nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

David McWilliams - Whats his problem!?

Trotter

Just watching a program called the Big Bite on RTE.. its along the lines of a panel who talk about current affairs, chaired by David McWilliams.

He just made a statement that makes me sick.. I think it was FG's Alan Dukes that mentioned the new road between Waterford and Dublin..

McWilliams replied.. Oh the big 5 lane highway? a road where nobody drives on it anyway??

Basically implying that the new Waterford to Dublin road isnt needed. It proves that he lives in a little bubble called Dublin. I wonder what state his underpants would be in if he drove through Thomastown on the way to Waterford, (a major city in the spacial strategy), at a constant speed of 50km per hour. Thats a major route right? Yet you cant drive side by side with a bus coming the opposite way.

The likes of that ill informed journalism make me sick!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ishmael whale

Trotter wrote:

Or maybe Im wrong and ALL of my tax money should be spent in Dublin. How naive of us South Easterners to think otherwise

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/regincome.pdf
According to page 13 of the CSO data above, Waterford households pay 351 million in tax and receive 354 million in social transfers. So Waterford households make no contribution to national coffers at all, and Waterford people need have no fear of anyone else seeing a penny of their taxes. By comparison, Dublin households pay 5,474 million in tax and receive 3,939 million in social transfers, making a net contribution of 1.5 billion to national funds.

It is simply a fact that Dublin subsidises the regions, and not the other way round. Any suggestion to the contrary is massively and demonstrably wrong.

Maharet wrote:

McWilliams should be put on the bus to Waterford from Dublin, then he'd see how much the uprgrade isn't needed, wanker! 4 hours it takes somedays!

As I understand it, the issue is not so much about the need to upgrade the road, as whether its necessary to upgrade it to a motorway as per the wikipedia quote below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N9_road
It has been argued by many in the Waterford region that the entire route should be upgraded to motorway standard. However many people also argue that the volume of traffic using the route is low, and that to upgrade it to high quality two-lane road or dual-carriageway would be sufficient.

If McWilliams is contesting any need to upgrade the road, he would look to be overstating the position. However, his reply seems to be to the effect that he has seen figures that suggest volumes don’t justify a motorway. No-one seems to be attempting to respond to that. Either these figures exist and he’s right, in which case you need to explain why its necessary to build a motorway where one is not needed, or figures are wrong and they need to be refuted.

That said, building a motorway to Waterford is hardly as wasteful as the Western Rail Corridor. At least if the motorway was there, traffic would use it.

Dac51

ishmael whale wrote:

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/regincome.pdf
According to page 13 of the CSO data above, Waterford households pay 351 million in tax and receive 354 million in social transfers. So Waterford households make no contribution to national coffers at all, and Waterford people need have no fear of anyone else seeing a penny of their taxes. By comparison, Dublin households pay 5,474 million in tax and receive 3,939 million in social transfers, making a net contribution of 1.5 billion to national funds.

It is simply a fact that Dublin subsidises the regions, and not the other way round. Any suggestion to the contrary is massively and demonstrably wrong.
As I understand it, the issue is not so much about the need to upgrade the road, as whether its necessary to upgrade it to a motorway as per the wikipedia quote below.

If McWilliams is contesting any need to upgrade the road, he would look to be overstating the position. However, his reply seems to be to the effect that he has seen figures that suggest volumes don’t justify a motorway. No-one seems to be attempting to respond to that. Either these figures exist and he’s right, in which case you need to explain why its necessary to build a motorway where one is not needed, or figures are wrong and they need to be refuted.

That said, building a motorway to Waterford is hardly as wasteful as the Western Rail Corridor. At least if the motorway was there, traffic would use it.

You are correct (and you have made the point before) that Dublin is a net contributor in respect of taxes. However Waterford is a net receipient of taxes to the tune of a miserable €3 million euro as per the CSO data provided. Compare this to Galway - net receipts of €72 million euro and Limerick - net receipts of €21 million euro. There seems to be no problem in prioritising motorways to these cities but when it comes to the question of a Waterford-Dublin motorway then figures and data are pulled out from under every stone to try and knock the idea down. Why should a motorway be built to Galway or Limerick? What is so special about these cities? Remember also that a Waterford-Dublin motorway will be built to serve the whole South-East region, not just Waterford.

Also on your point re traffic volumes, I have already tried to explain this in a previous post. If you ever had to drive from Waterford to Dublin on the N9 then you would realise how bad the road is and how dangerous it has become. People are now using alternative routes to Dublin to avoid the N9 hence the lower than expected traffic volume. I use two alternative routes to Dublin: Waterford - New Ross - Enniscorthy - Arklow - Dublin or Waterford - Kilkenny - Athy - Dublin.

merlante

Firstly, as for Dublin subsidising the regions. People have not been arguing for or against, only that Waterford does not receive the same infrastructural investment as Galway or Limerick. This is the argument, and it would seem to be pretty compelling.

(although, I would point out that national road funding are once in generation type investment for regional cities, so this investment should be averaged out over 30 years for a fair comparison, as Dublin, will (rightly) receive large levels of infrastructural investment long after the motorways, bypasses and rail corridors around the country are constructed -- but this is neither here nor there.)

As for your claim that nobody has tried to put arguments against McWilliams claim that the road is not justified: you have obviously not seen, or chosen to ignore, my earlier post, which was a copy of an email I sent to him, which broke down, and in my opinion refuted, his argument.

The highlights being: (but if you're going to argue, reply my earlier post please!)
1. Road traffic figures are meaningless since we are not comparing like with like. The measurement of traffic on the existing N9, which is an awful road that encourages a large volume of traffic to take the N11, and other routes, instead, cannot be used as a guage to measure future traffic on a perfect road.

2. The populations served by the Galway road and the Waterford road are similar, with Waterford having more larger towns on the route and a denser population that live closer to the road. This means that either,
a) Traffic volumes are, in reality, more or less the same between the two cities.
or
b) People in the south east travel to Dublin less because the infrastructure is worse, people are poorer, less prosperity, etc. If this is the case, then more, not less, investment is needed.

As for your point about some road, but not necessarily a motorway, is required. I'll say this:
1. Aren't we always saying that our development is short-sighted in this country? We are the richest country in Europe: we should build for the future for a change. The populations of the regional cities are growing quickly.

2. If the populations along the Galway and Waterford roads are roughly similar, then both deserve the same infrastructure.

3. To give one regional city superior infrastructural investment to another is to set one at a disadvantage to the other in attracting foreign direct investment. Putting Waterford at that kind of infrastructural disadvantage would harm the city greatly, and the larger south east region.

Bards

Well said Merlante

ishmael whale

Merlante wrote:

If the populations along the Galway and Waterford roads are roughly similar, then both deserve the same infrastructure.

In fairness, I think this essential point is correct. If the need for a Waterford motorway is questionable, then the Galway motorway project should be equally questioned. If a Galway motorway is justified then, prima facia, there is a case for a Waterford motorway.

There’s no particular reason for McWilliams to single out the South East for special mention. If his point is that Ireland generally doesn’t need motorways, and good quality two lane roads or dual carriageways would be sufficient, then that’s the case he should be making.

Merlante wrote:

Firstly, as for Dublin subsidising the regions. People have not been arguing for or against, only that Waterford does not receive the same infrastructural investment as Galway or Limerick. This is the argument, and it would seem to be pretty compelling.

Bear in mind this part of my post was in response to a statement by a contributor to the effect that taxes raised in the South East were being invested in Dublin. I have no problem with the idea that regional development funds should be spent on projects that are actually worthwhile – or the National Spatial Strategy idea that meaningful regional development involves promoting centres with scale, and not pretending that every small town in Mayo will be a growth centre. On the practical question before us, if the general decision is that cities should be linked by motorways, there’s clearly no reason to exclude Waterford from that.

merlante

That's fair enough, Ishmael.

I do think the 5 cities should be linked by high quality dual carriageway, though. It's the way of the future. That way the whole of Ireland can be marketed externally as a city state, and no company would complain about where the goverment/IDA decided to put them. (at the moment some cities are more attractive than others for business, because of varying infrastructure in different areas) Then the government could ensure a fair spread of FDI to all the regions.

I do agree that every place is trying to look like a "high growth centre" at the moment though, even though there are really only 4 sizeable regional centres.

I accept that Dublin, to a certain extent has subsidised the rest of the country with regard to investment. However, bear in mind that much national infrastructure, attractions, business, etc. are placed in the capital for the benefit of us all. We could create small IFSCs in every city in the state, but we know that focussing our financial services in one centre in Dublin is more effective in attractive business to the this country. Similarly, Dublin benefits tax-wise from having our national museums, zoos, stadiums, etc. because it makes sense to have them there. Capital are structured to and are supposed to subsidise the rest of the countries they reside in. (similarly regional capitals probably subsidise infrastructure in their hinterlands)

ishmael whale

merlante wrote:

I accept that Dublin, to a certain extent has subsidised the rest of the country with regard to investment. However, bear in mind that much national infrastructure, attractions, business, etc. are placed in the capital for the benefit of us all.

Indeed, but I think it is important to recognise that Dublin has been traditionally been underinvested in because the prevalent rhetoric suggests that Dublin is ‘too big’ and its growth should not be encouraged. For example, Dublin Airport’s runway was deliberately kept too short to take fully laden cargo aircraft in a blunt attempt to divert business to Shannon. (Incidently, the result of this, combined with the effect of the Shannon stopover, was less business for Ireland and more for Manchester.) Dublin’s current growth is despite, and not because of, generous investment.

The plain fact is that all the cities have been neglected, and have failed to reach their full potential for that reason. However, the picture tends to be painted as Dublin sucking resources from the regions – a view that bears no relationship at all to reality. Its almost as if there’s some reluctance to simply accept Dublin simply exists – its success always has to be explained in terms of something being given by or taken from elsewhere. It hides the fact that considerable resources are and have been invested in regional development, with little return as they’re spread too thinly.

There is also a definite reluctance to face the reality that meaningful regional development will only happen if resources are concentrated in a few locations. Hence we get a nutty idea like the decentralisation programme which will cost a packet, make central government more costly, incoherent and ineffective.

At the risk of telling you your business, I’ve never understood why people in the regions aren’t telling the Government to stick the decentralisation programme and use the resources for something that contributes to regional development in a meaningful way. Its not as if moving the Ordnance Survey to Dungarvan will do anything for anyone. I know that there might be strong cultural pressure to support anything with your county’s name on it, but there surely has to be some misgivings about a scheme as nutty as this.

fozzle

ishmael whale wrote:

That said, building a motorway to Waterford is hardly as wasteful as the Western Rail Corridor. At least if the motorway was there, traffic would use it.

I'm from Waterford but I've been living in Galway for 5 years. I regularly travel to Sligo and to Waterford via Limerick and I can tell you that the Western Rail Corridoor is needed. The Waterford - Dublin motorway is also needed, desperately so, that bl00dy road as far as Pelstown is leathal.

ishmael whale

Its simply a fact that the Western Rail Corridor will offer you no time advantage over road, and is in any case unlikely to attract passenger numbers that would justify the investment. The cost of opening the whole line, including rolling stock, is estimated at €600 million (the figure of circa €350 million frequently cited is for reinstating the track only). That’s nearly the cost of the Luas, which was hardly the most cost contained project on record but at least carries more people in a week that the WRC will see in a year. A figure of €30 million per year ongoing cost has been floated. This all has to come at the expense of more worthwhile projects elsewhere.

Cork and Dunboyne commuter services, to name but two, have had cost benefit analysis that suggest investment is necessary. On the other hand, the WRC has failed to pass this basic scrutiny and is only kept on the agenda by a political campaign. If people in the West are really interested in promoting rail services, they could start by limiting one-off housing in the hope of promoting the necessary concentration of population to make them feasible.

For your own part, its whatever you’re having yourself. If you have an interest in Waterford developing, then the WRC is exactly the kind of pandering to parochial interests that you should be decrying, along with the decentralisation scheme. If, on the other hand, you’re happy with things the way they are, then by all means advocate dotting the country with white elephants for Christy Moore to sing songs about.

But at least acknowledge the consequences of what you’re advocating, which is no meaningful regional development. We've had our own government for eighty years now. Its about time we stopped talking bollocks to each other and tried to actually address the reality of the world we live in.

fozzle

ishmael whale wrote:

Its simply a fact that the Western Rail Corridor will offer you no time advantage over road, and is in any case unlikely to attract passenger numbers that would justify the investment.

Have you got figures to back this up? Trains travel faster than buses so, since I don't have a car, traveling by train should save me substantial time on my journey.

ishmael whale

According to the bus eireann timetable, the scheduled time for a bus from Galway to Sligo is 2 hours 35 minutes. http://194.106.151.88/bin/query.exe/e.

According to the West On Track campaign sample timetables, travelling from Galway to Sligo by WRC will take at least 2 hours 20 minutes, with some departures seeming to take longer that this.
http://www.mayoireland.com/wot/SampleTimetables.doc.

Yes, this is comparing timetable to timetable rather than standing at the side of the road with a stopwatch. But at least we are comparing like with like, so it’s a valid comparision. Bear in mind that the WRC track follows a meandering route which limits train speed, although West On Track like to pretend the fact that the track bed is there is a massive asset so you don’t hear much about that.

Bear in mind also that, according to the AA, the estimated time for Galway-Sligo by car is 1 hour 51 minutes, so the service is unlikely to take anyone out of their cars. http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/routes/

Is shaving 15 minutes off a two and a half hour bus journey worth an investment of €600 million plus an undisclosed annual subsidy floated at €30 million? Hardly. The WRC amounts to wasting money for no appreciable gain. At least bus services can offer more frequent departures at much lower cost -and very likely no subsidy at all.

Be very clear about it, this is kind of utterly pointless nonsense that gets funding while Waterford wonders what’s the point of being a regional capital.

Jor

Judging by the number of road deaths lately, many people seem to think it is worth risking their lives ( and the lives of others ) to save a few minutes on car journeys.

Back to the point at hand, as a non-driver I am probably not qualified to say that Waterford must have a motorway to Dublin. However the Waterford-Kilkenny end certainly needs drastic improving. So why not do a proper job on it now and have a road built for the future. Look at the chaos that widening the M50 is going to cause because of the lack of foresight.

merlante

On the Western Rail Corridor. We currently have the Rosslare-Waterford-Limerick Junction-Limerick-Ennis part, and IE, after years of neglect, are trying to make a go out of this line. Another line hitting Sligo, Galway, Ennis should be as viable, and value would be added to both these lines when they are connected.

It's always going to be more needed, more viable and more justifiable to build commuter rail in Dublin, but we need to re-balance the population of the country. Bad planning since the famine has seen Dublin grow out of proportion to every other urban or rural area, and this has caused major problems. If we are to correct this, it means spending money for future demand NOT present demand. We want the western rail corridor to be profitable in the future, because we want people to live in these parts of the country in the future, but they won't live there unless we invest the money in infrastructure up front. It's chicken and egg. I'm not at all saying we abandon Dublin, but it's in Dublin's and the national interest to spread the population better than we have been.

I also think that the Western Rail Corridor would be the last expansion that we would EVER need to make to the Intercity rail network. So whatever is spent on it, it should be taken in to account that that will probably be the last expansion IE makes. There will be continual expansion of the very justifiable Dublin commuter network, but the WRC is a one off. The cost of the WRC, if it is built, averaged out over its life will be a lot less than the continuing costs that are required to maintain and expand Dublin commuter services.

I'm saying build the WRC, while we have the cash, as soon as possible, so we can plan for a more balanced population distribution in the future. I believe that the regional capitals will not achieve their potentials until they are linked to each other by road and rail and can therefore conduct more business between each other, as opposed to always looking to Dublin. I know, for example, that there is basically no communication between Waterford and Galway, tourist-wise or business-wise because there is no road or rail between the two. I personally think you need the road and the rail in place to solve this. We are lucky in that a large part of the network is already there, i.e. Rosslare to Ennis, and that essentially our cities can be connected along one stretch of track.

ishmael whale

I've been thinking about where exactly to start in answering this. I was a little stunned that you seemed to pass by a post explaining that the WRC offers no advantage to bus or car users, and a post explaining that its cost was comparable to the Luas - which I think is the only new rail based route laid in the Dublin since the foundation of the State - and make a statement to the effect that it would assist the rebalancing of population and cost only a fraction what's invested in Dublin.

What you want to believe is, of course, entirely up to you. But the WRC is a crock. If you have any interest in exploring this, try www.platform11.org for material on sensible rail development in Ireland.

Daft projects like the WRC only soak resources that actually be applied to meaningful regional development. If you approach every regional development proposal with the same open arm, you will simply see the continuation of the situation you seem disatisfied with - that Waterford get much the same priority in the scheme of things as Claremorris.

merlante

ishmael whale wrote:

I've been thinking about where exactly to start in answering this. I was a little stunned that you seemed to pass by a post explaining that the WRC offers no advantage to bus or car users, and a post explaining that its cost was comparable to the Luas - which I think is the only new rail based route laid in the Dublin since the foundation of the State - and make a statement to the effect that it would assist the rebalancing of population and cost only a fraction what's invested in Dublin.

What you want to believe is, of course, entirely up to you. But the WRC is a crock. If you have any interest in exploring this, try www.platform11.org for material on sensible rail development in Ireland.

Daft projects like the WRC only soak resources that actually be applied to meaningful regional development. If you approach every regional development proposal with the same open arm, you will simply see the continuation of the situation you seem disatisfied with - that Waterford get much the same priority in the scheme of things as Claremorris.

First, lots of people don't have cars. Second, trains can be made to go faster than cars. Trains are certainly faster than buses. If the West on Track timetable has a train as only being slightly faster than a bus over a 2 hour journey, then their timetables are garbage and are doing the campaign no good. Bear in mind the track would be new and so made to a better spec than parts of the current network, which is being upgraded.

The number of commuter services are constantly being increased in Dublin, track is the most up to date, plenty of new stations have been built and are in good nick. Plenty more will be done in Dublin, there will be a spur out to Navan by the looks of it, etc. etc. There will be plenty of other bits and pieces added over the next century, say. What I am saying is that we add this one last, final piece to the regional rail network, Ennis to Sligo -- that's it. I don't mind how much rail is built in Dublin over the coming years, but I think that the Western corridor has to be built to link the regional cities. Otherwise, everything still points to Dublin only, and nowhere else. The effect of this is real.

This is not "getting behind every project". This is just the WRC, because I genuinely believe it would be good for spatial planning. Even if Waterford and other places had to loose a bit of investment to get it -- as much as Waterford can ill afford to loose investment. In the long run, the money would be made back anyway.

This is not an argument that can be won with figures imho. I believe that the WRC and the western road will/would ultimately change population/economic demographics in Ireland for the better. You either believe this is a lever for spatial planning, or else you don't and you think it's a waste of money.

ishmael whale

merlante wrote:

First, lots of people don't have cars.

Which is where the lack of any substantive advantage over bus comes in.

merlante wrote:

Second, trains can be made to go faster than cars.

Indeed, but €600 million will get you a WRC that moves significantly slower that a car. This is simply a fact. The West on Track timetable is an accurate reflection of what's feasible. Your support for this project seems to be based on a massive misunderstanding of what it amounts to - which is why there's so much controversy over the decision to proceed with the track laying as far as Claremorris. I don't even have to go near the overselling of the idea that the national rail network connecting with Dublin is a particular problem - the WRC is simply a crock, and if you don't believe me start a thread on the Commuting/Transport board where you'll find platfrom 11 activists who have the necessary expertise to answer any question you have to set your mind at rest.

The WRC doesn't do what it says on the tin. It really is as simple as that.

merlante

ishmael whale wrote:

Which is where the lack of any substantive advantage over bus comes in. Indeed, but €600 million will get you a WRC that moves significantly slower that a car. This is simply a fact. The West on Track timetable is an accurate reflection of what's feasible. Your support for this project seems to be based on a massive misunderstanding of what it amounts to - which is why there's so much controversy over the decision to proceed with the track laying as far as Claremorris. I don't even have to go near the overselling of the idea that the national rail network connecting with Dublin is a particular problem - the WRC is simply a crock, and if you don't believe me start a thread on the Commuting/Transport board where you'll find platfrom 11 activists who have the necessary expertise to answer any question you have to set your mind at rest.

The WRC doesn't do what it says on the tin. It really is as simple as that.

You were very selective in the parts of my post that you followed up to.

I don't care what any group says, especially an interest group with an agenda. I believe that a complete rail network would be good for spatial planning. I believe that we are very close to a complete rail network, and I have thought that a western link was very much in order years before I heard about any campaign. I believe that increased communication between the regional cities is vitally necessary for re-balancing the population of this country. This *cannot* be fully quantified ahead of time!

On a more practical note, there is no convincing means of transport between Waterford and Galway/Sligo. The south east and the west will essentially be in different countries until a west road and rail route is constructed. If the Rosslare-Waterford-Limerick route is a worthy route, then so would Ennis-Galway-Sligo.

I do not believe for a minute that a Bus could compete with a Train for travel times on journey's of 2+ hours. Whatever about the time a car would make, the public transport should be there too, because many of us do not have cars.

ishmael whale

merlante wrote:

You were very selective in the parts of my post that you followed up to.

My point is simply that the WRC offers no advantage over car and bus, and hence is not worth the investment as it is not capable of attracting people away from those modes. Hence, there’s no need to address any consequent point based on the mistaken belief that the WRC is anything other than a complete waste. However, if there’s any particular point you particularly want answered, just let me know.

merlante wrote:

I have thought that a western link was very much in order years before I heard about any campaign. I believe that increased communication between the regional cities is vitally necessary for re-balancing the population of this country. This *cannot* be fully quantified ahead of time!

Fine so far as it goes, but all this is dependant on that rail service adding something to the mix that isn’t there already. The WRC doesn’t, as I have demonstrated. And remember ‘believing’ in the use of a rail service is not like believing in a religion. No-one can ask for proof that there is one god and Mohammed is his prophet, its just a matter of faith. But on something in the material world like transportation, you have to show a basis for your position. It is possible to predict passenger numbers based on objective factors like population, distance and journey times. The WRC fails to pass muster on those criteria. Cork commuter services do.

merlante wrote:

On a more practical note, there is no convincing means of transport between Waterford and Galway/Sligo. The south east and the west will essentially be in different countries until a west road and rail route is constructed.

It’s a question of priorities – would you rate a the WRC as a higher priority that a motorway between Waterford and Dublin? Honestly?

merlante wrote:

If the Rosslare-Waterford-Limerick route is a worthy route, then so would Ennis-Galway-Sligo.

You’re shooting yourself in the foot. Waterford-Limerick has failed to attract passengers. There’s an amount of shouting about Limerick-Ennis being a ‘tremendous success’ but when you look into the figures you find its actually Ennis-Dublin that’s a success – but passengers on the Ennis Limerick leg boost the figures. Experience with Waterford-Limerick suggests that Ennis-Galway-Sligo, and in particular Galway-Sligo, is not worth doing.

merlante wrote:

I do not believe for a minute that a Bus could compete with a Train for travel times on journey's of 2+ hours.

I have substantiated the point that the WRC gives no advantage over bus or car on the same journey. Can you substantiate your comment? If not, can you explain why you are not conceding the point?

merlante wrote:

Whatever about the time a car would make, the public transport should be there too, because many of us do not have cars.

If you refuse to digest the facts I have presented, I can’t help you. Clearly you have to get through life on your own terms. But you seemed to have nailed your colours to the mast on this one without any real appreciation of the issues involved. On the one hand, you seem bothered by the lack of meaningful regional development, as if this is something that is important to you. You then make statements to the effect that the WRC your priority as a regional development initiative, to be put ahead of everything, presumably included the upgrade of WIT to University status. But then you seem utterly incapable of putting any reasoning or depth into why the WRC is so important – its simply your ‘belief’. I frankly find this hard to make sense of. If it was truly so important to you, I’d have expected you to be able to show some signs of having reflected on it.

Hopefully you won’t complain this response has been selective. Althought, truly, if you feel some point has been left out, do let me know.

merlante

Just to address some of your points Ishmael. I will not be spending the next week arguing about this, though. Essentially, I have seen nothing that you have mentioned that convinces me that the WRC is a bad idea. Maybe some grounds for why other things might be done first, but nothing to show that it would not have major benefits, which I will summarise.

1. You say the WRC wouldn't add anything new.
I say it would, because there is currently no public transport between the south/south east and the west of any kind. Having to go through Kildare to get from Tralee to Galway by train is ridiculous. Having to take to go Cork-Dublin Heuston-Dublin Connolly (Luas)-Sligo to get to Sligo is also ridiculous.

2. You assert that objective factors such as population should be taken in to account to justify it.

That is true to an extent. For me the populations of the main cities, their hinterland, and other large towns are large enough to justify it on the basis that such infrastructure will aid population growth in those areas. It is a simple fact that in order to re-balance the population of the country, infrastructure will have to be built to cater for *future* populations *not* current populations. If we go by *current* populations, everything is built in greater Dublin, but we are supposed to be trying to re-balance the country's population distribution.

3. I think it is good, maybe even vital, for spatial planning, because increased communication between the cities: rail, road, etc., encourages growth in business and tourism between these centres. Currently, much business is Dublin facing. The affect of this is impossible to quantify.

4. Trains are a lot faster than Buses on 2+ hour journeys, particularly when a bus must enter and leave large urban areas.

This is an objective fact that is understood by all. This is why people pay 28 euros to take a train to Waterford from Dublin, rather than 10 euros on the bus. This is common sense and does not have to be proved. The train takes 2hrs 30mins/45mins (depending on times) for that route, the Bus takes about 3hrs 30mins. (and is highly variable) The former times are set to improve in the future, the latter set to disimprove with increasing traffic. This situation is more stark the longer the route.

5. It seems clear to me that our national rail network is very close to what it should be: spokes radiating from Dublin connecting to the main cities which are themselves connected in an arc stretching from Rosslare to Sligo. It is almost there, (Rosslare to Ennis) so why not finish it?

I have put plenty of thought in to this; what I have said seems to make logical sense, at least to me. While I could try to align myself with various groups or refer to certain reports and speculative future timetables, I won't, because I am happy enough that there is a reasonable case there. Maybe the WTC is not the *very next thing* we should build, but it is a worthy project.

How about we agree to disagree on this one?

col o

I was watching a repeat of the big bite the other morning.I think the subject was about foreign nationals becoming members of the Garda Siochana.They had a rep from the Garda.Potential recruits from Irelands Chinese and Nigerian communities.They had two officers from the Met in England.One of which was black and who was involved on the Broadmore farm riots in the 80's.McWilliams actually refered to Englands Black community as "your people" when talking to the copper.I could see a wry smile forming on the Coppers face.Almost as if he was saying to himself,"You stupid Mick"

Mc Williams also chairs a live version of the Big Bite in Dublins Crawdaddy once a month.I was at this once and he Berated someone in the Audience when there phone went off just before the debate stated.He said something like "I know the Bon Jovi ring tone might sound hilarious to you blah,blah,blah"

If you look at his comments about waterfords "parochial" atitudes, He goes out of his wat to say he means like he says it.He is abviously a wanker who thinks anything that comes out of that huge arsehole he calls a mouth is the word of God.He is always able to back up his arguement with Statistics.But nevertheless his conclusions are frequently wrong which he acknowledges.

He is on the crest of a wave at the moment largely due to his book the "popes children "

It is largely written about observations around Dublin.And refers to Cork,Galway and Limerick as mini versions of what is going on in Dublin.No Waterford.There's a surprise.He seems to think he can sum up everything in a soundbite but there are signs the Media are begining to tire of his smug analysis.

ishmael whale

merlante wrote:

It is a simple fact that in order to re-balance the population of the country, infrastructure will have to be built to cater for *future* populations *not* current populations.

I’m not sure you’ve quite got the Spatial Strategy idea. What’s need is to build up centres with scale. Certainly transport is a part of that, but the real issue is scale. If you connect up every little town, you’ll just get more of the same – Dublin growing by default. Only the largest centres have any hope of reversing this trend. For example, moving the Garda training college from Templemore and integrating it with WIT would fit into this philosophy far more than the WRC. Similarly, the move by the HSE to rationalise the number of hospitals to create substantial centres in the regions so that dependence on Dublin is reduced is consistent with this approach. Building unneeded and purposeless infrastructure doesn’t. The proof of this is the simple fact that the West does not have a transport infrastructure deficit. If anything, it has a surfeit of transport white elephants. On the other hand, the East coast does have a transport infrastructure deficit in every sector, yet continues to grow.

Merlante wrote:

Trains are a lot faster than Buses

Trains should be faster than buses. The WRC won’t be. That’s one of the key reasons why the proposal is flawed. There are others, but that is the key reason. What I’ve been trying to get across to you is not that rail in general is bad, just that the WRC is a flawed project. It follows a winding route unsuited to modern fast trains. If we were going to do a WRC, we’d just scrap the existing rail bed and put in a new one. But, naturally, that would put the cost up. The best summary of the WRC I ever saw was the comment in Business and Finance magazine that it was like someone saying ‘I have a wedding dress, lets get married.’

Merlante wrote:

How about we agree to disagree on this one?

I can agree to disagree on matters of belief – I’m utterly happy if people want to follow Islam, and would not expect them to debate their faith if they had no desire to. But I can’t agree to disagree on a matter of fact where I have substantiated what I’ve said, and the other party hasn’t. I can accept that you have been unable to substantiate your view, and wish to withdraw from the discussion rather than concede the case. That’s your choice.

merlante

Ishmael, you can't resist getting very trollish toward the end of arguments, when people are not agreeing with you. I have substantiated my claims with reasoned argument. It was good enough for Socrates, so it'll have to do you.

Accusing me of trying to withdraw from the argument to avoid conceding the case is very childish. I simply do not have the time or the inclination to repeat myself any more.

So we'll agree to disagree, or you can agree that everyone else's arguments are 100% rubbish if you want, I don't care.

ishmael whale

As I’ve said, we’re not agreeing to disagree. You are just not facing the reality that you are unable to substantiate your case. I find it a little ironic to be called childish when you’re effectively saying ‘it’s a draw and its my ball and I’m going home.’

As Socrates would say

Rail is significantly faster than bus
The WRC will not be significantly faster than bus
Therefore, the WRC is a horrendously expensive bus

Going back over the thread, the thought that occurs to me is that McWilliams is wrong to apparently assume that all regional demands for infrastructure amounts to parochial lobbying for white elephants. (Although, in fairness to him, the regional development agenda is riddled with such parochial demands.)

However, you essentially seem to share the Dublin vs The Rest mindset of the West and that contributes to McWilliams' blindness on the topic. The reason Claremorris has a better road to Dublin than Waterford is partly because Waterford people are putting themselves on a level with Claremorris by not avocating the need to concentrate resources in the regions for them to be effective. That's entirely your business, but don't be so surprised at the outcome.

merlante

ishmael whale wrote:

As I’ve said, we’re not agreeing to disagree. You are just not facing the reality that you are unable to substantiate your case. I find it a little ironic to be called childish when you’re effectively saying ‘it’s a draw and its my ball and I’m going home.’

As Socrates would say

Rail is significantly faster than bus
The WRC will not be significantly faster than bus
Therefore, the WRC is a horrendously expensive bus

Going back over the thread, the thought that occurs to me is that McWilliams is wrong to apparently assume that all regional demands for infrastructure amounts to parochial lobbying for white elephants. (Although, in fairness to him, the regional development agenda is riddled with such parochial demands.)

However, you essentially seem to share the Dublin vs The Rest mindset of the West and that contributes to McWilliams' blindness on the topic. The reason Claremorris has a better road to Dublin than Waterford is partly because Waterford people are putting themselves on a level with Claremorris by not avocating the need to concentrate resources in the regions for them to be effective. That's entirely your business, but don't be so surprised at the outcome.

Ishmael, you're an out and out Troll and **** stirrer. You are interesting in nothing but protracting arguments and "being right".

The true mark of a Troll is statements like "you seem to say", "you believe", "you fail to understand", etc., etc. I am the very last person to adopt a "Dublin vrs The Rest" mindset. I have a neutral mindset because I can appreciate both sides, having lived inside and outside Dublin for many years.

If you are suggesting that Waterford people group themselves with Claremorris, or that I have done so in my arguments, then you are an idiot. A troll and an idiot.

ishmael whale

There I can meet you half way. I’m not a Troll, but I am a **** stirrer. That’s because, sometimes, there’s a need for **** to be stirred. And I don’t mind at all if that involves a protracted argument.

You have to admit if you go so far to defend the WRC as to dismiss the timetables devised by its own proponents, it does suggest a bit of a mindset problem. I honestly think you need to reflect more on what regional development really means, and go beyond the Western mentality that dresses up white elephants as building infrastructure for generations yet unborn. The reality is somewhat uglier than that.

A few months back I noticed a discussion board where someone from Castlebar suggested that, if Mayo was to have an airport, it surely would have made more sense to put it in Castlebar, where it would be on a rail line, close to as large a town as you’ll find in Mayo, with a hospital, bit of a third level campus, and so forth. In fairness, the guy had the principle of the National Spatial Strategy in his head. He got the head bit off him by some of the denizens of Charlestown, bridling at the idea that anyone else would get their mitts on their airport. But if we’re going to get anywhere, this is the kind of **** that’s needs to be stirred.

merlante

ishmael whale wrote:

There I can meet you half way. I’m not a Troll, but I am a **** stirrer. That’s because, sometimes, there’s a need for **** to be stirred. And I don’t mind at all if that involves a protracted argument.

You have to admit if you go so far to defend the WRC as to dismiss the timetables devised by its own proponents, it does suggest a bit of a mindset problem. I honestly think you need to reflect more on what regional development really means, and go beyond the Western mentality that dresses up white elephants as building infrastructure for generations yet unborn. The reality is somewhat uglier than that.

A few months back I noticed a discussion board where someone from Castlebar suggested that, if Mayo was to have an airport, it surely would have made more sense to put it in Castlebar, where it would be on a rail line, close to as large a town as you’ll find in Mayo, with a hospital, bit of a third level campus, and so forth. In fairness, the guy had the principle of the National Spatial Strategy in his head. He got the head bit off him by some of the denizens of Charlestown, bridling at the idea that anyone else would get their mitts on their airport. But if we’re going to get anywhere, this is the kind of **** that’s needs to be stirred.

You have no problem being snide when others do not have the same time that you have for these protracted arguments, and accusing them of trying to run away. That, my friend, is trollish behaviour. (I have had more patience for your arguments than anybody else, after all)

I have made it obvious that I have not read the *current* proposal for the WRC: I have no interest in it, and I have no interest in its timetables, whether they would help or hinder my arguments. I was always arguing that *a* WRC would be a good idea, not that some specific group had a good plan. On the other hand, you have used their timetables when it has suited you to advance your own arguments, even though you reject their entire case. If you think they are talking crap, then don't use their timetables for your arguments. (their plan sounds like garbage anyway)

Your parochial story from Mayo is very touching, but a WRC would not be a local project but a national one. We are talking about people moving about the country in a way they haven't been able to do convincingly for almost a century. I won't repeat myself. I could argue that that the fact you consider the WRC a local project and not a national one, indicates your Dublin centric attitude -- but that would be a pretty trollish thing to say, imo, and would not advance the argument.

Anyway, I'm not posting any more on this, because I don't have the time. Take from this what you will. Have your parting shot if you want.

ishmael whale

Sure I've come this far, I might as well respond.

merlante wrote:

... I have no interest in its timetables, whether they would help or hinder my arguments.

In other words, you're telling me you have no interest in whether the only actual proposal for a WRC on the table suggests that the idea is worthwhile. That's incredible. I could understand if you said you haven't the time, although to be honest its an excuse you are over using because I'm only talking about taking an amount of time that might be the equivalent of scanning a newspaper or researching a thesis for Pacific Western University. But to say you are not interested in finding out if there's any connection between your vision of a WRC and reality, that's thought provoking.

merlante wrote:

...you have used their timetables when it has suited you to advance your own arguments, even though you reject their entire case. If you think they are talking crap, then don't use their timetables for your arguments.

I sort of took it that if I used West On Track's own timetable, no-one could say I was being overly pessimistic. I still find it hard to believe you felt the need to back the WRC so strongly that you had to.

merlante wrote:

...(their plan sounds like garbage anyway)

Yes, we can agree on something.

merlante wrote:

a WRC would not be a local project but a national one.

But the WRC you speak of only exists in your head. And I mean your individual head. The WRC I'm talking about is the one that the Department of Transport, Iarnrod Eireann, West On Track and everyone else understands to be the WRC. And it is another example of regional white elephant building in the guise of 'future loading' of infrastructure.