How to go about bringing a monopoly into public ownership?

Mailman

I'm looking for suggestions/discussion on how to get the M50 into public ownership or changed to shadow tolling.

I don't like that National Toll Roads create 8 mile long tail backs on either side of their M50 toll bridge?
I don't like that I and a huge proportion of the population of Dublin will spend a sizeable proportion of their working day queuing at this toll bridge until the day we retire - the toll bridge will remain open until 2032.
I don't like having to pay €1.30 each way just to sit in a traffic jam.

I would have expected that the Labour Party as a left wing party would want to bring this into Public ownership but they seem to be following the British Labour party toward the far right and are in favour of PPP where ever possible.

If there was the political will there could the M50 toll bridges be pulled down?

PPP and the M50 patently do not serve the common good so how do we get rid of them.

Do we elect individuals to government to enact laws to take the bridge into public ownership?
Do we challenge the constitutionality of PPP in general? Do we have grounds to challenge it's constitutionality?
Do we set aside the contract awarded to NTR on account of the bribes that NTR paid to Liam Lawlor?
Engage in a campaign of civil disobedience until the M50 toll road is torn down?
What can be done?


Rgds,

G.

Sand

If you take the bridge into public ownership (just a leftist term for another monopoly) I assume the benefit to you would be that you would pay for the toll via your tax, as opposed to queing up in a traffic jam to pay your fare. Good for you. Bad for the taxpayers who must now pay for you despite the fact that they (mosat of them in any case) dont use the toll bridge.

PPP and the M50 patently do not serve the common good

Uh huh. Dont serve your good you mean.

Ri-ra

Yep; nobody should have to pay for anything they may never use.

I propose a tax revolt.

No taxation, therefore no representation.

Mailman

Neither of you two have been stuck going nowhere on the M50 for 2 hours.
If you are then I'd really like to hear more from you as to why you are happy to pay for that level of service.

I realise that things still have to be paid for.
I did mention 'shadow tolling'.

Also, no one bothered to explore any of the suggestions I put forward.
There was talk of taking Digifone's licence away from them becuase of the manner in which it was awarded to them, so why not the same for National Toll Roads.

I'm not the only one inconvenienced. NTR are taking in 70,000 a day so I figure that is major inconvenience to a lot of people.

Ideologically I expect infrastructure to be paid for through taxes.
Along with other things like Education, Defence, Social Services.
The M50 is supposed to benfit people who don't intend to ever use it too i.e. people in the greater dublin area who don't want heavy traffic going through their locality. At present a lot of people divert because of the M50 toll bridge.
The M50 is a relief road for the whole Dublin area and as such the 1.5 to 2 million people benefit from it being brought back into public ownership.

I won't ever take advantage of maternity benefit or a Carer's allowances but they come out of our taxes too.

Don't be fooled - PPP is not in our interests but if you live in Ireland it is coming your way soon.
Tolling is inefficient. Credit costs governments less than private individuals and the private individuals are using the same contractors the government would use anyhow so don't be suckered in about arguements about efficency especially when there are no operation costs associated with a road that isn't tolled.

don't get me wrong I'm not against private industry. Where a public service can be brought into the private sector and where there is competition it works. Competition is good but there is no competition in tolled roads.
Telephones, electricity, Gas, have all been privatised elesewhere with much success because competition was brought to the market at the same time - this doesn't happen with roads.

Don't portray me as someone who wants something for nothing. Motorists pay Road Tax, VRT, VAT on VRT, Duty on petrol, VAT on everything associated with their car. I think motorists as a group are entitled to expect that a fair proportion of the tax they pay goes back into the public infrastructure.
Even though I already pay a huge amount in motor related taxes I'd still happier to pay more just so that I don't have suffer the inconvenince of a traffic jam or have to use rat runs through urban areas to avoid traffic jams on the M50.

Sand

Neither of you two have been stuck going nowhere on the M50 for 2 hours.

Similar to the taxpayers who dont and as such shouldnt have to pay for you to.

70000/1.30 (your quoted figure- well take it for arguments sake- i assume its higher for larger vehicles and lower for smaller etc etc) is a bit less than 55000 vehicles a day - possibly half that is we assume its people coming to and from work each day. A large sum but relatively insignificant compared to the 3.6 million or so other citizens of Ireland who dont use the service.

You claim that the drivers using the toll bridge are doing a public service by not going into the congested dublin localities. Noble indeed but theyre paying 1.30 for the right so they must have some perceived benefit. You must perceive a benefit too because you denounce having to pay the 1.30 and say youre sick of sitting in traffic while at the same time you have seemingly not considered entering the dublin area as an alternative route.

Ideologically I expect infrastructure to be paid for through taxes.

Infrastructure can be paid for publicly, but private investment is preferable because such investment promotes sutainable projects which actually have the purpose of making money- unlike some of the Japanese public work projects, for example, which have roads going nowhere and architecturally stunning but completely pointless designs (I saw an incredible 270 degree turn which looped back and over itself like a spiral staircase- terribly impressive feat of engineering but terribly wasteful).

Governments cant really be trusted to pick the best contractor for the job, there is too much politics involved - witness the trouble surrounding the defences forces awarding of a contract for new helicopters that havent been accepted by any other state in the world- which of course has nothing to do with the investment in the dublin area the contractor in question promised in return. You mention Digifone yourself.

Tolled roads can work. A private company builds a motorway that provides a shorter travel time to some location. It charges a toll to recoup its investment and make a profit in exchange for allowing people to use its road. Its assumed the private company wont invest if it believes it will lose money. Win, win.

I sympathise with your position regarding road users and taxes. No one likes traffic jams. But roads are in themselves ineffecient compared to mass transportation systems. Until a reliable alternative (Dont mention CIE to me- violence may result:) ) to car use is provided you might as well get used to traffic jams.

Mailman

the M50 is a relief road.

A relief road should not be tolled.

the M50 was conceived as a relief road.

A relief road is built where it is considered necessary to reduce traffic in highly populated areas. A relief road is in everyones interests.
Relief roads are constructed in the public's interest and as such should be financed by the public.

the M50 should be viewed as nothing other than a relief road.

I was talking punts not euro. According to the AA NTR collect £84000 per day. So 55000 cars is too low an estimate.
Also thats 55000 cars going through the toll gates.
That's not counting all the people who are inconvenienced by tailbacks attributable to the toll bridge that extend beyond the last off-ramps on either side of the toll bridge.
That's not counting the thousands of people who divert through residential areas to avoid the M50 toll bridge who would otherwise use the relief road.
Expect at least 1.5 people per car and considering the types of journeys being undertaken by people using the toll bridge your probably looking at more like 2 persons per car or more.

And don't forget all the people in the residential areas who suffer the extra pollution, noise and danger that the diverted traffic brings.

There... I think I've outlined how this issue should be of concern to everyone in the greater Dublin area - Bray to Sutton, Kildare and Meath. Where does most of Ireland's population live again?

As for awarding contracts - the NRA, not the government now oversee our road building. I have received a mail from the Minister who told me to contact(go annoy) the NRA because he has got nothing to do with it. Visit www.nra.ie if you want to know how things are organised here.
I mentioned Digifone with regard to the M50 toll bridge specifically because of Liam Lawlor's involvement and by the way are you trying to prove my point for me - the M50 toll bridge was a private project, not a public one.

Hospitals can be built privately too but we're still building Hospitals using public money, thank God.

I'm not complaining about the M50 road - I'm complaining about the highway robbery that is going on at the toll booths which are causing the traffic jams. The toll booths are causing the majority of the jams on the M50, not the road itself.

There is a need for a relief road in Dublin that works.
There is a need for good quality national primary routes from
Dublin - Cork
Dublin - Galway
Dublin - Belfast

These are needed for the people of Dublin, Cork, Galway, Belfast and every little town in between that is choked with traffic.
These are needed and guess what 6Billion of the cost is going to be stumped up using EU and Irish money. Private businesses are going to contribute just over a Billion in order to charge tolls on the roads that our public money largely built. This is criminal.

I pay €1.30 to get from Tallaght to Blanchardstown because there is no "realistic" alternative route.
An underlying principle of PPP is that there should be an alternative route. As there isn't an alternative route the M50 doesn't satisfy the criteria for classification as a PPP project and should be brought back into public ownership(see PPP on www.nra.ie). In fact the M50 doesn't fully satisfy any of the criteria for PPP financed projects as mentioned on the NRA's web site.

Now, anyone got suggestions as to how to get the M50 back into public ownership as quickly and cheaply as possible?

Sand

Hmm well if you want to go ahead with public ownership (read bureacratic ownership)despite all the problems involved with such projects than I suppose you could vote for the (National? ) Socialist Workers Party.

The M50 btw is a road of higher quality. People use it because it is of higher quality. They pay to use the road because its of higher quality. Some people are always going to find an alternative route because they dont consider the 1.30 good value. Good for them. Some people will use the road because they consider it good value or the least worst alternative. Good for them.

What there is a need for in Dublin is a mass transport system that works.

Mailman

Simple message - The M50 is a relief road.

Bureacracy has nothing to do with it. Taking the road back into public ownership means abolition of tolling and the M50 would thereafter require no administration for the remainder of it's useful commercial life over and above what the NRA already provide.

The fact that the M50 is of higher quality is irrelevant - as I said before people use it because they have no viable alternative route and where no alternative route is available no toll should be levied.

Agreed there is need for a mass transit system and I used the DART when I was living on the east side of the city. But given how city planning was carried out in the last 30 years we have followed a Californian model of city design and we now have an American style city which needs a proper road infrastructure.

I hope for the future that the brown field sites closer to the city centre are redeveloped but we still need a proper road infrastructure for our sprawling city now.

Here's news for you - the captains of industry need a good road infrastructure just as much as Socialists and business associations like ISME have complained about the M50 toll booths too.

scipio_major

I'm sorry Mailman but I don't understand what you mean by relief road and then stating that there is not alternative route. If there is no alternative route, what route is it relieving?

Second as far as I know, the tolls generally go to one of two places. (a) They go to pay back the loan on the money teh road was built with in the first place. or (b) to the company which built the place in the first place. In addition in most cases the road or major public work is not paid for with taxes directly, it is capital spending and so the money usually comes from a loan. If there was no toll there wouldn't be anyway to pay for the road in the first place, short of increasing Taxes which would have to equal the amount collect at the tolls anyway.

As for your original question about how to get these "public assents" back into public ownership, I've news for ya. In the cases where the tolls are been collected by private companies, their contract usually states that they can only collect tolls for the first fifty years or some other specified period. The solution is to just wait. However when the government makes a move to increase the period, and you know the b*st*rds will, that's when you kick up a stink.

Fade To Credits
Scipio_major

bonkey

Originally posted by Mailman
the M50 is a relief road.

A relief road should not be tolled.

the M50 was conceived as a relief road.

Now, see, straight away we have a contradiction here.

If, as you say, the M50 was conceived as a relief road, and relief roads shouldnt be tolled, then why is it tolled today ???

So, either it is simply your assertion that relief roads shouldnt be tolled (as opposed to some policy or proven concept), or the M50 as not conceived as a relief road.

If it is simply your assertion that relief roads should not be tolled, then please stop using the fact that "it is a relief road" to back up your argument. Can you show categorically why relief roads should not be tolled?

jc

Victor

The M50 was designed to remove heavy traffic primarily from the city centre. At the moment too many people use it to go from Liffey Valley to Blanchardstown shopping centres.

NTR (ww.ntr.ie) tendered for and won the contract to build the original 4-lane bridge. There were further negotiations to have the second bridge built (2 x 3-lane + hard-shoulder). The second brdge is currently under construction.

Of the toll, part of the money goes to maintaining the bridge, part goes to pay off the original loan, part goes as profit and part goes to the government (as royalties, VAT and corporation tax).

Mailman, if it wastes several hours a day for you, why not move closer to work. There are plenty of houses being build in and around Blanchardstown or would that be too much for a southsider?

Shadow-tolling only mean that the government pays the toll (a-la the seconf Severn Bridge) and that we would all have to pay this through tax. Ultimately this would mean that you would have unsustainable growth in traffic on the bridge, which would result in further traffic jams (a-la M25, now getting 4th, 5th and 6th lanes).

What solution would ripping the bridge(s) down be? It would just mean you would have to go through Leixlip, Chapelizod or the city.

I don't like that National Toll Roads create 8 mile long tail backs on either side of their M50 toll bridge? .... I don't like having to pay €1.30 each way just to sit in a traffic jam.

Can I suggest you think outside the box and become part of the solution, not part of the problem? NTR don't cause the tail-backs, you and your co-drivers do.

Regarding traffic statistics. Heavy goods vehicle count as 2 vehicles in most traffic counting methods. This would indicate that perhaps 50,000 tolls are levied each day, as HGVs pay more. Assuming each vehicle goes and comes back (once each way) thats 25,000 vehicles. Also average car occupancy is 1.25, not 1.5. Thats 31,000 out of 3,800,000 people.

Mailman

Victor, I’m outside the box. I’m not part of the problem, the toll booth is the problem.

Who said I live in Tallaght – I often need to get to Tallaght or Loughlinstown or Bray or ‘Insert even numbered post code here’.
I live and work in D15. I moved to D15 when I started working in D15. I am not part of the ‘PROBLEM’ - The f**king toll bridge is the problem.
Northbound, During peak hours traffic is regularly backed up to the Tallaght on-ramps. There are no traffic jams on the far side of the Toll booth going northbound – this proves that the toll booths create the traffic jam.

Bonkey, At least Victor recognises that the M50 is a relief road – a road carrying traffic round an urban area, bypass(Collins English Dictionary)

When I say that there is no alternative I mean there is no ‘realistic’ alternative i.e. it’s 1pm you need to get from Swords to Bray - I can plot you 100 routes from Swords to Bray, none of them is a realistic alternative to the M50 at 1.pm. in the day. Consult the PPP documentation on www.nra.ie if you need more information on what the NRA considers to be an alternative route.

Now lets look at how NTR got where they are. I direct you to an evening herald report on this.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~camway/key_issues/tolling/dan_white_20010923.htm
and another interesting report from the irish times
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2000/1230/hom12.htm
Something fundamentally wrong here.I’d say.

Scorpio, here is some news for you regarding your post.
As for your original question about how to get these "public assets" back into public ownership, I've news for ya. In the cases where the tolls are been collected by private companies, their contract usually states that they can only collect tolls for the first fifty years or some other specified period. The solution is to just wait. However when the government makes a move to increase the period, and you know the b*st*rds will, that's when you kick up a stink.

NTR’s monopoly was due to end in 2020. A ‘deal’ has been done between NTR and the NRA(primarily due to NTRs unwillingness to handle congestion through the toll booth without the government making it ‘worth their while’) on a second bridge over the Liffey which is in the process of being built and the price of the bridge to the public? NTR are allowed to charge a toll on the new bridge which will take southbound traffic until 2032. Excellent solution, motorist pays for another 12 years on the new bridge.
Scorpio are you kicking up a stink yet?
These bridges aren’t major engineering projects – they are simple(read relatively cheap) bridges with their foundations on dry ground, not even in the Liffey. We are not talking about tunnels through the Alps.
Building a second bridge and adding an outer lane to the M50(they left space for them) is quite cheap. Still, having to add a third lane to a motorway only ten years after the motorway was built(or partially built) begs the question are the NRA competent to plan the nations infrastructure for the coming generations.

Notice that NTR didn’t roll out their EASYPASS system until after they got approval for the new bridge as EASYPASS would have reduced congestion on the bridge and made the need for the second bridge less pressing. Once approval was given NTR rolled out EASYPASS as automation of tolling is in their interests.

Victor look at your stats again please. If you want info. go to last years financial report on www.ntr.ie. Also note that both tolls and volumes have gone up since then.
I’d suggest that 1.25 people per car is an underestimate as people using the M50 aren’t making local journeys – Due to the nature of the journeys undertaken 2 per car is closer the mark e.g. visiting relatives in another suburb or people going to the Airport – Singles holidays aren’t all that popular you know.
Victor you are still ignoring the people who use on and off-ramps before the toll booth who get caught up in traffic jams caused by the toll booth – e.g. 1)southbound, Blanchardstown interchange to Cavan and city centre, 2)northbound M4 interchange 3) northbound, Clondalkin exit

If you look at the financial report on www.ntr.ie you’ll see operating expenses are high – remove the toll bridges and these operating expenses are virtually eliminated. The original investment by NTR in the toll bridge was tiny. I refer you back to the evening herald report. Also NTR’s profit is a proportion of the revenues so to operate a shadow toll the government would only have to pay NTR something like 30-40 cents per car as a shadow toll to make the same profit, not 1.30 per car.
I’m suggesting that the government’s contract with NTR be renegotiated or voided so even if we did have to pay them a shadow toll it would be much less than the figure mentioned above.
Actaully, the government makes more money out of the M50 than NTR do. So, if the people want the bridge taken back into public ownership the amount it would cost to pay NTR off is actaully lower than you’d think.
NTR is owned primarily by investment, pension companies so if they can see the same return they are currently getting coming from one big cheque from Government or a steady trickle every year they will dispose of the bridge.

It is no coincidence that Quarryvale(Liffey Valley) and the M50 toll bridge just happen to be in Liam Lawlor’s constituencey. Any one here follow the Tribunals? We were poorly served by an elected public representative on both projects and it is only right that the government should make amends.

As for traffic growth on the M50 – this is not the motorists fault. Government in conjunction with property developers have sought to build satellite towns rather than redeveloping brown field sites closer to the city centre or forcing property companies to dispose of their more central land banks which would be easier to service through public transport. Towns like Lucan, Enfield, Navan and Skerries have mushroomed. Blanchardstown has been allowed to extened into Co. Meath. This is not good planning and should be stopped. The motorists are not to blame for this. People living in dormitory towns are living in dormitory towns primarily because they can’t afford houses closer to the city. This is a fait accompli. Halt all further building of dormitory towns and traffic growth on the M50 will slow down. I see some building companies are scurrying to get land in north county Dublin and Meath re-designated because they fear that in the future a more enlightened government will prevent them from further building in those locations. As I said the motoroists aren’t to blame here.

The M50 is an important artery in Dublin – at the moment NTR is the cholesterol blocking this artery.

I’ve nothing against public transport. Public transport is an equally important part of a city’s infrastructure as the road network. I can complain about public infrastructure too but that is off topic –e.g. why is this Metro linking the Sports Campus to the city not going to arrive until a decade after the Stadium and why the f**k do the plans show it stopping just a half mile short of Blanchardstown village.
In this thread I’m complaining about the M50 which causes so much needless misery for so many people in the greater Dublin area.

I never suggested ripping up the concrete bridges. Just the toll booths will do nicely. Give me an hour, a JCB and the jobs done.

I hope you’re coming round to my way of thinking, if not I’ll convert you yet.

BTW I drive a small fuel efficent car – I not that pr**k in the BMW who thinks he owns the road and cuts you up in traffic whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Shinji

Let me be entirely clear on a small issue here; are you stating that the existence of the M50 causes grief for people? Or that the toll causes grief?

Do you believe that we'd be better off with no motorway and no toll?

Quite frankly, I think you're in la-la land on this issue. Toll roads are a superb way of building national infrastructure and always have been. I'm not in favour of PPP on the majority of things - I travel on the British train system and the tube every day (interestingly enough, despite the fact that they're providing a vital service for me and I do have no other way of getting in to work, I have to pay for them!) and I'm fully aware of the evils of PPP in some areas.

However, in the instance of a toll bridge such as the one on the M50, it makes sense. A company builds the bridge, absorbing a vast outlay to do so; they then charge a toll for a certain number of years to recoup that money and make their profit, after which time the bridge either becomes toll-free, or remains tolled with the money going into upkeep or extension.

Claiming that you're being caused "misery" by having to pay half the price of a packet of sandwiches for a far faster and easier journey into work is beyond ludicrous. You can scream about corruption all you like, but the simple fact is that the State should not have to pay vast amounts for projects like the Liffey Valley bridges which are used by a comparatively small proportion of the population, when the option of using private funds and having the money recouped by taxing those who actually benefit from the scheme exists.

Of course where safety/reliability are at issue, like on train networks, it's another story. But roads and bridges work FINE under PPP.

JustHalf

Argh! It will cost me more in petrol and time to go around the toll bridge than go over it! This isn't fair! Waah!

Sorry about that. That's just my impression of the argument so far.

Mailman

If not then please follow them. They show you that the cost of the project was small enough to have been shouldered by government or at the very least the contract negotiated with NTR should have been more flexible so that when traffic on the Toll bridge increased we were in a position to handle the increase in Traffic without being held to ransom by NTR.

I'm not complaining about €1.30. I complaining about having to wait in a Jam queuing to pay the the €1.30 - a jam caused by the people needing to queue to pay the €1.30. The toll is a tax and the golden rule with taxes is that a good TAX is one which can be collected efficiently - Ask taxation experts about this. Tolls are inefficent and steal away all the benefits of the service provided i.e. short journey time from point a to point b.
NTR haven't even made an effort to make the tolls less intrusive.
I'm thinking of tolling systems like those used in Singapore which allow motorist to continue at high speed and still deduct credits from their pre-paid toll card. EasyPass requires the car to slow to walking pace and use the same toll booths as those with coins.

I have seen good toll projects - most of France's infrastructure is built around tolled road but in France the government made sure the public do get value for money and I haven't experienced congestion on tolled roads in France due to toll booths.
Toll roads are necessary in France because the country is huge and the building of Motorways from Le Harve to Nice would bankrupt the country. The same arguements do not hold true for Ireland and the M50 in particular. Ireland only needs about 500-600 miles of motorway to satisfy it's needs. France also has plenty of good quality alternative routes for those who elect not to pay the toll.

As I have stated before - this toll bridge is not inconvenincing a small number of people it is inconveniencing the majority of the people on the west side of Dublin and surrounding counties.
Look to the NTR's financial results for last year and do the math. Look to the nature of the traffic using the M50. Look to the layout of Dublin city and the former villages that have become rat-runs used by those who wish to avoid congestion on the M50.

As for money going to upkeep and extension - the M50 has a design life, the M50 is going to be returned to the public when the road surface has reached the end of it's economic life and the government will end up piling money into renewing the road surface once it comes back into public ownership. Do you seriously think NTR are going to spend any money on anything but the most remedial of repairs in the last decade of ownership.

You are saying nothing about the quality of service you get on the british railways. It is commonly acknowledged that the quality of service as a whole has disimproved since rail was privatised. One or two routes may have improved but the service as a whole is poorer and the cost to the user has increased by way more than the rate of inflation. The company in charge of the upkeep of the rail infrastructure in Britain is bankrupt - do you actually feel safe travelling on british railways?

BTW most of the total M50 project i.e. the road that encirles Dublin and is now almost complete was payed for by the People of Ireland and through EU funding - NTR only supplied a small fraction of the total but benefits inordinately from public money spent on the rest of the motorway.

Don't portray me as someone who wants something for nothing.
When I put petrol in my car or pay motor tax, pay VRT I am paying my ticket which gives me the right to use Ireland's road infrastructure in the same way as buying a ticket gives you the right to use the tube.
In the earlier posts here people suggested that I and others like me were sponging off them and didn't want tax receipts used on the roads that they get no benefit from. I could argue I'm paying much more tax than non-road users and the non-road users are sponging off me for their Metro links, bus lanes etc.... but I'll rise above that as I see it all as part of what should be an integrated transport policy with public transport available to me when I don't need to take the car.
I not talking about paving paradise and putting up a parking lot - jsut giving the public and business the best value for their money and improving the quality of life for all motorists affected by those stupid toll booths.

Mailman

Well if that's you impression of the argument so far then you have missed the pont. My complaint has always been about the congestion caused by the toll bridge not the €1.30 toll.
I'm ideologically opposed to tolls but that's not the point. Given that that's how things are I'll pay the toll if it saves me time.
The point is the queues at the toll bridge mean that a route that was designed to dramatically reduce journey times doesn't actaully dramatically reduce journey times and too much has been invested in the route for that to continue.

I appreciate my replies have been long and I've linked to various other sites and considerable concentration has been demanded of the reader to grasp the extent of the problem. I mistakenly took it from granted that people understood the problem which is why I've had to write so much to explain the situation that I took for granted that everybody understood.

Victor

Mailman, can you consider a few points.

Flooding a topic with long posts with irregular paragraphs comes across as a rant. It will not convince people.

Repeating the same point merely bores people (emphasis / detail / clarification aside).

---

Point of information: the third lane of the M50 will be added in the median. The fourth lane will involve moving the hard shoulder into the verges (this may mean no HS at bridges) and subsequent lanes will require much more expensive measures.

Point of information: There is a proposal for a Naas-Maynooth-Drogheda road which would remove a lot of the long distance traffic from the M50 and in particular the Westlink

Mailman

Victor, regarding your point of information you seem to have come to the conclusion that I am unaware of other road projects or future developments to the M50.

I have read about them on www.nra.ie and elsewhere and I see the work that is underway on the interchange west of Lucan on the M4 every weekend. Given the nature of the traffic on the M50 a Naas-Drogheda link (which is still pie in the sky) wouldn’t have a dramatic effect on traffic on the M50 IF it were to be built. I doubt you as a contributor to the neighbouring Green forum would be happy to see yet another road being built.

I am aware that the third lane will be in the center. I mentioned it earlier - The addition of a crash barrier in the center that accompanies the third lane will be welcome. Obviously any further lanes when needed will push the hard shoulder outward. Tell me something I don’t know.

I have countered every argument you have presented as to why the M50 should be tolled.

I didn’t start this thread as a rant. Read my first post again. I was looking for suggestions\discussion as to how to remove the toll booths on the M50. Since then I have been defending myself from people who are anti car and pro whatever is perceived to be green. I’m not surprised that no one has joined the discussion on my side – the tree huggers from the neighbouring forum have swamped the thread and frightened everyone else away. A number of you may be moderators but you are not moderate.

I’m sorry if I bore you but I’ve had to write to defend myself and one or two sentences in a reply aren’t sufficient to do this.

It appears that everyone following this thread thinks cars are instruments of the devil. Perhaps, if I had selected a more fashionable subject like broadband internet(providing digital infrastructure rather than asphalt infrastructure) or legalising Canabis I would have been greeted more warmly(that isn’t a cue for IrelandOffline or Ming the Merciless to flame me. I’m in favour of both causes but there are people out there championing them).

In parting I leave you with this thought, having thousands of internal combustion engines idling needlessly for extended periods of time because of a toll bridge is not good for the environment.

Victor

Originally posted by Mailman
I doubt you as a contributor to the neighbouring Green forum would be happy to see yet another road being built.

Unfair presumption. Just because I try to respect the environment a little, doesn't mean I don't want roads that takes traffic away from the city and provide shorter cross-country routes (in this case say Galway-Belfast and Cork-Belfast). So I will consider it on it's merits when firmer proposals are made. I contribute to quite a few other boards aswell look here .

Originally posted by Mailman
Victor, regarding your point of information you seem to have come to the conclusion that I am unaware of other road projects or future developments to the M50.

You may be, but not everyone will be. Thats why I drew the line between the two halves of the post.

Originally posted by Mailman
The addition of a crash barrier in the center that accompanies the third lane will be welcome. ... Tell me something I don’t know.

Oh, sorry, I thought you said something about 'outside lane' (which I took to mean beyond the current hard shoulders.)

Victor

Originally posted by Mailman
I have countered every argument you have presented as to why the M50 should be tolled.

Perhaps, but I have neither read them all and (separately) remain to be convinced. In practical teerms, the only way to get it untolled is to buy the bridge for a huge sum of money.

Originally posted by Mailman
Since then I have been defending myself from people who are anti car and pro whatever is perceived to be green. I’m not surprised that no one has joined the discussion on my side – the tree huggers from the neighbouring forum have swamped the thread and frightened everyone else away. A number of you may be moderators but you are not moderate.

Perhaps, but a lot of people do feel anti-car. While boards.ie or any other mini-cosm of society will have a bias, it is at least partially representative of society.

Abusing people as tree huggers wins you no friends. You wouldn't want me commenting on you car as an ego-extension, would you?

My role as moderator is restricted to the Accommodation Board and is to control inappropriate material / behavior on that board. If you want some (zealous) moderation, I point you in the direction of Castor Troy, this board's mod.

Originally posted by Mailman
the tree huggers from the neighbouring forum have swamped the thread and frightened everyone else away.

Well you have 8 of the 19 posts. Perhaps you would feel more at home in the 'Motors' board? I rarely post there. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=47

Originally posted by Mailman
It appears that everyone following this thread thinks cars are instruments of the devil.

Well, I have never been nearly killed by a pedestrian, wheelchair, pram, bus, train or cyclist. I can't say that (many times over) for cars (and less so trucks).

Samson

Originally posted by Victor
Repeating the same point merely bores people (emphasis / detail / clarification aside).

Victor,

I think the reason that Mailman is repeating himself is that no-one appears to be reading his posts properly (even though they are a bit too long) and understanding his points.

I have to say that I agree totally with his argument.

The Toll Bridge is a total disaster and in my opinion completely defeats the purpose of the M50 Road being built.
The M50 as far as I can see was built as a bypass/relief road for Dublin to take traffic out of the city and the residential areas around the M50.
However, the effect that the toll bridge is having is to make people look for alternative routes around the toll bridge.
For example: I travel on the M50 quite a bit, but I go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the toll bridge (If I were driving from Santry to Lucan, I would exit the M50 before the toll bridge -Castleknock- and then go via the Strawberry Beds) and I am therefore contributing to congestion in residential areas (Castleknock).
I do this because, believe it or not, my journey takes half the time.

I also have a major problem paying a toll on a bridge which I believe should be in public ownership, whatever private investment was made was repaid I believe (although I am open to contradiction on this point), I think that the original deal was that NTR were to operate the toll booths for 10 years.
That passed a couple of years ago and a new operating contract was negotiated.

Also, someone made the point that all tax payers should not have to pay for this, they need not, do Irish motorists not pay one of the highest rates of road tax in Europe ?
Should we not have decent roads infrastructure as a quid pro quo for paying our road tax ?

If the toll booths were removed tomorrow the congestion problems would be solved immediately.
The second bridge would not be necessary.

How about this for an idea:
Whatever money the government is putting into the construction of the second toll bridge instead be used to buy itself out of whatever current contract is in operation ?

Problem solved (not a hope in hell, too many vested interests).

Victor

Originally posted by Samson
I think the reason that Mailman is repeating himself is that no-one appears to be reading his posts properly (even though they are a bit too long) and understanding his points.

Perhaps.

Originally posted by Samson
The Toll Bridge is a total disaster and in my opinion completely defeats the purpose of the M50 Road being built.

No, it does work, tens of thousands of vehicles use it every day. It means thousands of trucks don't use the city or Lucan. Providing a free bridge would only create further traffic. In this scenario "the number of cars will expand to fill avavilable road space", the M25 is the perfect example (may not apply to Ballydehob).

Originally posted by Samson
The M50 as far as I can see was built as a bypass/relief road for Dublin to take traffic out of the city and the residential areas around the M50.

Depending on you definition of 'around the M50', IIRC there had been no road bridges from Lucan to Chapelidod, which is what 3 miles or so?

Originally posted by Samson
However, the effect that the toll bridge is having is to make people look for alternative routes around the toll bridge.
For example: I travel on the M50 quite a bit, but I go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the toll bridge (If I were driving from Santry to Lucan, I would exit the M50 before the toll bridge -Castleknock- and then go via the Strawberry Beds) and I am therefore contributing to congestion in residential areas (Castleknock).

To a degree your journey is 'local' (depends on what part of Lucan). The problem is people abusing the bridge (e.g. going from say Foxrock to the airport by car, instead of by direct (fast) bus (or taxi), only to park for several days in the airport (at great cost). For a truck driver doing, say, Cork-Belfast the M50 does work.

Originally posted by Samson
Also, someone made the point that all tax payers should not have to pay for this, they need not, do Irish motorists not pay one of the highest rates of road tax in Europe ? Should we not have decent roads infrastructure as a quid pro quo for paying our road tax ?

You would be surprised at how little difference there is in motoring costs. How much is petrol in the UK? Take a look http://www.aaireland.ie/home/petrol_prices.asp - about €1.23/L in the UK compared to €0.81/L here for unleaded. The base cost for cars is also higher there, as would parking charges, fines and probably a lot of other costs. perhaps we should increase fuel prices further? :troll:

Mailman

Members of my family have been knocked out by Dublin Bus Wing Mirrors and hurt while alighting from Intercity trains but I don't hate the no. 38 bus because of this, no. 77 maybe.

I came to the conlcusion that they were tree huggers when I read various posts in the Green Forum.
Also, some of your posts in the green forum weren't exactly short. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41162 for example. But I don't condemn you for this as you needed to communicate information to others that can't be done through sound bytes.

My car couldn't be considered an ego-extension or phallic in any way - it's a Mini.

and as for repeating myself when communicating a message, the golden rule for message retention is:
tell 'em what you are going to tell them.
tell 'em.
tell 'em what you just told them.

Samson

Originally posted by Victor
No, it does work, tens of thousands of vehicles use it every day. It means thousands of trucks don't use the city or Lucan. Providing a free bridge would only create further traffic. In this scenario "the number of cars will expand to fill avavilable road space", the M25 is the perfect example (may not apply to Ballydehob).

I disagree somewhat (quite a bit actually).
Whilst the M50 toll bridge does take tens of thousands of vehicles away from the likes of Castleknock every day, there are still thousands of vehicles that avoid this route due to the delays caused by the toll booths.

The road would be an awful lot more efficient and would probably take near 100% of north/south Dublin traffic if one could drive non-stop from one end of the M50 to the other.

You gave the example of a truck driver going Cork/Belfast, in my experience the quicker route is:
Turn off Naas dual carriageway at Newcastle exit, drive Newcastle to Lucan to Clonee.
Head north on N3 and take turn off for Fairyhouse, go to Ratoath and head from there onto the N2.
When on the N2 you can then take the turn off for Dunleer just after Collon and this will then take you onto the N1.

Now, this is the circuitous route, but it is in fact approx. 45 mins quicker than the most direct route (Naas road, M50, N1 via Swords and Drogheda) If we were to be passing Goffs at 9AM.
It is my belief that 30 minutes of which is directly attributable to the M50 toll booths.

As I said this is in my experience, meaning that I have driven both routes and have found out the hard way which is quicker.

Sand

The tragedy of the commons comes to mind. Suffice to say if you dont have to pay for using a resource, the aforementioned resource tends to be overused.

Aspro

We pay road tax.

It is a road.

Once again we're being asked to pay on the double.

Toll roads = profiteering at the expense of service.

smiles

Originally posted by Aspro
We pay road tax.

It is a road.

Once again we're being asked to pay on the double.

Toll roads = profiteering at the expense of service.

If it wasnt for that toll then you wouldnt have a bloody road!

The reward for building of the road is indeed profit, both on the original capital and the risk itself.

I do think a set date for closure of the toll should be reached however.

<< Fio >>

scipio_major

I do think a set date for closure of the toll should be reached however.

As far as I know it *is* specified in the tender contract. After which period the road reverts to public ownership. I meantioned this before and since no disputed it then, I assume it is true. I know for a fact that it is true for a lot of toll roads in Britain because the AA road map I nagivated with (Counted juntions numbers and screemed when we missed them) can marked with the where the toll booth, the date which it became inactive.

Fade to Credits
Scipio_major

Mailman

The M50 toll bridge was due to close in 2020 but due to the incompetent way the original contract was negotiated we will still be paying tolls on this route until 2032.

As certain people have given out to me for repeating myself I'll just direct you back to links to two articles on how this came to be in one of my earlier posts to this thread.

smiles

Originally posted by Mailman
As certain people have given out to me for repeating myself I'll just direct you back to links to two articles on how this came to be in one of my earlier posts to this thread.

Ok, well thanks for reminding me about the links, the only problem i would find with them is that one is a website created by someone who vehemently opposes the tolls and the other is simply quoting all the opposition who always complain (no offense intended to anyone, but everyone knows thats politics!)

As for all the bitxhing thats going on in the thread, well repetition can be very very annoying, but i think a bitxh fight in the middle of a valid discussion only disreputes both your arguments.

And on to the toll roads, considering theres one being built about a mile from my house (Drogheda Bypass) this will affect me.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~camway/key_issues/tolling/dan_white_20010923.htm
And that isn't the half of it. Over the years NTR has been a prodigious cash cow for its shareholders.
[...]
If NTR had achieved its very high returns from investing in a high-risk business, most people wouldn't begrudge the company its good fortune.

However, there is no way that building and operating toll roads and bridges can be categorised as high-risk.

I think that website is a bit biased, they're complaining that the man who founded the company is now rich and that the shareholders who invested are actually earning money. Personally I think that is one of the most stupid things i've ever head, a company will not set up unless it thinks it will earn money, thats the point, and I'd call him a good business man instead of a thief. So it's not high-risk, the point is that there was an investment needed at the beginning and he found that capital and invested it, and fair play to the man.

While a private sector till franchise may bring some expertise to the construction and operation of an infrastructure project, the fact remains that a government can borrow much more cheaply than even the most highly-rated private company.

[...]

With the Irish national debt already one of the lowest in Europe and still falling, we have no need for such fiscal sleight of hand.

I think the point was at the time the government was unable to borrow that much money as need because it had to keeps its National Debt : GDP ratio falling to a suffeciant ratio, otherwise we would not meet one of the convergence criteria to join the Euro. So public investment was a necessity.

EMU Convergence Criteria:
Total outstanding government debt must not exceed 60% of GDP.

Which was at 72.7% in 1996 and was considered sharply deciling so must have been much higher back in the late 80s/early 90s when that road was commisioned.

<< Fio >>

Mailman

You didn't challenge the accuracy of the articles in either of these links. You challenged the motives of the people who wrote them.

One of these links is a copy of a newspaper article.
The other is an online newspaper article.
As journalists are obligied to research their work and verify their sources I think both articles can be relied upon to be factually correct.

You say one of the links is from a site that is anti tolls. This is not correct - the site in question is on the whole anti-road in general, irrespective of how they are financed.
They happen to have a bee in their bonnet about tolling because the feel that NTR are cajoling the NRA into building motorways that aren't strictly necessary just so that they can collect tolls on them and I think they may have a point there and considering where you live you might want to give this a bit more consideration.

While Ireland is a nation of begrudgers the point of the eveing herald article wasn't that Tom Roche made a fortune - the point was that the government as representatives of you and me were negligent when they negotiated the contract and that is inexcusable irrespective of how bad the nations finances were back in the mid 1980s.

Private finance seeks out projects which produce supernormal ( in the economic sense of the term i.e. profit over and above the opportunity cost) profits. The government could have negotiated a much more favourable contract while still giving NTR a supernormal return.
If you think Mr. Roche should be commended for being a great entrepreneur then go ahead but he should also be condemned as much of his fortune was attributable to having politicians in his pocket.

a bitxh fight in the middle of a valid discussion doesn't turn a previously stated fact into a falsehood.

smiles

Originally posted by Mailman
You didn't challenge the accuracy of the articles in either of these links. You challenged the motives of the people who wrote them.

One of these links is a copy of a newspaper article.
The other is an online newspaper article.
As journalists are obligied to research their work and verify their sources I think both articles can be relied upon to be factually correct.

They are very subjective in my opinion, factual doesnt necessarily mean they include *all* the facts.

Originally posted by Mailman
You say one of the links is from a site that is anti tolls. This is not correct - the site in question is on the whole anti-road in general, irrespective of how they are financed.

fair enough, i only read the one page that you had linked to and i would consider the whole set up of the page and the information contained on it to be very negative.

Originally posted by Mailman
They happen to have a bee in their bonnet about tolling because the feel that NTR are cajoling the NRA into building motorways that aren't strictly necessary just so that they can collect tolls on them and I think they may have a point there and considering where you live you might want to give this a bit more consideration.

Well I dont think the motorways aren't necessary. If they were then they wouldnt be used and so the company in question wouldnt make such huge profits.

I know i will be hit by the toll on the road being built beside me, but i still think it is a necessary thing, and has a valid reason.

Originally posted by Mailman
While Ireland is a nation of begrudgers the point of the eveing herald article wasn't that Tom Roche made a fortune - the point was that the government as representatives of you and me were negligent when they negotiated the contract and that is inexcusable irrespective of how bad the nations finances were back in the mid 1980s.

Private finance seeks out projects which produce supernormal ( in the economic sense of the term i.e. profit over and above the opportunity cost) profits. The government could have negotiated a much more favourable contract while still giving NTR a supernormal return.

I think it was necessary to resort to private finance because of the state of the finances. You're right in saying that the contracts should have been negociated better, and i'd love to see the tolls being lower! My argument was about the fact there is a toll road in general, and the validity of these existing.

Originally posted by Mailman
If you think Mr. Roche should be commended for being a great entrepreneur then go ahead but he should also be condemned as much of his fortune was attributable to having politicians in his pocket.

I think thats still being debated! :P But yes, he sounds a little dodgy, but with a sound financial mind.

Originally posted by Mailman
a bitxh fight in the middle of a valid discussion doesn't turn a previously stated fact into a falsehood.

It doesnt turn facts into a falsehoods, it merely throws opinions into disrepute.

<< Fio >>

Mailman

Smiles, if you care to browse CaST's web site you'll see that a report which shows that many motorways aren't needed has been buried.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~camway/resource_centre/nra/articles/road_needs.html.

You see the problem is if the government don't want to pay then business are more than happy to step in provided it is worth their while.

You have too much faith in our politicians and the NRA.
Politicians decided to ignore the road needs survey. The politicians involved were amongst others Harney, McCreevy and McDowell.
The NRA which is supposedly an independent body has too many vested interests directing it too. It's a QUANGO in the bad old British Conservative party way.
To see what I mean go to http://homepage.tinet.ie/~camway/resource_centre/nra/articles/resignation_20010721.html

I wish to state that I am in no way affiliated to CaST.

smiles

Originally posted by Mailman
Smiles, if you care to browse CaST's web site you'll see that a report which shows that many motorways aren't needed has been buried.

if they aren't needed then they wont be used. then the private companies would make no profit, so they wouldnt invest in the first place.

It has been said for years than no bypass was need beside me, thats why there are up to 2 hour long delays for me getting home every day, and now that some of the relief roads are opened in the last day or two (the first few steps) the traffic has been eased by a huge amount.

You have too much faith in our politicians and the NRA.
Politicians decided to ignore the road needs survey. The politicians involved were amongst others Harney, McCreevy and McDowell.

I dont know where the idea that i have too much faith in politicians comes from. Is it because i think that roads need to be built? If you are going to try and put my opinions down then at least attempt to qualify your reasons why.

<< Fio >>

Mailman

When the motorways are built they are designed in such a way that you are forced to use them i.e. very difficult to divert as with the M50. They're designed to guarantee revenue for the toll operator. This is an intrinsic part of toll road design and is one of the most important parts of the contract negotiation.

Was talking to someone over lunch today who has a friend in Drogheda and his friend was complaining that he will have to pay €5 to use the new toll bridges just to get to his home because he can't divert round them.

Since you bought into the spin about PPP being good for you I figure you listened to our government. Some roads do need to be built, some do not. Most roads that do need to be built don't need private financing.

I don't have to justify my position, you do. The accepted rule has always been that infrastructure is provided from public funds and the burden of proof is on those who propose private financing for a particular route. They're the ones who must justify why public finances aren't used.
The government's consultants questioned the appropriateness of using private investment in infrastructure projects.
The government have disregarded the advice of their consultants and turned this general rule on it's head striving short-sightedly to finance all major infrastructure projects privately to keep government borrowing down irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not.

Even business recognises the necessity of being highly geared sometimes. Our government however do not.

smiles

When the motorways are built they are designed in such a way that you are forced to use them i.e. very difficult to divert as with the M50. They're designed to guarantee revenue for the toll operator. This is an intrinsic part of toll road design and is one of the most important parts of the contract negotiation.

Well, there are always ways and means, although i take your point that they're are designed to be like that, i hadnt actually considered that.

Was talking to someone over lunch today who has a friend in Drogheda and his friend was complaining that he will have to pay €5 to use the new toll bridges just to get to his home because he can't divert round them.

Yes, there is going to be at least 2 tolls on the routes going in and out of the town, and while this is annoying, i still think they are valid in being there. As for €5.... thats a little bit up in the air at the moment and i for one whould have ahuge objection to the toll being so high.

Since you bought into the spin about PPP being good for you I figure you listened to our government. Some roads do need to be built, some do not. Most roads that do need to be built don't need private financing.

Just because i agree with elements of the government does not necessarily mean I agree with all of it. Whats the point in you jumping to conclusions over my beliefs? If you want me to listen to your points then just question mine if you're not sure, dont assume things i dont say.

I already gave my reasons why I think they do need private financing.

I don't have to justify my position, you do. The accepted rule has always been that infrastructure is provided from public funds and the burden of proof is on those who propose private financing for a particular route. They're the ones who must justify why public finances aren't used.

Whats the point in saying anything here if you're not going to justify your position. I read these boards and argue with people simply so I can get other peoples opinions that might have good valid points that might change mine, I honestly think that starting into a discussion like this with a closed mind is foolish.

Basic reasons for privatisation of the routes:
* Reduces government borrowing
* Reduces the burden of taxation on the individual and only taxes those who use the service
* Private enterprise has been proved to be far more efficent
* Private enterprise increases the general level of wealth within the country
* The terrible standards of Irish infrastructure have been holding this country back where foreign investment, and even domestic investment is concerned, so it *has* to be improved.

There were huge cut backs in the 80s that has left a blatent need for upgrading, now the government seems to be trying to rectify this situation and has a choice between:

a] raising taxes and funding it itself (and you can imagine the reaction to that)
b] not building the road (they're already being reprimanded by both Europe and disputes by Irish/international businesses)
c] borrowing and having a larger burden of taxation for future generations,
d] partly privatly financing the project (and having people argue about it like this.)

Its a no win situation as far as I can see, but i'd love to hear other peoples opinions on this.

The government have disregarded the advice of their consultants and turned this general rule on it's head striving short-sightedly to finance all major infrastructure projects privately to keep government borrowing down irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not.

I dont think that they are financial all infrastructural projects privately, there is a huge injection coming from the EU and the government as well as private industry.

But you're right, I think the policy should be examined more closely and alternatives considered.

Even business recognises the necessity of being highly geared sometimes. Our government however do not.

Troll.

<< Fio >>

Victor

Originally posted by Mailman
Even business recognises the necessity of being highly geared sometimes. Our government however do not.

Which example should I use?
Commercial: Enron, Global Crossing, British Airways, ntl, Sabena, Swiss Air? or
National: Argentina, Germany (c. 1930), Mozambique, Ireland (c. 1987)?

Originally posted by Mailman
Was talking to someone over lunch today who has a friend in Drogheda and his friend was complaining that he will have to pay €5 to use the new toll bridges just to get to his home because he can't divert round them.

Can't? How did he get home up to now? And who is suggesting a toll of €5?

Originally posted by smiles
It has been said for years than no bypass was need beside me, thats why there are up to 2 hour long delays for me getting home every day, and now that some of the relief roads are opened in the last day or two (the first few steps) the traffic has been eased by a huge amount.

What sections are open?

Mailman

Highly geared companies. Hmmm, lets see......
NTR was highly geared to begin with and they're thriving. Maybe they're just special.

Highly geared countries. Don't have to look too far.
As a proportion of GDP Ireland has one of the lowest levels of debt in the entire EU so other countries in Europe are more highly geared than we are but I don't see them being dragged off to the knackers yard just yet.

I can't confirm the €5 or elaborate on alternative routes. As I took care to state in my last post I said it was a friend of a friend. The only things I did clarify with my friend before I included that discussion in my post were that he was certain that his friend was from Drogheda, the figure mentioned was €5 and that there was no alternative viable route available to him. Take it with a pinch of salt if you want.

Smiles, when I was talking about justifying Tolling I mean on a case by case basis not in general. It has to be done on a case by case basis. The benefits you listed are the benefits you hope would accrue from involving business in a public project and the benefits provided from involving private individuals must outweigh the disadvantages on a case by case basis.

When NTR and the NRA use the same contractors(and they do) to build their motorways the level of efficency is identical. When NTR borrow they borrow at a less preferential interest rate to a government. When NTR operate a toll bridge there are extra operation costs incurred that aren't present on an untolled road. Look at their financial reports - the administration costs are substantial.
On a macro-economic level the un-tolled bridge is paid for through increased economic activitity. Do you think Irish business is going to be better off or more competitive internationally having to pay a toll on the M50 after being diverted on to it by the Dublin port tunnel.

The idea that government can't be as efficient as private enterprise is wrong. Look at the national lottery - it is just as efficient as the british lottery but the people of Ireland benefit from the Irish Lottery. Cadbury-Schweppes benefit from the lottery in Britian. Yes, there is private involvement in the Irish Lottery(G-Tech) but the majority of the benefits accrue to the public. In the electricity industry private companies demanded that the price per KWh hour be increased by 10% before they enter the market. Dennis O'Brien is waiting in the wings to cherry pick the most efficient public owned Power Stations at a knock down price when the industry is privatised. Perhaps electricity generation will be more efficient once privatised but you and I won't see the benefits. Victor, am I right or am I right on this one?

I'm especially annoyed about Tolling today. Before setting out on my journey across the toll bridge today I left out €1.30. I approach the barrier, roll down the window and throw the money into the funnel. The machine registers only 10 cents of the €1.30 I threw in. I roll the window further down to retrieve the €1.20 that has been rejected. I find only 20 cents. The machine has swallowed the euro. Impatient drivers behind me getting more impatient. So now I have to undo seatbelt and contort myself to extract more money from my pocket. Only have €2 coin. With irate drivers behind me I have no option but to throw €2 into funnel. Machine likes €2 coin very much. Green light. Go.
So to get through the toll bridge I had to pay €3.30- highway robbery.
On return trip I choose Chapelizod, speed bumps and all in preference to M50.

Victor

Originally posted by Mailman
.... In the electricity industry private companies demanded that the price per KWh hour be increased by 10% before they enter the market. Dennis O'Brien is waiting in the wings to cherry pick the most efficient public owned Power Stations at a knock down price when the industry is privatised. Perhaps electricity generation will be more efficient once privatised but you and I won't see the benefits. Victor, am I right or am I right on this one?

Electricity has been underpriced in Ireland (underpriced relative to neighbouring markets, environmental concerns and price sustainability). While the ESB has been making profits, it has not been making enough to replace generation capacity or to expand the distribution network at an appropriate level. This puts new entrants at a disadvantage as they need to build the generation capacity and network connections. On a secondary level, some technologies are genuinely more expensive. But most importantly the difference between wholesale and retail prices were insufficient to attract new entrants.

Denis O'Brien I understand has withdrawn from the electricity industry. SeeO'Brien's ePower to close after losses of €6m , although I am sure he is entitled to re-enter. And I would support the selling off of various generating units (or groups of units) to avoid an eircom type situation with a privatised monopoly. The sale of Ngrid and the ESBs retail market is another matter.

The efficiency of energy generation is not down to public or private ownership, but strategic location of generating and distribution capacity, technical issues regarding energy loss, usage patterns and models.

The ESB is currently over-staffed by an estimated 2,000. The advent of competition is one of the reasons that the ESB is becoming more efficient.

Finally, I don't see prices coming down, primarily on energy policy, environmental and price sustainability grounds. But we will see the benefit of greener electricity

---

Ban the ESB, its a double tax!!!!!

smiles

Originally posted by Victor

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mailman
It has been said for years than no bypass was need beside me, thats why there are up to 2 hour long delays for me getting home every day, and now that some of the relief roads are opened in the last day or two (the first few steps) the traffic has been eased by a huge amount.

---

What sections are open?

That was actually posted by me!

The side roads that they built are, the big roundabout section down the road from me and one of the roads that links one of the incoming roads to that roundabout. it also means the road that was closed to heavy traffic (and at times all traffic) is now reopen.

<< Fio >>

smiles

Originally posted by Mailman
Highly geared countries. Don't have to look too far.
As a proportion of GDP Ireland has one of the lowest levels of debt in the entire EU so other countries in Europe are more highly geared than we are but I don't see them being dragged off to the knackers yard just yet.

What??? You use the national debt to GDP ratio as a sign of a country being highly geared?!?! How on earth does that work (besides saying that means other governments spend more, because that doesnt even need to be argued with as wrong)

Originally posted by Mailman
the figure mentioned was €5 and that there was no alternative viable route available to him. Take it with a pinch of salt if you want.

a very large pinch of salt i think!

Smiles, when I was talking about justifying Tolling I mean on a case by case basis not in general. It has to be done on a case by case basis. The benefits you listed are the benefits you hope would accrue from involving business in a public project and the benefits provided from involving private individuals must outweigh the disadvantages on a case by case basis.

of course case by case assesment is need Those were the reasons why a private industry is *in general* more efficient and better at handling projects than a public one.

When NTR and the NRA use the same contractors(and they do) to build their motorways the level of efficency is identical. When NTR borrow they borrow at a less preferential interest rate to a government.

I've already given my arguments as to why i think it was better for there to be private industry involved with the M50 at the time it was built (and i wont discuss that any further, i think we have to agree to disagree!) but as you said, it must be a case by case assesment of both the current economic situation and what the predicted situation will be.

On a macro-economic level the un-tolled bridge is paid for through increased economic activitity. Do you think Irish business is going to be better off or more competitive internationally having to pay a toll on the M50 after being diverted on to it by the Dublin port tunnel.

name more than 3 european countries that have no toll roads/bridges!

If anything we are going towards the same standards that the rest of Europe already has (both in better infrastructure and increasing privatisation)

The idea that government can't be as efficient as private enterprise is wrong. Look at the national lottery - it is just as efficient as the british lottery but the people of Ireland benefit from the Irish Lottery. Cadbury-Schweppes benefit from the lottery in Britian. Yes, there is private involvement in the Irish Lottery(G-Tech) but the majority of the benefits accrue to the public.

Lets see... Telecom Eireann? Irish Fertilisers? (and ther was another company whos name escapes me at the moment sold for about 1p i think -- the buyer had to accept all the debt as well)

and to put two of your quotes together:

The idea that government can't be as efficient as private enterprise is wrong

Perhaps electricity generation will be more efficient once privatised

so, yes, the ESB as another example of an inefficent government run company.

Of course there will be efficient companies that are run by the state, but inefficiency of public enterprise is an accepted fact, open *any* economics book and you will see that. It was also one of the reasons that the USSR centrally planned enterprise failed.

In the electricity industry private companies demanded that the price per KWh hour be increased by 10% before they enter the market. Dennis O'Brien is waiting in the wings to cherry pick the most efficient public owned Power Stations at a knock down price when the industry is privatised. Perhaps electricity generation will be more efficient once privatised but you and I won't see the benefits.

Electricity is a very tricky issue, if it was privatised then there is a huge amount of capital needed to be directly invested, more than anyone seems to want to put up on their own, without the government knocking down prices on the generators that they have already built.

If it wasnt for the governments initially investment in the ESB then we would have been years without widespread electricity.

If it is totally privatised then they will simply cut off all the inefficient areas, lets see:

CEO: "Oh look on the Clare Island it costs us more to give them electricity than the rest of the country, and our profits are down by 0.02%, lets up the prices by.. say... 500% on that island ? and then well cut them off completely." :P

[and yes that word was *totally* privatised, a little/lot of competition would do them no harm]

<< Fio >>

Victor

Originally posted by smiles
What??? You use the national debt to GDP ratio as a sign of a country being highly geared?!?! How on earth does that work (besides saying that means other governments spend more, because that doesnt even need to be argued with as wrong)

It's one indicator, together with private and corporate debt, relative to realisable assets and affordibility.

smiles

Originally posted by Victor


It's one indicator, together with private and corporate debt, relative to realisable assets and affordibility.

By that logic Russia was highly geared at the time when their economy was going unto complete and utter chaos.

A government being highly geared is best measured by growth, not the debt of the country!

<< Fio >>

Mailman

that is, Private industry was unwilling to enter the market until the price per KWh was increased.

The price in the UK is significantly lower.
Go to Norwebs or powergens web sites and you see the cost per KWh is significantly lower than here

The British benefitted from privatisation of electricity, Ireland will not.

I said the ESBs stations will be cherry picked because that is exactly what a representative of ESB said when being interviewed on TV on the matter of electricity de-regulation. He said it in a matter of fact way, not as scaremongering.

According to BWEA's figures on their web site the cost to generate electricity using Gas was something like 2.2pence per KWh and efficent wind generation plants were around 4 pence per KWh. At retail price of 8.8p per KWh allowing for sterling exchange the markup still seems outrageous and private industry still weren't happy with this and demanded an extra 10% on top.

Debt as a proportion of GDP - A fair measure for estimation of a country's ability to repay it's debts and a reasonably accurate means of comparing the extent of debt between countries(even when considering Ireland has a low corporation tax rate).

Pinch of Salt - we'll see in the fullness of time.

Name more than one European country that is financing 20% of it's road network through Public Private Partnerships.

I mention the National Lottery because I believe this is the ideal for the future. It is nothing more than a management company.
Apart from a board of directors there are practically no employees so it isn't a glorified social welfare system.
The ownership is held by the public but everything is contracted out to specialist companies with expertise in whatever area they have been contracted for which gives it efficiency.
It's like Ryanair, or my company - no deadweight lying round.

smiles

Originally posted by Mailman
Debt as a proportion of GDP - A fair measure for estimation of a country's ability to repay it's debts and a reasonably accurate means of comparing the extent of debt between countries(even when considering Ireland has a low corporation tax rate).

Right the first bit makes relative sense, but I dont see what point you're trying to make as regards corporation tax levels meaning you cant compare the debt... thats the whole point of the debt ratio. (please correct me if i'm wrong)

What you said was:

As a proportion of GDP Ireland has one of the lowest levels of debt in the entire EU so other countries in Europe are more highly geared than we are...

you were talking about "highly geared" economies.... so could you explain that please?

Originally posted by Mailman
Name more than one European country that is financing 20% of it's road network through Public Private Partnerships.

why? *shrug* i'm not trying to advocate that Ireland not unique, i'm merely trying to introduce other ideas into the argument, and other possible reasonings behind the privatisation.

Originally posted by Mailman
I mention the National Lottery because I believe this is the ideal for the future. It is nothing more than a management company. Apart from a board of directors there are practically no employees so it isn't a glorified social welfare system.

I think the people who work for semistate companies would reject you calling it a "glorified social welfare system". A lot of the technicians who work for the ESB are highly trained... we dont let monkeys at our generators.

Surprisingly enough most companies need employees....

Mailman

transfer pricing operated by multi-nationals causes Irelands GDP to be slightly overstated.

Other EU countries are more highly geared in that they have more national debt than us (as a proportion of GDP). That's not to say their debt\equity ratio is over 1:1 just that they are more highly geared than us. They could have a lower debt ratio by clearing their national debt through implementing austerity measures but that is counter productive having a negative effect on the economy in the long term.

The ESB has been used by politicians to prop up BnM for too long just to hide an unemployment black-spot in the midlands. If public companies are given some autonomy they can be efficient.
A monopoly doesn't have to maximise profit. It can be used to provide a service as efficiently as possible if that is the mandate that is given to it. Where there is no scope for introduction of competition in an industry this is probably the best policy to adopt.

I haven't mentioned the M50 once yet in this post so I think this thread is past it's best.

smiles

Originally posted by Mailman
transfer pricing operated by multi-nationals causes Irelands GDP to be slightly overstated.

Thats why we tend to use the GNP for comparisons, it's the GDP +/- net factor income from the rest of the world (and then you an adjust for subsidies/taxes)

[net factor income is basically companies sending profits home]

Other EU countries are more highly geared in that they have more national debt than us (as a proportion of GDP). That's not to say their debt\equity ratio is over 1:1 just that they are more highly geared than us. They could have a lower debt ratio by clearing their national debt through implementing austerity measures but that is counter productive having a negative effect on the economy in the long term.

erg! How does the debt ratio mean they are more highly geared? (again)

<< Fio >>

Nice But Dim

I'm astonished that we've managed to get to page 3 of this thread without a single person making reference to consumption externalities and the role of tolls and taxes in regulating economic activity as opposed to acting solely as a revenue raising device.

Victor

Originally posted by smiles
How does the debt ratio mean they are more highly geared? (again)

If I remember right 'gearing' is the ratio of equity to debt. Is there soem other meaning? GDP v General Government Debt would be a part of the equation, but only a part.

Originally posted by Nice But Dim
I'm astonished that we've managed to get to page 3 of this thread without a single person making reference to consumption externalities and the role of tolls and taxes in regulating economic activity as opposed to acting solely as a revenue raising device.

:D:D:D I'd smile more and make intelligent comments if I knew what that meant.

Victor

Originally posted by Mailman
The ESB has been used by politicians to prop up BnM for too long just to hide an unemployment black-spot in the midlands.

Quite possibly. However, there are other valid reasons -security of power supplies, general economic development, creation of an engineering society. If engineers / electicians / metal workers didn't exist in the midlands from BnM / ESB / CIE training would there be any industry in the midlands at all?