What could have been (Transport Infrastructure)

bk

Banjoxed wrote: »

Th pretty blem wth Ir*sh W*ter was that consumers had something for nothing for forty years and then expected taxpayers to pay for their unrestricted use of it.

Err... Consumers and Tax payers are the same thing!

That was the problem with Irish Water, we always had been paying for water. It isn't like water pipes just magically appeared and the water works running on fairy dust and elves. We have always paid for water, just via general taxation.

The problem with Irish Water is that they wanted to build a whole company around it. Metering, billing infrastructure (servers, accounting software, etc.), sending out paper bills, setting up direct debits, costumer support staff, advertising for Irish Water and all that nonsense.

We the "Consumer" would have to pay for all that extra administrative nonsense, while not gaining a drop of extra water. Just lining the pockets of all the sub contractors and other companies involved.

It really didn't make any sense. As for metering, there is little prove it actually reduces water waste. They have water metering in London for years now and they use just 5% less water then us. I don't think it was worth spending hundreds and millions on metering for just a 5% saving!

Of course I've no objection to more money being spent on water infrastructure or all water infrastructure being brought under one organisation, that all makes a lot of sense. But much better ways could be found to finance it that wouldn't have required all that expensive administration overhead.

Bass Reeves

bk wrote: »

Err... Consumers and Tax payers are the same thing!

.

That is incorrect consumers and taxpayers are not the same thing.

magicbastarder

in terms of the comments above, i think one of the biggest mistakes they made was trying to put those structures in place overnight. it's not easy to just invent a company with one million customers/consumers (call them what you will).
as i discovered when i had cause to ring the callcentre over a minor issue; they were completely in the dark about relatively straightforward aspects of meter installation.

bk

Bass Reeves wrote: »

That is incorrect consumers and taxpayers are not the same thing.

Of course they are!

Every one in Ireland drinks water and washes (I hope!) and everyone payes taxes (even those on unemployment etc. still pay VAT on items they buy).

So practically speaking they are very much the same thing.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You continue to reference Germany but have you actually looked at their stats? The Irish budget deficit/surplus is more like what you are advocating than the German one. Before the crash Ireland ran a balanced budget or surplus for years. During the crash we spent a lot. Germany was running a deficit except for a couple of years until recently.

Recently Germany has been running a budget surplus but it is suffering from an infrastructural deficit. Pretty harsh welfare reforms have kicked in to get the economy going but the state is very hesitant to invest.

You are falling for the same thing that you are criticising in politicians, the problem inherent in Keynesianism - you recognise that we should be cutting back now, but then argue that Ireland is different and should be spending all it can.

Germany has spent decades rehabilitating the infrastructure of the former GDR. The massive cost of this makes Germany a special case.

This year indeed sees VDE 8 finally completed, slashing the ICE journey time between Berlin and Munich to 3.75 hours.

http://www.vde8.de/---_site.index..ls_dir._function.set__lang_lang.en_likecms.html

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

in terms of the comments above, i think one of the biggest mistakes they made was trying to put those structures in place overnight. it's not easy to just invent a company with one million customers/consumers (call them what you will).
as i discovered when i had cause to ring the callcentre over a minor issue; they were completely in the dark about relatively straightforward aspects of meter installation.

I think the problem with Irish Water started with the gombeenism of the politicians.

1. It should have been set up as part of the ESB Networks, rather than Bord Gais Networks. They are more commercial and experienced.

2. It should have been set up as a second item on the ESB bill, standing charge plus usage charge, as per electricity. If no meter a minimum/average charge applies.

3. The local authorities should have been maintained as before, and IW would take over their functions one LA at a time.

4. Meters were only put in place by request of either IW or the consumer depending on use (estimated) as happens with commercial users. District meters would be used to assess usage and determine leaks.

5. The 'first fix free' was a nonsense policy. It should be an always 'fix for free'. IW would fix the leak up to the building where they would install a stopcock. If turning off the stopcock fixed the leak, it is the owners problem. They might take the fix as a time to install a meter.

6. It was nonsense to spend €170 million setting up the legal company. It could have been achieved with a simple (but extensive) cut and paste job.

7. The argument that homes with babies, children, teenagers, etc should get 'free' allowances is just nonsense. ESB do not give free electricity to heat the babies bottle, so why free water to wash the baby?

8. Why charge domestic users nearly double the commercial rate for water? €3.88/ cu m vs €2 per cu m. Why charge the same for waste water 'service' with no apparent cost analysis?

It was a cock-up at so many levels, no wonder people rose up against it.

magicbastarder

Sam Russell wrote: »

5. The 'first fix free' was a nonsense policy. It should be an always 'fix for free'. IW would fix the leak up to the building where they would install a stopcock. If turning off the stopcock fixed the leak, it is the owners problem. They might take the fix as a time to install a meter.

i had understood that the 'first fix free' included up to the first stop valve *inside* the property - i.e. that IW would always have to maintain the network their side of the meter, but that they'd - as a matter of goodwill - repair a leak once under my driveway for me?
or is that precisely what you're referring to?

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

i had understood that the 'first fix free' included up to the first stop valve *inside* the property - i.e. that IW would always have to maintain the network their side of the meter, but that they'd - as a matter of goodwill - repair a leak once under my driveway for me?
or is that precisely what you're referring to?

That is what I am referring to - but what if their work is substandard, or there is an unprecedented freeze? It makes sense for a utility to always repair as it creates a better attitude to the service at low cost. Leaks should stay fixed if they are done properly.

magicbastarder

i don't see that working in practice though. the meter for my house is less than 1m outside my property, with a 15-20m run to the first stop valve under my sink. i don't see why they should be responsible long term for fixing the pipe under my driveway? especially if the pipe is near end of life. first fix free in that context sounds like a reasonable policy.

slightly related - my issue with IW was that they installed a metal meter cover, which is held down with two unusually large allen bolts. i rang them to request an allen key to allow me to open it in case of emergency, and they initially insisted i should not be able to access it, that i should turn off the water under the sink. so my question was 'you're taking responsibility for any leaks up to that point so?', at which point they changed their tune and swore blind that they don't use metal meter covers. it flummoxed them a little when i sent them a photo of the cover in question which states 'irish water' on it. as mentioned, the call centre staff were incredibly badly briefed, and i would not find the staff themselves at fault in that regard, obviously.

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see that working in practice though. the meter for my house is less than 1m outside my property, with a 15-20m run to the first stop valve under my sink. i don't see why they should be responsible long term for fixing the pipe under my driveway? especially if the pipe is near end of life. first fix free in that context sounds like a reasonable policy.

In your case, say you reported a leak. They turn up at your front door, turn off your stopcock under the sink, and check you meter. Yep, a leak. So they dig up your old pipe as far as your building and put a new pipe with a new stopcock there. Check and yippee no leak. They connect your old pipe and make good. Check again and leak fixed or not. If fixed all are happy, if not, it is your problem.

Six months later after a cold spell, you report another leak. They come, turn off their nice new stopcock and - horrors - a leak. So they fix it again for free, or otherwise - no leak - so up to you again. The same would apply if there was a land slip of some kind.

I think 'fix it free - always' is much better for everyone. Imagine if I did not call the Fire service because I thought I would be charged for the call?

magicbastarder

I think we've gone a bit OT...

Anyway, in terms of the 'what could have been' infrastructure question, it was depressing to read recently just how many houses built in the last year are one offs. 50% in some counties, iirc. Given all the talk of the economic basis of providing a rural bus service, rural broadband, post offices closing, etc., it's a pity so many politicians are refusing to acknowledge this particular elephant in the room.

Zebra3

There was no cock up with regard to Irish Water.

The EU and our right wing parties support privitisation.

That's what IW was all about.

The idea that it was some sort of accidental mistake couldn't be further from the truth.

IW was meant to be there for the state to sell off when the next financial crash comes around.

Bray Head

The only issue with Irish Water was charging households, and in particular metering households.

If the utility had been set up to simply consolidate water services and take over from the local authorities >99% of the population would neither have known nor cared.

Sam Russell

If the 650 million euro wasted on the legal cost of IW and sinking meters into the ground, we could be driving down the M20 by now.

Or perhaps going on a train journey on the Metro North, or Dart underground. Well, not quite, but the extension of the Dart to Maynooth might have been possible.

Bray Head

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the 650 million euro wasted on the legal cost of IW and sinking meters into the ground, we could be driving down the M20 by now.

Or perhaps going on a train journey on the Metro North, or Dart underground.  Well, not quite, but the extension of the Dart to Maynooth might have been possible.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the 650 million euro wasted on the legal cost of IW and sinking meters into the ground, we could be driving down the M20 by now.

Except you wouldn't be. Because building 80km of four-lane carriage way is a far more complex and time-consuming task than digging holes in front of a couple of hundred thousand houses.

The sunk costs of IW are not totally wasted. Over time I believe it will deliver much greater efficiencies than the old system. These benefits will accrue to whoever pays them.

The CSO today released data showing that the worst 10% of metered households are effectively leaving the tap on for on average of four and a half hours a day. This data is useful.

bk

Bray Head wrote: »

Except you wouldn't be. Because building 80km of four-lane carriage way is a far more complex and time-consuming task than digging holes in front of a couple of hundred thousand houses.

Not really, we have tons of experience building motorways by now. The NRA/TII got really good at it. It really isn't particularly difficult.

In some ways it is much easier due to protests over IW, etc.

Bray Head wrote: »

The sunk costs of IW are not totally wasted. Over time I believe it will deliver much greater efficiencies than the old system. These benefits will accrue to whoever pays them.

That really hasn't happened in other countries that already have metering. Take the London example I mentioned earlier. They have had metering for years and yet only use 5% less water then us!

For the money wasted on meters, 650 million now, you could have fixed a massive amounts of pipes, etc.