the motorway).

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

After you are finished working out the cost of all the externalities we can add a fair chunk of the value of the Irish economy to the 'benefits of roads' column.

Pouring money into a rail network which will offer very little return and will continue to require heavy subsidies from the taxpayer just to keep IR relevant is ludicrous.

Both networks are subsidised. The all the motoring taxes put together are highly unlikely to cover all the costs of the road network.

You're claiming "huge economic benefits" at the same time as trying to deny that there is any economic benefits to the railways... BTW economy benefits for road or rail is a externality (a positive one, but one all the same).

L1011

monument wrote: »

Both networks are subsidised. The all the motoring taxes put together are highly unlikely to cover all the costs of the road network.

None of the actual figures provided come even close to supporting this.

The IBM figure doesn't even come in to your argument - congestion isn't caused by investment in the road network, its caused by a number of factors including lack of investment.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

None of the actual figures provided come even close to supporting this.

The IBM figure doesn't even come in to your argument - congestion isn't caused by investment in the road network, its caused by a number of factors including lack of investment.

Again, I'm this isn't about arguing against investment in roads, it's about looking at the cost of the road network.

Like it or not congestion is a cost of road transport.

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob Yawns Elegantly and Opines.....giz a number willya.

Mucco

MYOB wrote: »

Motoring taxation brings in massive sums of money FAR in excess of what it costs. This is undeniable unless you have an ulterior motive / desire to push something else.

I don't think this is true. Motoring is highly subsidised. Just look at the opportunity cost of that 16 billion investment over the last 10 years. The environmental costs and accident costs are also very high. Check out John Whitelegg at Liverpool Uni for more info.

M

Cool Mo D

Motoring taxes are still a subsidy to the road network, every bit as much as income tax subsidises to the health service.

Frank Black

monument wrote: »

Again, I'm this isn't about arguing against investment in roads, it's about looking at the cost of the road network.

Like it or not congestion is a cost of road transport.

I know I said I wasn't posting again - but this is my last.
I think we can take it that you are not arguing that road is not a net contributor to income tax - merely the amount.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Motoring taxes are still a subsidy to the road network, every bit as much as income tax subsidises to the health service.

Motor tax contributes towards income tax, not to mention the economic activity generated by roads - thus contributes towards the health service.

Rail drains money from income tax and diverts it away from stuff like the health service.

dubhthach

Mucco wrote: »

I don't think this is true. Motoring is highly subsidised. Just look at the opportunity cost of that 16 billion investment over the last 10 years.

As then Minister for Finance Brian Cowen pointed out in 2007 taxes on motoring generated €23billion for central goverenement between 2002 and 2007, if you fact in 2001 and figures for 2008-2011 you are probably looking at least €32billion over twice the €16b spend you mention for the last 10 years.

This excludes "Motor Tax" which goes into the Local goverenement fund. This raised €4.6 billion between 2002 and 2007.

The expected motor tax for 2011 in the Budget is: €953m

We can extrapolate then that the motor tax collected for 2008-2011 will come to at least €3.6billion (I went for average of €900m a year), if you factor in a figure of at least €500m for 2001 then you get a total "Motor Tax" take of circa: €8.7billion which went into Local goverenment fund over the last 10 years.

DWCommuter

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Sponge Bob Yawns Elegantly and Opines.....giz a number willya.

I'm still wondering where all this "Ring fenced" money is for Transport 21. I think my afternoon in Dublin Castle was a dream.:rolleyes:

L1011

Mucco wrote: »

I don't think this is true. Motoring is highly subsidised. Just look at the opportunity cost of that 16 billion investment over the last 10 years. The environmental costs and accident costs are also very high. Check out John Whitelegg at Liverpool Uni for more info.

M

Just read the figures that are on this thread and you'll find it is true. The "investment" was only a fraction of the taxes collected from motorists in the time period.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Just read the figures that are on this thread and you'll find it is true. The "investment" was only a fraction of the taxes collected from motorists in the time period.

The figures mentioned do not cover all costs of the road network.

L1011

monument wrote: »

The figures mentioned do not cover all costs of the road network.

The motor tax to the local government fund covers virtually everything else

Accept it, you're well beaten here.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The motor tax to the local government fund covers virtually everything else

Accept it, you're well beaten here.

If you're claiming you know all the costs are covered: What are the exact costs then? (besides the on-balance sheet costs already mentioned)

teol

monument wrote: »

If you're claiming you know all the costs are covered: What are the exact costs then? (besides the on-balance sheet costs already mentioned)

Stop setting yourself up for a smug "know it all" response about external costs or other BS etc. Either produce the figures or accept the argument.

L1011

monument wrote: »

If you're claiming you know all the costs are covered: What are the exact costs then? (besides the on-balance sheet costs already mentioned)

You're the one insisting there are other costs so the duty to provide figures them falls entirely on YOU.

There is a massive surplus so knock yourself out trying to use it up.

ciotog

dubhthach wrote: »

As then Minister for Finance Brian Cowen pointed out in 2007 taxes on motoring generated €23billion for central goverenement between 2002 and 2007, if you fact in 2001 and figures for 2008-2011 you are probably looking at least €32billion over twice the €16b spend you mention for the last 10 years.

This excludes "Motor Tax" which goes into the Local goverenement fund. This raised €4.6 billion between 2002 and 2007.

The expected motor tax for 2011 in the Budget is: €953m

We can extrapolate then that the motor tax collected for 2008-2011 will come to at least €3.6billion (I went for average of €900m a year), if you factor in a figure of at least €500m for 2001 then you get a total "Motor Tax" take of circa: €8.7billion which went into Local goverenment fund over the last 10 years.

Fair play for putting the effort into getting numbers. It's a really difficult area (revenue and costs of motoring) to quantify.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one insisting there are other costs so the duty to provide figures them falls entirely on YOU.

Sure, I already posted saying I would have a look for the figures and that it would not be a quick Google or an over night kind of thing to find (if possible to find at all).

But in the meanwhile you have claimed that all the costs of the things I mentioned are covered -- you also need figures to make such a claim.

teol wrote: »

Stop setting yourself up for a smug "know it all" response about external costs or other BS etc. Either produce the figures or accept the argument.

If he is claiming something it is also up to him to back it up -- as I said, I will try and look into it. You can't just wish the external costs because you don't like them.

teol

monument wrote: »

If he is claiming something it is also up to him to back it up -- as I said, I will try and look into it. You can't just wish the external costs because you don't like them.

OK, I will give the external costs a bash.

Here is estimated external costs for HGV and Cars


http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20080609_External_Costs_Transport_Study.pdf

Weighted Average:
Car NP 6.1c, NS 5.4c
HGV NP 25c, NS 19.5c


From the NRA:
Car journeys on National Primary (NP) Routes is 12.74 billion km
Car journeys on National Secondary (NS) Routes is 4.62 billion km


HGV - National Primary - 1.4 billion km
HGV - National Secondary - 0.39 billion km

http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/Transportation/file,3674,en.PDF



Therefore External Costs =
Car 1.03billion
HGV 426million

Total c. 1.5billion euro


Obviously there is assumptions, simplifications and omissions in this calculation.

monument

IBM put the cost of congestion for Dublin in 2008 alone at €2billion.

While IBM are trying to sell something, so are the European Automobile Manufacturers Association.

teol

monument wrote: »

IBM put the cost of congestion for Dublin in 2008 alone at €2billion.

While IBM are trying to sell something, so are the European Automobile Manufacturers Association.

Those figures are simply a compilation of the figures found in this EU study:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sustainable/doc/2008_costs_handbook.pdf

L1011

monument wrote: »

IBM put the cost of congestion for Dublin in 2008 alone at €2billion.

While IBM are trying to sell something, so are the European Automobile Manufacturers Association.

Congestion happened in Dublin without motor vehicles - there were traffic jams in the days of trams and traps.

And not having motorised transport would cost the city far more than 2Bn a year. Try, say, 80% of its economy.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Congestion happened in Dublin without motor vehicles - there were traffic jams in the days of trams and traps.

And not having motorised transport would cost the city far more than 2Bn a year. Try, say, 80% of its economy.

Ok... Congestion may have happened back then, but the overall impact of the congestion would have been lower.

And who said anything about not having motorised transport?

L1011

monument wrote: »

Ok... Congestion may have happened back then, but the overall impact of the congestion would have been lower.

And who said anything about not having motorised transport?

Nobody did. But my point is that you cannot claim congestion apparently costing Dublin 2Bn a year as a cost of motorised transport when the benefit of motorised transport to Dublin is a multitude of that.

If you're trying to find "hidden costs" to try and prove your point you need to find the hidden inputs too. They're going to outweigh the costs, again.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Nobody did. But my point is that you cannot claim congestion apparently costing Dublin 2Bn a year as a cost of motorised transport when the benefit of motorised transport to Dublin is a multitude of that.

If you're trying to find "hidden costs" to try and prove your point you need to find the hidden inputs too. They're going to outweigh the costs, again.

Regardless of any benefit, congestion still remains a cost of the road network.

I think I've already said the benefits of having the network may outweigh the cost, but what we're looking at here is do the taxes cover the costs.

dubhthach

monument wrote: »

Regardless of any benefit, congestion still remains a cost of the road network.

I think I've already said the benefits of having the network may outweigh the cost, but what we're looking at here is do the taxes cover the costs.

No roads ergo no export industry ergo no Corporation tax. QED

Judgement Day

dubhthach wrote: »

No roads ergo no export industry ergo no Corporation tax. QED

A bit simplistic especially from a mod. Why not rename the Forum Roads rather than Infrastructure? A true reflection of the real attitude of officialdom on and off Boards. :rolleyes:

DWCommuter

Screw the cost of road transport and screw the environmental cost. (Thanks anyway for the effort.) This thread is or rather was about the demise of Inter City Rail and IEs latest pitiful attempt to make it relevant in the current motorway riddled country. While many of you are happy to crow on about the ultimate cost of the road network Vs the rail network, I think its worth pointing out a couple of realities.

1. The road network is far more important that the rail network and always will be. (in almost any country) It is the most important form of transport, both privately and in terms of public transport. Therefore it deserves more investment than the railway. We cannot escape that fact.

However...

2. The rail network in Ireland has received massive and unprecedented investment that (in my opinion) was mismanaged. If we compare it to the National road routes that were reinvented as motorways, its easy to conclude that the road sector got it right when building (for example) the inter urban's while the rail network made an absolute hash of it, despite spending millions upon millions.

Let me digress.

IE have received the aforementioned unprecedented investment since 1998. (approx) This was before a motorway network was even envisaged. However, when the NRA were instructed to build motorways instead of mickey mouse solutions, IE were developing a plan to make the rail network safe and replace rolling stock. (effectively a network that belonged in the 1980s at best) No directive (unlike the motorway solution for the NRA) was issued to IE by Government. All IE had to do was simply realise that their network needed to be brought up to date and then made compete with the planned inter urban motorway network. But they didn't and never looked for the money to do this.Why???

Well I believe that IE became complacent and hid behind the "decades of under investment" blanket. Therefore they could happily plod along the route of upgrading track, signalling, stations etc. to a standard that was merely safe, modern, but absolutely ineffectual against a road network that was starting to compete with anything the 21st century could throw at it. In some ways the IE network was and indeed is identical to the one that BR found themselves with in the late 1960s. New builds were out of the question and solutions were developed to utilise the existing set up. BR wanted to compete with the emerging motorway network. They looked for state investment and got it to back their various plans. While the APT fiasco got bogged down in politics and media, the HST (Inter City 125) back up plan ended up being the saviour of inter city rail in the UK.

I appreciate that BRs financial situation was vastly different to CIE/IEs in the 70s/80s, but when the money started to flow in Ireland, IE (under an ex BR manager) made an inconceivable mess of things. Poor trains and no vision towards competing with a motorway network. There is no getting away from the fact that despite millions in investment, there was never an eye to increasing train speeds to an extent that they could beat or at least compete with motorway competition. I find myself very deflated by the history of this investment and annoyed by its total and absolute ignorance of the experience of our nearest neighbour. They have overcome the APT experience, relished the 125 experience, moved onto the 225 experience and now stand at the door of the Hitachi experience. All we needed was the 1970 developed 125 experience and our inter city network would be demolishing motorways as I type.

Shame on Dick Fearn for a start. I always thought he came for the pension.

monument

dubhthach wrote: »

No roads ergo no export industry ergo no Corporation tax. QED

That post would only make sense if somebody was arguing for no roads.

DWCommuter

Judgement Day wrote: »

A bit simplistic especially from a mod. Why not rename the Forum Roads rather than Infrastructure? A true reflection of the real attitude of officialdom on and off Boards. :rolleyes:

Very old fashioned JD. Learn to live with the reality that road and rail can compliment, if both the Government and their semi state bitch can sort out the mess they created 60 years ago. Roads got built, but IE got tonnes of cash and still ****ed it up. There is no rocket science here.

Sponge Bob

I have been quite scrupulous in focusing on the permanent IE promise of better intercity journeys and its implications for a national network that deliberately carries no freight.

I have not discounted the possibility of a leaner IE being used as a commuter network in some areas and nor do I advocate that lines are left to rust out with no maintenance, the normal IE procedure in other words.

However I do question whether IE as currently constituted is worth keeping at all. Too much serial uselessness and waste over the years. I am sick of them.

Some posters in this thread resolutely refuse to accept that Express Bus networks, the best example being Galway - Dublin, work very well given passenger volumes and are purely focused on rail which should only be part of the mix.