Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish Times - Proposal to bring train journey times between cities below two hours
Options
Comments
-
Just in relation to a few posts about how fuel prices will increase and thus we'll need a rail network to compensate:
Most modern diesels are easily capable of high 50's MPG when cruising on a motorway. Even if diesel prices doubled to €2.60 per litre, a roundtrip to Cork would still only cost €62 per car.0 -
On commuter routes, in time, they will switch to electric units
Electrification really only makes sense when you've a lot of journeys on a particular stretch of rail. It is hugely unlikely that most of the Irish rail network will ever see electrification, save in the unlikely situation that electricity becomes massively cheaper than fossil fuels. However, medium term, I'd suggest that IR will have a go at electrifying the Dublin-Belfast line, with a long term ambition to do Cork-Dublin.0 -
Related to this thread, some might find it interesting
All that is a bunch of bean counters and wannabee celebrity economists saying that there shouldn't be public subsidies for railways. These blowhards almost certainly come from the same 'roads good - rail bad' school of thought as Sean "The LUAS Will be a failure" Barrett does.
However the topic of road-pricing is quite an interesting one. I've long suggested that the state claws back what it has invested on the Mway network and eliminate the unfairness of the spread of tolls by introducing something similar to other countries whereby you either pay as you go or pay for a yearly token to allow you to use the network.
(queue outrage from the 'I've paid enough' brigade)0 -
invinciblePRSTV wrote: »I've long suggested that the state claws back what it has invested on the Mway network and eliminate the unfairness of the spread of tolls by introducing something similar to other countries whereby you either pay as you go or pay for a yearly token to allow you to use the network.
(queue outrage from the 'I've paid enough' brigade)
Well isn't that how electronic Tags work. You always maintain a certain balance (minimum of €10 euro), in my case it debits me usually about €40/month, obviously in your proposal though the "Tag company" would be another state owned/run and profits would end up going into the exchequer.0 -
Well isn't that how electronic Tags work. You always maintain a certain balance (minimum of €10 euro), in my case it debits me usually about €40/month, obviously in your proposal though the "Tag company" would be another state owned/run and profits would end up going into the exchequer.
More like the Swiss vignette then a tag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28road_tax%29#Switzerland
Obviously it would go into the Irish exchequer. Perhaps some of it could be ring fenced for roads but of course really it would go into paying off the state's liabilities.
Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
invinciblePRSTV wrote: »More like the Swiss vignette then a tag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28road_tax%29#Switzerland
Obviously it would go into the Irish exchequer. Perhaps some of it could be ring fenced for roads but of course really it would go into paying off the state's liabilities.
Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.
Lazily grouping together a number of people whose views you don't agree with doesn't make those views any less relevant or correct.
I've yet to hear a coherent response as to why we need an inter-city rail service at all, much less why we should throw extra money at it.0 -
invinciblePRSTV wrote: »More like the Swiss vignette then a tag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28road_tax%29#Switzerland
Obviously it would go into the Irish exchequer. Perhaps some of it could be ring fenced for roads but of course really it would go into paying off the state's liabilities.
Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.
Well isn't this what Motor-Tax is for? It raised over €860million last year alone from motorists. The whole purpose of it's introduction was to provide funding for road system.
Decreasing travel time on Intercity rail is a good thing. However given that IÉ swallow over €150m last year in subsidy last year and still made a loss of circa €50m perhaps they should fund it out of making savings on their payroll/expenditure (which totals about €200m more then their revenue)0 -
Well isn't this what Motor-Tax is for?
Nope.It raised over €860million last year alone from motorists. The whole purpose of it's introduction was to provide funding for road system.
The Irish motor tax system is designed by the DoE as a local government funding mechanism and has been for years, this is basic stuff tbh.Decreasing travel time on Intercity rail is a good thing. However given that IÉ swallow over €150m last year in subsidy last year and still made a loss of circa €50m perhaps they should fund it out of making savings on their payroll/expenditure (which totals about €200m more then their revenue)
I'm all in favour of IE being reformed/reconstituted or whatever, but I doubt this will happen imminently as the politicial impetus isn't there and secondly, this kind of infrastructure upgrade is critical and should be carried out sooner or later irrespective of the faith of IE.black francis wrote: »Lazily grouping together a number of people whose views you don't agree with doesn't make those views any less relevant or correct.
There's been many good views from people here sceptical about this proposal.
But from you all that we've heard is bloviating, snideness, one upmanship and know it all-ism.
In otherwords nothing worth remembering.black francis wrote: »I've yet to hear a coherent response as to why we need an inter-city rail service at all, much less why we should throw extra money at it.
i've yet to hear a coherent response for closing IC rail except nonsense free market inspired slogans which have no substance.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22175
invinciblePRSTV wrote: »i've yet to hear a coherent response for closing IC rail except nonsense free market inspired slogans which have no substance.
Here is one for you. We save ten's if not hundred's of millions in subsidies per year.
Simple as that.
And like black francis, I'm still waiting to hear a single good reason why IC should continue to exist and be so heavily subsidised?0 -
Here is one for you. We save ten's if not hundred's of millions in subsidies per year.
Simple as that.
And like black francis, I'm still waiting to hear a single good reason why IC should continue to exist and be so heavily subsidised?
Why done't we close down the road system and save millions in road related injuries and deaths every year, millions in road maintenance, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions etc.etc. - equally realistic IMO. Is there anywhere else in the Western World that has abandoned inter-city rail travel - even the US is gradually rediscovering the railway for passengers.0 -
Advertisement
-
But the only reason I see here from the pro-rail types have put forward for decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services is because IR claim they can do so for "a paltry sub 200m" and comparing this to the cost of the road network. Of course this is totally irrelevant because you are comparing one thing on which money has already been spent to other thing we can not afford.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.
I very much doubt IR would be able to achieve the targets they have set for the figure they have stated. Realistically, I think they would do well to negotiate the planning process (EIS, consultations, etc.), acquire land, complete detailed design and get to tender stage for all the works that would be required to allow 160km/h travel on our inter-city rail network for that amount of money. If IR could really achieve sub 2 hour journeys from Dublin to Cork and Galway for €35 million a year over five years, they could have done so within their existing funding structure.
I am not one of the "anti rail types", I am a QS for a civil engineering contractor and am only concerned with cost v return. I dont see the justification for pumping money into the rail network when similar (or in some cases, superior) services can be provided using the existing road network, which not only saves money on the capital costs, but also reduces running costs (ie. subsidies).0 -
Judgement Day wrote: »Why done't we close down the road system and save millions in road related injuries and deaths every year, millions in road maintenance, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions etc.etc. - equally realistic IMO. Is there anywhere else in the Western World that has abandoned inter-city rail travel - even the US is gradually rediscovering the railway for passengers.
Very true. Closing the railways shouldn't be an option. There's improvements to be made granted! In Timetabling...Any station with a commuter service (Particularly Maynooth inward and Kildare inward) should not have Intercities stopping at them (or the bare 1/2 services). Thats why it's a commuter service. This improves time straight away.
And also trains and buses aren't comparable, they're very different forms of transport. I've been on intercity buses and trains and I see demand there for both. The trains are still doing well (and with fare-paying customers) despite the infrastructures shortcomings. Imagine what saving extra minutes could do to the demand? People will pay for convenience and time.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22175
Regardless here are the facts:
1) Irish Rail will not get this 175 million
2) Subsidies will be cut this year and over the next few years.
Assumption:
- Direct non stop bus coach services will eventually be licensed on all motorways.
Given this reality, if Irish Rail want to do this, they will need to fund it themselves and also deal with the drop in subsidies and likely continued lose of customers to the motorways.0 -
I don't think making the train a little faster is going to make it competitive with the road. Take Cork to Dublin (I'm a Corkonian living in Dublin) as an example.
- Train takes 2:20
- Car takes 2:20 but door to door (obviously varies where you live, but IME of a few friends they all say the same).
A very good point. If trains want to be competitive with motorways its not good enough for them to get one there as fast a driving. They need to get one there much faster.
But your solution........So I would argue, instead license direct non stop bus services between all our cities (doesn't require any subsidy)
If a train cant get you there faster than driving how is a bus going to manage it given that it uses the same roads as cars, gets stuck in the same traffic and is inheriently slower (even when they use direct non stop routes busses have to contend with lower speed limits and less accelleration and suffer the same drawbacks as trains in not offering a door to door service) ?
Mind you if such a service can operate viably without public subsidy then there is no reason why it shouldnt be licenced immediately regardless of all other considerations.0 -
Judgement Day wrote: »Why don't we close down the road system and save millions in road related injuries and deaths every year, millions in road maintenance, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions etc.etc. - equally realistic IMO. Is there anywhere else in the Western World that has abandoned inter-city rail travel - even the US is gradually rediscovering the railway for passengers.
Most other countries are larger and/or have overland links to other countries - the single biggest factors affecting the viability of a rail system are population and distances - both of which are too small in Ireland.0 -
Here is one for you. We save ten's if not hundred's of millions in subsidies per year.
Simple as that
And like black francis, I'm still waiting to hear a single good reason why IC should continue to exist and be so heavily subsidised?
You, like blackie, clearly ignore the simple fact that the world over, railways of both the IC and commuter variety are very often "heavily" subsidised.
this is why i'm calling your free market inspired solution simplistic, because you seem to operate under the assumption that railways must be profitable in order for them to be useful.
This clearly isn't the case.Pete_Cavan wrote: »But the only reason I see here from the pro-rail types have put forward for decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services is because IR claim they can do so for "a paltry sub 200m" and comparing this to the cost of the road network. Of course this is totally irrelevant because you are comparing one thing on which money has already been spent to other thing we can not afford.
As already mentioned, bad as IE can be, they still have a quite decent record in building infrastructure projects such as this in the alloted time and budget.Pete_Cavan wrote: »I very much doubt IR would be able to achieve the targets they have set for the figure they have stated. Realistically, I think they would do well to negotiate the planning process (EIS, consultations, etc.), acquire land, complete detailed design and get to tender stage for all the works that would be required to allow 160km/h travel on our inter-city rail network for that amount of money.
Why would you doubt IE's figures? they built the KRP, re-opened the WRC, PACE and Midleton lines amongst many other examples of decent infrastructure builds over the past two decades without major cost increases or time over runs over what was anticipated.
Compare that to the severe wastage and sweet heart toll contracts the NRA negotiated over the past decade or so.Pete_Cavan wrote: »If IR could really achieve sub 2 hour journeys from Dublin to Cork and Galway for €35 million a year over five years, they could have done so within their existing funding structure.
how do you know that then? you have knowledge of IE's funding structure?Pete_Cavan wrote: »I am not one of the "anti rail types", I am a QS for a civil engineering contractor and am only concerned with cost v return. I dont see the justification for pumping money into the rail network when similar (or in some cases, superior) services can be provided using the existing road network,
As a QS have you ever worked on a railway or road construction project?
As for you not seeing justification for investing in this project, well clearly you must have a distorted opinion of what constitutes value for money. This project will deliver decreased journey times for effectively all IC journies IE operate as well as delivering improvements to Dublin outer suburban services.
That's a ballpark figure of at least 10m journies per annum which will see journey times reduced. How you can't see the justification of this project is strange to say the least.Pete_Cavan wrote: »which not only saves money on the capital costs, but also reduces running costs (ie. subsidies).
Strongly disagree, it costs the guts of a couple of hundred million to build one piece of one motorway to reduce journey times between place x and place y.
For the same money this project will deliver decreases journey times to effectively every corner of the country. For a relatively minor capital cost this projects will deliver benefits far in excess of pretty much any road project the state has on the drawing board.0 -
black francis wrote: »Most other countries are larger and/or have overland links to other countries - the single biggest factors affecting the viability of a rail system are population and distances - both of which are too small in Ireland.
If this is the case then why do operators internationally also require public subsidies in order to operate?
using your criteria, mighty large countries like the the USA or Australia wouldn't require public subsidies for their railway operations.
Guess what? they do.0 -
invinciblePRSTV wrote: »If this is the case then why do operators internationally also require public subsidies in order to operate?
using your criteria, mighty large countries like the the USA or Australia wouldn't require public subsidies for their railway operations.
Guess what? they do.
I have previously acknowledged that rail may offer other benefits when distances increase to over 400km. In countries you have mentioned, distances are so great between population centres that car travel is impratical leaving rail with only air travel to compete with.
Regardless of the above, your argument could basically be interpreted as 'if other countries are not making correct decisions then we shouldn't either'
There are plenty of people in those countries who hold negative view regarding the subsidisation of rail.0 -
black francis wrote: »I have previously acknowledged that rail may offer other benefits when distances increase to over 400km. In countries you have mentioned, distances are so great between population centres that car travel is impratical leaving rail with only air travel to compete with.
400km? what an arbitrary number to pick. But nonetheless it still doesn't give credence to your viewpoint, if Irish IC Railway is so useless then why are 10m journies made on it? why are people still using it despite the increased competition from bus and car? How many more people would use it once journey times went down?
You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.
And it also ignores that the Irish state subsidy to railways, like the rest given to public transport in this country by the Irish state which afair is far smaller a % then what other european countries give to their railways (like the UK, another small island which gives over 5 billion sterling a year in subsidies to their privately owned operations), so this line that IR's subvention is too high is frankly bunkum tbh.black francis wrote: »Regardless of the above, your argument could basically be interpreted as 'if other countries are not making correct decisions then we shouldn't either'
So it's the "correct decision" then for there to be no public subsidies for railways anywhere in the world? A revealing insight into your flawed worldview if ever there were one.0 -
The cost overrun on building a motorway through hills/valleys/rock/bogs/whatever happens to be in the ground and the cost of reinstating a railway line in a dedicated alignment on a previously prepared track bed are not comparable. And please stop bringing the NRA into this, investment in rail should be justifiable on its own merits, the 'look at all the money NRA got, now give us' argument does not work. BTW, when defending rail, it is best not to mention WRC.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »As already mentioned, bad as IE can be, they still have a quite decent record in building infrastructure projects such as this in the alloted time and budget.
Why would you doubt IE's figures? they built the KRP, re-opened the WRC, PACE and Midleton lines amongst many other examples of decent infrastructure builds over the past two decades without major cost increases or time over runs over what was anticipated.
Compare that to the severe wastage and sweet heart toll contracts the NRA negotiated over the past decade or so.
Dubhthach has me overed.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »how do you know that then? you have knowledge of IE's funding structure?
Spending a couple of hundred million euro of taxpayers money to build infrastructure to provide a service which will require heavy subsidies from the taxpayer is not justifiable when we have existing infrastructure which can do provide similar (or in some cases, superior) services faster.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »As for you not seeing justification for investing in this project, well clearly you must have a distorted opinion of what constitutes value for money. This project will deliver decreased journey times for effectively all IC journies IE operate as well as delivering improvements to Dublin outer suburban services.
That's a ballpark figure of at least 10m journies per annum which will see journey times reduced. How you can't see the justification of this project is strange to say the least.
The economic benefits from roads in terms of moving people and goods far outweigh the benefits of any rail project in this country. The costs of rail may be lower, but so are the benefits.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »Strongly disagree, it costs the guts of a couple of hundred million to build one piece of one motorway to reduce journey times between place x and place y.
For the same money this project will deliver decreases journey times to effectively every corner of the country. For a relatively minor capital cost this projects will deliver benefits far in excess of pretty much any road project the state has on the drawing board.0 -
Advertisement
-
invinciblePRSTV wrote: »400km? what an arbitrary number to pick..
Not really, studies I have read vary somewhat but tend to be between 350km - 500km depending on the methodologies used.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »But nonetheless it still doesn't give credence to your viewpoint, if Irish IC Railway is so useless then why are 10m journies made on it? why are people still using it despite the increased competition from bus and car? How many more people would use it once journey times went down?
You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.
And it also ignores that the Irish state subsidy to railways, like the rest given to public transport in this country by the Irish state which afair is far smaller a % then what other european countries give to their railways (like the UK, another small island which gives over 5 billion sterling a year in subsidies to their privately owned operations), so this line that IR's subvention is too high is frankly bunkum tbh. .
Irish people probably still want a hot-tub in their back garden - this is a question of affordabilty and economy.
- and how other countries spend their money is of little concern to me.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »So it's the "correct decision" then for there to be no public subsidies for railways anywhere in the world? A revealing insight into your flawed worldview if ever there were one.
Wouldn't be familiar with local factors in other countries that may pertain - so nope, wouldn't say that.
No harm in asking the question though.0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »The cost overrun on building a motorway through hills/valleys/rock/bogs/whatever happens to be in the ground and the cost of reinstating a railway line in a dedicated alignment on a previously prepared track bed are not comparable. And please stop bringing the NRA into this, investment in rail should be justifiable on its own merits, the 'look at all the money NRA got, now give us' argument does not work. BTW, when defending rail, it is best not to mention WRC.
Dubhthach has me overed.
Spending a couple of hundred million euro of taxpayers money to build infrastructure to provide a service which will require heavy subsidies from the taxpayer is not justifiable when we have existing infrastructure which can do provide similar (or in some cases, superior) services faster.
The economic benefits from roads in terms of moving people and goods far outweigh the benefits of any rail project in this country. The costs of rail may be lower, but so are the benefits.
Iarnród Éireann's "Profit and Loss" and "Balance Sheet" can be view in their Annual Report for 2010. Found here:
http://www.irishrail.ie/about_us/pdf/IE%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf
According to Note 8 they received a total of €587.7m in state Grants in 2010. Of that €382.5m was NDP related grants.0 -
black francis wrote: »invinciblePRSTV wrote: »400km? what an arbitrary number to pick..
Not really, studies I have read vary somewhat but tend to be between 350km - 500km depending on the methodologies used.
Link? Clearly rail is popular in small to medium sized european countries and not in the US.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »But nonetheless it still doesn't give credence to your viewpoint, if Irish IC Railway is so useless then why are 10m journies made on it? why are people still using it despite the increased competition from bus and car? How many more people would use it once journey times went down?
You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.
And it also ignores that the Irish state subsidy to railways, like the rest given to public transport in this country by the Irish state which afair is far smaller a % then what other european countries give to their railways (like the UK, another small island which gives over 5 billion sterling a year in subsidies to their privately owned operations), so this line that IR's subvention is too high is frankly bunkum tbh. .
Irish people probably still want a hot-tub in their back garden - this is a question of affordabilty and economy.
- and how other countries spend their money is of little concern to me.
The most important thing here then is you? I am thinking that if rail is popular on the rich hinterlands of Europe and unpopular with a minority of quasi-libertarian car fetishists in Ireland we shod go with expert and educated opinion.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »So it's the "correct decision" then for there to be no public subsidies for railways anywhere in the world? A revealing insight into your flawed worldview if ever there were one.
Wouldn't be familiar with local factors in other countries that may pertain - so nope, wouldn't say that.
No harm in asking the question though.
that's a telling admission of a supreme lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. an admission you know nothing about rail outside Ireland but an expert within it.
Embarrassing thread.0 -
Link? Clearly rail is popular in small to medium sized european countries and not in the US.
The most important thing here then is you? I am thinking that if rail is popular on the rich hinterlands of Europe and unpopular with a minority of quasi-libertarian car fetishists in Ireland we shod go with expert and educated opinion.
that's a telling admission of a supreme lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. an admission you know nothing about rail outside Ireland but an expert within it.
Embarrassing thread.
Congratulations.
With that kind of thinking you should be able to advance through life without the hassle of having to think for yourself.
I envy you.
All my links are in work, but I might post some stuff up tomorrow if I get time.0 -
black francis wrote: »Link? Clearly rail is popular in small to medium sized european countries and not in the US.
The most important thing here then is you? I am thinking that if rail is popular on the rich hinterlands of Europe and unpopular with a minority of quasi-libertarian car fetishists in Ireland we shod go with expert and educated opinion.
that's a telling admission of a supreme lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. an admission you know nothing about rail outside Ireland but an expert within it.
Embarrassing thread.
Congratulations.
With that kind of thinking you should be able to advance through life without the hassle of having to think for yourself.
I envy you.
All my links are in work, but I might post some stuff up tomorrow if I get time.
The ability to "think for oneself" ignoring expert opinion was something my great aunt fidelma, who believed the moon was made of cheese, indulged in. She was committed.
Anybody of limited intelligence can think his own thoughts, or poor them incoherently on forums. What the rest of us are looking for however, is not evidence of one mans bias, however self-thought, but actual evidence, facts and sense.
It could be that you are right and Ireland is the only country in the world which wouldn't benefit from high speed rail, despite expert opinion in the rest of the world, and it might be that we should ignore the rest of the world, but I doubted the moon was made if cheese and I doubt you.0 -
The ability to "think for oneself" ignoring expert opinion was something my great aunt fidelma, who believed the moon was made of cheese, indulged in. She was committed.
Anybody of limited intelligence can think his own thoughts, or poor them incoherently on forums. What the rest of us are looking for however, is not evidence of one mans bias, however self-thought, but actual evidence, facts and sense.
It could be that you are right and Ireland is the only country in the world which wouldn't benefit from high speed rail, despite expert opinion in the rest of the world, and it might be that we should ignore the rest of the world, but I doubted the moon was made if cheese and I doubt you.
I believe in facts all right.
Stuff that can be measured - like carbon emissions or average maintenance cost per km of track
The stuff you rely on is merely political decisions - and look where that got us.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22175
A very good point. If trains want to be competitive with motorways its not good enough for them to get one there as fast a driving. They need to get one there much faster.
Agreed, for rail to be effective it must be much faster. No point in being the same speed as by car, as people will then take the car due to the time it takes to get too and from the station.If a train cant get you there faster than driving how is a bus going to manage it given that it uses the same roads as cars, gets stuck in the same traffic and is inheriently slower (even when they use direct non stop routes busses have to contend with lower speed limits and less accelleration and suffer the same drawbacks as trains in not offering a door to door service) ?
Absolutely correct. But I support buses based on two points:
1) As an alternative to trains for people who require public transport between our cities (due to not owning a car or wanting to work during the commute), but without the necessary 200 million subsidy every year plus more in capital costs that the train requires.
2) Buses can compete with cars in one way that trains can't, cost.
Dublin to Cork by car costs about €50 in Petrol and tolls. Train €74.
But the bus would only be about €25, thus it has the potential to attract people out of their cars to save money.Mind you if such a service can operate viably without public subsidy then there is no reason why it shouldnt be licenced immediately regardless of all other considerations.
Exactly, there is simply no justification for not immediately licensing direct bus services.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »You, like blackie, clearly ignore the simple fact that the world over, railways of both the IC and commuter variety are very often "heavily" subsidised.
this is why i'm calling your free market inspired solution simplistic, because you seem to operate under the assumption that railways must be profitable in order for them to be useful.
This clearly isn't the case.
That isn't true, I've no problem subsidising something when it is in the public interest and achieve some goal of national importance.
For instance I've no problem with subsidising Dublin Bus or Dart and Commuter Rail.
I even had no problem subsidising intercity rail in the past, when it was the fastest way to travel between our cities and the safest.
But that is no longer the case, we now have these fantastic, fast, safe roads. I just don't see any point or need to intercity rail anymore and therefore I don't see why it is in the public interest to continue subsidising it.
That is the heart of my question, what national benefit is gained in continuing to subsidise intercity rail in Ireland, I just don't see it?
I don't see why I should be paying €74 every time I go to Cork, when I could be spending just €25 on a bus.
And I don't see why my tax money should be going to subsidising Irish Rail to the tune of 200 million per year plus other capital costs.invinciblePRSTV wrote: »You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.
There is nothing convoluted about it. You just license private bus operators to operate routes, just like they have already very successfully done on the Galway to Dublin route. Very simple.0 -
bk - can you provide a link that shows where motorists have been enticed from their cars into buses for inter-city travel? I think you'll be a long time googling that one. Buses are for the poor, the OAPs and students - not for motorists.0
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,579 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22175
Judgement Day wrote: »bk - can you provide a link that shows where motorists have been enticed from their cars into buses for inter-city travel? I think you'll be a long time googling that one. Buses are for the poor, the OAPs and students - not for motorists.
LOL, from what I've seen, traveling Cork to Dublin once a month, the only people using trains anymore are the poor, the OAPs and students.
All of my professional colleagues now drive. Faster and cheaper and get to use the car at both ends.
So given that only the poor, the OAPs and students are left using trains and you yourself admit buses are better suited to them, then why do we continue to subsidise intercity rail to the tune of 200 million a year?0 -
Advertisement
-
LOL, from what I've seen, traveling Cork to Dublin once a month, the only people using trains anymore are the poor, the OAPs and students.
All of my professional colleagues now drive. Faster and cheaper and get to use the car at both ends.
So given that only the poor, the OAPs and students are left using trains and you yourself admit buses are better suited to them, then why do we continue to subsidise intercity rail to the tune of 200 million a year?
You miss my point - you and 'all your professional colleagues' are unlikely to switch from cars to buses but feel free to recommend that everybody else - the little people - should be forced onto them.0
Advertisement