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

ei.sdraob

This is the guy who was hired by our government to find areas that require cuts, and produced a detailed report (which was then mostly ignored)

he has a very good point of Irish rail being an inneficient and expensive loss making monstrocity which by now has outlived its sell by date

why should the taxpayer be subsidising this loss making rail operation at a time when hospitals are being closed and things like education are being cut?

monument

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/09/02/planes-trains-and-automobiles-ii/

more from Colm McCarthy if Snip Board fame

very good article!

Not at all -- read the comments the article is demolished from all angles.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

when one can not fault an article one proceeds to tar the author, typical

We should indeed not attack him, but his record...

ei.sdraob wrote: »

This is the guy who was hired by our government to find areas that require cuts, and produced a detailed report (which was then mostly ignored)

he has a very good point of Irish rail being an inneficient and expensive loss making monstrocity which by now has outlived its sell by date

From the article Judgement Day posted a link to:

"Earlier, McCarthy’s horror of public investment and expenditure had provoked him into apoplexy at the DART public transport project which he railed against as financial insanity and profligacy."

Is he still saying we should scrap the Dart? No, he's not. He would be laughed out of town and lose the little creditably in these matters he has. He really should have no creditably when it comes to transport given how wrong he as been in the past.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

This is the guy who was hired by our government to find areas that require cuts, and produced a detailed report (which was then mostly ignored)

he has a very good point of Irish rail being an inneficient and expensive loss making monstrocity which by now has outlived its sell by date

You want to scrap the Dart, Luas, and Commuter services too?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why should the taxpayer be subsidising this loss making rail operation at a time when hospitals are being closed and things like education are being cut?

The same reasons the tax payer is funding the massively loss making road network.

Sponge Bob

monument wrote: »

The same reasons the tax payer is funding the massively loss making road network.

This is intolerable rubbish. Motorists, on aggregate, are taxed the cost of road maintenance and construction BOTH and IN FULL and were right through the bubble cycle when most of the better roads were constructed and are still paying in full now as WELL as paying the CIE subsidies on top.

I have never seen you post anything on Express Buses either Monument, sadly they appear not to have entered your vocabulary yet.

monument

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This is intolerable rubbish. Motorists, on aggregate, are taxed the cost of road maintenance and construction BOTH and IN FULL and were right through the bubble cycle when most of the better roads were constructed and are still paying in full now as WELL as paying the CIE subsidies on top.

You're claiming that motoring taxes pay for / have paid the cost of:

• Road maintenance directly funded by Government
• Road maintenance funded by local government
• Road PPP repayments
• None PPP road construction
• The buyout of the Westlink
• When tolls do not reach their target traffic
• Road deaths and injuries
• The affect pollution has on health
• Congestion to the economy
• Health problems of sedentary lifestyle or at least the part cause by car dependency
• The NRA
• The RSA
• Sections within other state agencies and departments which partly deal with roads (Department of Transport, NTA, cost of tax offices, clamping etc)
• CIE

I find that highly unlikely.

L1011

monument wrote: »

I find that highly unlikely.

VRT during the Tiger years + fuel excise + motor tax most certainly covered all those costs.

Clamping should be revenue neutral at worst if done properly, DCC don't do it properly...

monument

MYOB wrote: »

VRT during the Tiger years + fuel excise + motor tax most certainly covered all those costs.

I think that's unlikely, but that's unimportant if roads were not paying their way before those years and are are not now.

dubhthach

monument wrote: »

I think that's unlikely, but that's unimportant if roads were not paying their way before those years and are are not now.

Looking at the details from Budget you see that when it comes to "Local Goverenement Fund" that "Gross Motor Tax receipts" predicted for 2011 are:
€953m, the predicted expenditure on "Non-National Road payments" in the same Fund is €397.5m. In other words for vast bulk of roads (90,000 km) are funded out of Fund made up of "Motor tax" receipts.

From looking at the details on the Commission for Taxation as well as Finance sites you can see that Excise duty on fuel (Unleaded petrol/ auto disel) alone came to bout €2.1billion in both 2007 and 2008. It makes up about 40% of all excise duty. In 2009 total excises fell by €600m if you maintain the same ratio you get about €1.9b in auto-fuel excise. Much same for 2010.

Basically the capital and current budget for Roads is completely covered by just the excise duty and carbon tax on Fuel (they exceed it by over €600m). The local authority road cost is well covered by "Motor Tax" (they are in same Fund).

Also VRT even though it's collapsed from the boom years still was worth over €375m a year for both 2009 and 2010.

From looking at those figures the roads are well paying for themselves. The excise/carbon/VRT receipts alone combined for both 2009 and 2010 cover both the road costs for those years as well as the subsidy given to CIÉ.

So how are the roads not paying for themselves?

PS. I left out the VAT receipts for auto-fuel above.

Sponge Bob

monument wrote: »

You're claiming that motoring taxes pay for / have paid the cost of:

• Road deaths and injuries

I find that highly unlikely.

So do I, have you ever heard of Car Insurance BTW????

monument

dubhthach wrote: »

So how are the roads not paying for themselves?

You missed the cost of a whole host of things in my second last post.

There's likely other costs too that I didn't think -- it was a quick post on a Saturday evening.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

So do I, have you ever heard of Car Insurance BTW????

Overall costs unlikely to be fully covered by car insurance. This thread explains its quite well -- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70957917

You posted in the thread.

Sponge Bob

monument wrote: »

y to be fully covered by car insurance. This thread explains its quite well -- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70957917

You posted in the thread.

I did indeed, however against amortised life cost model you must also factor in an amortised or incremental cost ( say LRIC basis) for every minute wasted on a slow train versus a fast bus or for a Train arriving in the wrong place and requiring an ongoing connection. My comparison was what a crap road will cost versus what a decent road will cost.....never mentioned trains anywhere in that thread you linked.

Giz a compound non inflation adjusted (2011 basis) number for all that wastage now you consider yourself 'on the case' like. :cool:

eg 30,000,000 x 0.50c a minute x daily mins x 250 working days per annum sort of thing explained from first principles.

If you think you can mathematically prove that IE saves time(=money) then Sponge Bob is a Chinaman

monument

We're not talking about trains, we're talking about the cost of roads in the context of my comment that we should pay for rail investments and ongoing costs for "the same reasons the tax payer is funding the massively loss making road network."

On your other point -- a lot of business travellers claim that trains are more productive work space than buses. Overall buses aren't very well known internationally as a business mode of travel. Anyway the context of the tread coming into being is investment which will make trains faster.

Pete_Cavan

monument wrote: »

We're not talking about trains, we're talking about the cost of roads in the context of my comment that we should pay for rail investments and ongoing costs for "the same reasons the tax payer is funding the massively loss making road network."

When considering the cost of roads you must also consider the economic benefits arising from the existence of the road. Motorways are used for transporting goods and quicker and more reliable journey times reduce the cost of producing goods. Faster journey times also increase the catchment area for businesses, opening up new markets and allowing the business to expand. You could close the motorways to save money on maintenance, less pollution, etc. but the savings would most likely be entirely wiped out by the drop in economic activity. Saying the taxpayer is "funding the massively loss making road network" is very misleading, we are investing in vital infrastructure which is necessary for economic growth.

monument wrote: »

On your other point -- a lot of business travellers claim that trains are more productive work space than buses. Overall buses aren't very well known internationally as a business mode of travel. Anyway the context of the tread coming into being is investment which will make trains faster.

In reality, trains are favoured mode of transport for a very select group of travellers (business travellers who need a bit of working space and can afford to pay a few quid extra) but for these travellers speed is not really an issue (if it was they would use the motorway). For the majority of other travellers, a cheaper faster express bus journey would be the preferred option. Investment which will make intercity trains faster is a waste of money.

dubhthach

monument wrote: »

You missed the cost of a whole host of things in my second last post.

There's likely other costs too that I didn't think -- it was a quick post on a Saturday evening.

I covered 8 out of 14. Regarding road accidents it's laughable to claim that spending money on roads hasn't led to massive reduction in road deaths. Given that 40% of all road accidents were historically due to head on collisions and these are now an impossibility on inter-urban routes it's fairly obvious that improvements in road infrastructure has contribute hugely to drop in road deaths.

Westlink purchase is abit of a red herring given that it the state is earning €80m in tolls and about €100m in fines per year! Not only that it was purchased the year after the state made €3billion between VRT and Auto-Fuel Exercise.

Having trucks stuck in the likes of Moate, Kinnegad, Urlingford etc has a higher effect on congestion and thus more of an affect on the economy

Here are the VRT figures taken from Dáil Question for period 1997-2008


VRT income alone covered the bulk of NRA funding (all national road investment) during this period (on order of 80% per year). This is ignoring the huge amounts of Excise duty and car related VAT (fuel, maintenance etc.) as well that fact that local government spending on roads was always well covered by "Motor Tax"

The Department of Transport budget for 2011 includes both Capital and Current expenditure for 2011 this includes spending on PPP, RSA, NRA etc. Excise Duty on auto-fuel alone covers this cost of this by in excess of €600m.

All road spending by localauthorities comes out of the "Local goverenment fund" which is funded by Motor Tax. The income of Motor tax exceeds spending on roads by local authorities by €400m

Here is the break down of taxes charged on motorists from 2002 to 2007.



Totals going to Central Gov. (excluding motor tax)

• 2002: €3 billion
• 2003: €3.2 billion
• 2004: €3.6 billion
• 2005: €4 billion
• 2006: €4.4 billion
• 2007: €4.8 billion (estimate)

Totals going to Local Gov. (Motor tax)

• 2002: €581m
• 2003: €680m
• 2004: €747m
• 2005: €802m
• 2006: €880m
• 2007: €944m (estimate)

monument

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

When considering the cost of roads you must also consider the economic benefits arising from the existence of the road. Motorways are used for transporting goods and quicker and more reliable journey times reduce the cost of producing goods. Faster journey times also increase the catchment area for businesses, opening up new markets and allowing the business to expand. You could close the motorways to save money on maintenance, less pollution, etc. but the savings would most likely be entirely wiped out by the drop in economic activity. Saying the taxpayer is "funding the massively loss making road network" is very misleading, we are investing in vital infrastructure which is necessary for economic growth.

It's no more misleading than saying the same about rail transport.

Anyway, the construction, repayments, maintenance, economic, health, and accident costs could cancel out the economic benefits.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

In reality, trains are favoured mode of transport for a very select group of travellers (business travellers who need a bit of working space and can afford to pay a few quid extra) but for these travellers speed is not really an issue (if it was they would use the motorway). For the majority of other travellers, a cheaper faster express bus journey would be the preferred option. Investment which will make intercity trains faster is a waste of money.

I would tend to agree if we were talking about investment on the scale of TGV or German's ICE, but we're not we're talking about comparably modest investment to get the more important section of a still quite neglected network up to 160km/h / 100mph. As the article says a total of €175 million in funding between 2012 and 2016 – or €35 million a year for the four years.

Also -- I know a lot of people on non-business trips who do leave leave their cars at home for intercity (and commuter) rail travel but who would never consider using buses.

dubhthach wrote: »

Regarding road accidents it's laughable to claim that spending money on roads hasn't led to massive reduction in road deaths. Given that 40% of all road accidents were historically due to head on collisions and these are now an impossibility on inter-urban routes it's fairly obvious that improvements in road infrastructure has contribute hugely to drop in road deaths.

See, the thing is, I didn't say any such thing. You're putting words in my mouth.

I said the wider costs of accidents had to be included in the overall cost of the road network.

dubhthach wrote: »

Having trucks stuck in the likes of Moate, Kinnegad, Urlingford etc has a higher effect on congestion and thus more of an affect on the economy...

Again, you seem to think I'm questioning the cost of investment in roads when I'm questioning the overall costs.

L1011

monument wrote: »

You missed the cost of a whole host of things in my second last post.

There's likely other costs too that I didn't think -- it was a quick post on a Saturday evening.

The were still all more than covered during the boom years by motoring taxation and likely still are now.

VAT on fuel as dubhthach mentioned is something else to consider in the total income, as is the insurance levy on motor insurance.

teol

monument wrote: »

Also -- I know a lot of people on non-business trips who do leave leave their cars at home for intercity (and commuter) rail travel but who would never consider using buses.

Yes, but should the masses subsidise the vanity of the few?

In 2005, Chambers Ireland did a survey of senior company managers (600 persons). Only 16% were using public transport to commute or attend meetings. On my travels on the Dublin-Belfast bus I rarely saw businessmen. I wonder how many are on the 1st class carriage on the train.

http://www.droghedaport.ie/cms/uploads/transport_20users_20survey.pdf

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The were still all more than covered during the boom years by motoring taxation and likely still are now.

Not a chance.

Yahew

teol wrote: »

Yes, but should the masses subsidise the vanity of the few?

In 2005, Chambers Ireland did a survey of senior company managers (600 persons). Only 16% were using public transport to commute or attend meetings. On my travels on the Dublin-Belfast bus I rarely saw businessmen. I wonder how many are on the 1st class carriage on the train.

http://www.droghedaport.ie/cms/uploads/transport_20users_20survey.pdf

That is because roads are funded more than rail, the very topic of this thread. It is not the same elsewhere.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Not a chance.

dubhthach has provided figures showing that there was more than sufficient surplus to fund them all

Are you going to continue denying this with no figures (because it agrees with your viewpoint) then?

If we take off the costs of supporting cycling - cycle lanes, A&E costs, etc - there'd be even more left over. Your passion isn't cost free... (and generates very little tax)

Yahew

MYOB wrote: »

dubhthach has provided figures showing that there was more than sufficient surplus to fund them all

Are you going to continue denying this with no figures (because it agrees with your viewpoint) then?

If we take off the costs of supporting cycling - cycle lanes, A&E costs, etc - there'd be even more left over. Your passion isn't cost free... (and generates very little tax)

Actually he didn't. Nobody has worked out the costs of all the externalities.

L1011

Yahew wrote: »

Actually he didn't. Nobody has worked out the costs of all the externalities.

If they're worked out they're not going to exceed what is available.

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.

Let monument work out the costings and then work out the costings of his preferred options. They're not going to be anywhere close to revenue neutral let alone revenue positive.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

If they're worked out they're not going to exceed what is available.

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.

Let monument work out the costings and then work out the costings of his preferred options. They're not going to be anywhere close to revenue neutral let alone revenue positive.

Will reply to other posts and points later, but costings and routes for what?

L1011

monument wrote: »

Will reply to other posts and points later, but costings and routes for what?

Whatever you're proposing gets the (non existant) funding-over-income that (you insist sans-evidence) roads get and how they will be at the very least revenue neutral.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Whatever you're proposing gets the (non existant) funding-over-income that (you insist sans-evidence) roads get and how they will be at the very least revenue neutral.

Where am I making such proposals on this thread? My statement which lead to the debate on roads cost was that roads don't pay for them self.

BluntGuy

Yahew wrote: »

Actually he didn't. Nobody has worked out the costs of all the externalities.

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.

NITransport

Just seen this thread. (Been on holiday).

Why are they asking for €175m to invest in two lines, surely investing that amount in just the Cork line could provide a genuinely competitive service as opposed to two services which will still not be competitive. At least it would be possibly possible to see a return in investment if only the Cork line was upgraded at the moment.

I would turn IE's suggestions down without hesitation. The speed improvements they're proposing are just not good enough. After the investment you'll still get from door to door far quicker by car than train.

A 25 minute reduction in journey time between Dublin and Cork will not save the railways.

I recommend IE wait until the economy is sorted and Ireland can go to the markets for anything other than paying our current debts, then come back with a plan that could provide at the very least sub 2 hour journey times between Cork and Dublin.

OR

Change their current proposal and state that they will only use the money to invest in the Cork Line which will provide benefits for the Limerick service.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Where am I making such proposals on this thread? My statement which lead to the debate on roads cost was that roads don't pay for them self.

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

Pete_Cavan

Yahew wrote: »

Actually he didn't. Nobody has worked out the costs of all the externalities.

Like I have said several times now, there are huge economic benefits from the existence of the motorway network. Close the motorways for a week and watch chaos ensue, close the intercity trains for a week and provide bus services instead and not too many people would care. 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.

Bray Head

In a bout of insomnia I read this from start to finish. Save for the histrionics, very interesting folks:) A few thoughts:

What was most interesting was the links to the IR annual report and IR's own calculations on why the Waterford-Rosslare route was unprofitable. First the 2010 annual report though. Is it possible that this is the only transport company in the world that doesn't mention its passenger numbers (either in levels or rates of change) in its annual report? The mind boggles. As a shareholder (which we all are), it's hardly satisfactory.

Anyhow the CSO tells me that 2009 passenger numbers were 38 million - lets' be generous and say this number didn't fall in 2010. Let's look at what they get from the taxpayer. First there's €167m in direct annual subvention. It's been reported here that €2.7bn in essentially free capital has been given to IR over the last ten years. I describe it as free because they don't pay dividends back to us taxpayers. Let's be generous and assume that taxpayers are servicing that debt built issued to provide this free capital at pre-bailout rates of about 5% - so an implicit subvention of another €135m per annum to IR from us.

€302m in subsidies divided by 38m trips is almost a neat €8 per trip. So that's a transfer of €8 per journey on the average Irish rail trip from non rail-using taxpayers to rail users. Bear in mind that total revenues were €190 in 2010 so the average trip was financed by €5 in passenger contributions (fares) and €8 in taxpayer contributions.

Of course these €5 and €8 figures holds only for the average and there's a big difference between short DART trips and a jaunt from Dublin to Westport. It would be nice to know which routes are more profitable (or even if there is a profitable one at all). IR seem to be able to calculate this for the Rosslare-Waterford line so why not for the rest of the network? Is this type of calculation too much to ask for given the price we pay?

I think it's useful to focus on these costs than on retail fares that passengers pay. Fares are to a large extent determined arbitrarily, correlate weakly enough with the true costs involved while the burden of the subsidy falls on us all, not just rail users. For the existence of the network as a whole there's a few positive externalities (and almost no negative ones) - more attractive to tourism, better for business, less congestion, lower carbon emissions, etc. Someone would have to make a very good case to convince me they add up to over €302m per annum though and I don't think anyone on this thread has yet.....

On a separate issue, it's been pointed out that business travellers prefer the train to the bus. This may well be true. My own feeling is that they prefer the car to public transport full stop, and whenever employers' groups talk about competitiveness the ability to get from city centres to Dublin in under two hours is rarely mentioned. We also forget that for any indigenous business the Irish market is small and many look abroad. Exports are set to exceed 100% of GDP this year. Isn't it the case that international connections are much more important for Irish firms than national ones? Remember the hullabaloo when the Shannon-Heathrow link was due to be pulled?

Finally, the link to the 2006 press release promising 2-hour journeys to Cork is very interesting. One thing I've never been clear on is (leaving aside costs) - how would you exactly hit this magical 160km/h speed? I understand it's not the rolling stock that's the problem so for the nerds, is it this nebulous concept of improved signalling, better track, or straightening out bends? From a purely technical perspective I'm curious.

And very finally, no one talks about climate change in Ireland any more, but the slow death of internal air transport has to be welcomed. A more environmentally wasteful way of shunting people around a small island is hard to imagine. In this case a very clear but unusual case of building roads leading to less emissions.

senordingdong

In fairness, this seems shot down considering what Leo Varadkar said about putting all transport infrastructure projects on hold.