One of those what I'd do with transport if I was the king rants

munchkin_utd · 20-03-2013 2:17pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

<snip>

Carlow would have an hourly bus service or at least every 90minutes instead of the current service of one every 2-3hours, with a bus to Waterford every 2 hours.
<snip>.

thats easy fixed and self financing.

lift the rail line there that requires millions of subsidies in running costs and line maintenance and then the patronage on the bus would rise enough to justify an hourly or better service.
And even if the passenger numbers arent enough for an hourly service, you'll have millions to run it anyhow with the money saved on the closed rail line.

Jamie2k9 · 20-03-2013 2:41pm

The RAIU are already a unit -- even if an independent unit -- within the RSC.

Unless you explain better it seems like you'll have a less safe railway.

Well didn't know that but there is no need for them to be under separate roofs and have to many staff like they do now plenty of savings could be made.

No NTA? So nobody regulating the CIE companies and a free-for-all for everybody on routing, ticketing, network planning etc?

Have fun with that one!

The train operator will oversee the timetable, planning etc. Some restrictions for fares but overall the NTA does nothing worthwhile. They will always agree with Irish Rail anyway.

The DAA are not that independent at all.

Much more so than CIE, not TD's or ministers says you must o this and that every five minutes, operate political services.

Where are you going to get senior staff of the calibre required that would be prepared to work for what is frankly a middle management salary level?

I think you need to be realistic - that is not a CEO/senior manager salary for organisations of that size.

Come off it, any normal person would have no problems running CIE for a good wage in todays climate. You say CIE management have the calibre required to run a company. Time to get real. The only thing that senior management (not all CIE staff) have is to much money and intellectual ability of an insect on how to run a company. All are complete waste of spaces and havn't a clue all should be sacked right away. Some of the most useless people employed in Ireland. I'm probably going to get in trouble for this but it needs to be said as its fact.

DellyBelly · 20-03-2013 3:33pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

oh i see, i'll post a picture of some crisps when i get a chance.

Have no idea what you mean by that??? I was just explaining why Elvis was mentioned in the thread

foggy_lad · 20-03-2013 3:51pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

This isn't Iraq, it's not like we can't re-hire any ex CIE staff whatsoever into this new public transport outfit. Also, it would be impossible to implement without substantial cost to the travelling public at large, for example due to the effects of disqualifying the majority of Category D licence holders in this country. Over such a large number of employees, it would be impossible to hire enough replacements without inevitably taking shortcuts on labour quality.

Even after Ronnie Reagan's stunt with air traffic control staff, many of the staff who were sacked were eventually re-hired anyway.

The suggestion has about as much merit and basis in reality as discussing the eventual introduction of flying cars and the infrastructure required to handle them. :cool:

The staff I would not be re employing are the cie staff who are not in any of the three transport companies. Those who are employeed and paid by coras iompar Éireann not irish rail, bus Éireann or Dublin bus.

Hilly Bill · 20-03-2013 4:10pm

DellyBelly wrote: »

Have no idea what you mean by that??? I was just explaining why Elvis was mentioned in the thread

King crisps

I knew why it was mentioned but it was off topic , something that the average poster has been warned for in the past.

Hilly Bill · 20-03-2013 4:13pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

The staff I would not be re employing are the cie staff who are not in any of the three transport companies. Those who are employeed and paid by coras iompar Éireann not irish rail, bus Éireann or Dublin bus.

You wouldnt have an issue with any ex Irish Rail, Dublin Bus or Bus Eireann staff being employed if they are suitable?

dowlingm · 20-03-2013 5:18pm

I know this is crayoning, but if we could avoid mass abuses of Irish employment law which differs substantially from other jurisdictions that would be great kthxbai.

monument · 20-03-2013 7:36pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Well didn't know that but there is no need for them to be under separate roofs and have to many staff like they do now plenty of savings could be made.

How many staff do they have? Why is it too many given their function?

As for different locations -- that may or may not be an issue, for all we know it may cost more to relocate both to a larger building.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The train operator will oversee the timetable, planning etc. Some restrictions for fares but overall the NTA does nothing worthwhile. They will always agree with Irish Rail anyway.

So no regulation of Irish Rail then? And let's forget about buses?

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Much more so than CIE, not TD's or ministers says you must o this and that every five minutes, operate political services.

The NTA would be on the same level as the DAA in that regard, possibly better?

patrickbrophy18 · 20-03-2013 10:59pm

monument wrote: »

As the title says -- a few posters have posted one of these threads over the last year, so I'll have a go...
Rank Dart Underground as the top priority transport project with park and ride at key locations and secure bicycle parking at all stations

You have my 100% support with this monument.

monument wrote: »

Parking
Paid parking at all large out-of-town shopping car parks

Regulate private and public clamping and ticketing

I can't see the logic of these points going down to well in the likes of Dunnes Stores, Cornelscourt as it would deter a lot of customers from their weekly shop.

Conversely, I do think that cycle spaces could be phased in to encourage those shopping light (less than 10 items) to cycle. For this to work, bike mountable baskets could be sold at such stores which is well doable.

monument wrote: »

Cycling
Cycling seen as replacement / substitute for public transport

Support or directly run schemes to get students and unemployed onto bicycles

The first point here should be optional as public transport is often a quicker, warmer and more relaxing way to travel. It all depends on the length and/or route of the journey taken from A to B. Nevertheless, kudos to those who can motivate themselves to cycle medium to long distances (any distance well over 5 kilometers).

Having said that, cycling should be encouraged for people traveling less than 5 kilometers. As per your statistics in another thread, an extremely large portion of daily journeys made by car (in and around the 100,000 marker if memory serves) are less than 5 kilometers. Both cycling and public transport should be used in curbing (kerbing:D, pardon the pun) this. Here is where your second point would be most applicable.

monument wrote: »

Bus/light rail
RPA or TfL-style tendering

Review bus lanes in all cities

Review of bus stops everywhere -- with focus on cities and town and looking at how bus routes could work better with newer roads and bypasses (ie sometimes takes stops away from town or village centres)

Look and bringing bus lanes to junctions in Dublin

Look at BRT/LRT replacement / stopgap for Metro North

BRT/LRT on former/current N11, N4, Malahide Road QBC, but scrap looking at to Blanch or at least forget about Navan Road route, use park or N4 and onto metro west route.

Luas to Finglas and on to the airport

High capacity cycle parking at key BRT/LRT stops

I agree with most of this except for the part in red. Accessibility for public transport should be one of the key components as well as that for cycling in reducing the carbon footprint of village and town centers.

foggy_lad · 20-03-2013 11:59pm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You wouldnt have an issue with any ex Irish Rail, Dublin Bus or Bus Eireann staff being employed if they are suitable?

No problem with all staff apart from management who would be let go and have to reapply for posts which would be open to all. Management salaries would be reduced in line with the current economic situation.

monument · 21-03-2013 12:05am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I can't see the logic of these points going down to well in the likes of Dunnes Stores, Cornelscourt as it would deter a lot of customers from their weekly shop.

How is one deterred from their weekly shopping? Do they go hungry and use newspapers for bog roll? Or do they avoid parking charges by walking to the corner shop but end up spending way more on products?

In any case: Retailer group RGDATA and others argue the case for paid parking at out-of-town centres...

http://www.rgdata.ie/assets/files/2013%20Files/CarParkingReport.pdf

http://www.antaisce.org/Press/AnTaisceRelatedNewsReleases/tabid/1024/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/257/Car-Parking-and-Town-Centre-degradation.aspx

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Conversely, I do think that cycle spaces could be phased in to encourage those shopping light (less than 10 items) to cycle. For this to work, bike mountable baskets could be sold at such stores which is well doable..... less than 5 kilometers

Guess I should get a car for my family's current 6km round trip on bicycles to Tesco where we spend around the average for a family of our time... or 7km trip to Lidl.... :rolleyes: ...Sorry for the "rolleyes" but your artificial limits are ridiculous.

5km is going around St Stephens Green four times -- it's nothing and takes little effort for anybody half used of cycling. And -- before you say it -- nobody said cycling is for everybody.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The first point here should be optional

What do you mean optional? You make it sound like somebody suggested that there will be mandatory cycling for all -- which I is a million miles away from what I said...

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

as public transport is often a quicker, warmer and more relaxing way to travel.

As usually, your generalisations are meaningless... here's some counter generalisations to highlight how meaningless generalisations are...

Public transport is often not quicker given the walking time, waiting time and delay time you have to factor in for public transport.
Walking to/from and waiting at bus and tram stops as well as train stations is often colder than cycling.
Sitting or standing beside smelly, noisy, or otherwise annoying people is not very relaxing, or is waiting for buses which never come, nor is getting caught in buses blocked by congestion.

pigtown · 21-03-2013 1:02am

If I was king of Limerick (and the Midwest)

Build a new rail and bus station at Roches St. (the entire left-hand block from Parnell St. to Catherine St.) with rail underground, long and medium haul bus routes in new ground level bus station with local buses departing from the footpath outside. Make Roches St. bus and taxi only.

Intercity services would be:
Galway-Cork, stopping at Ennis, Limerick, Limerick Junction, and Mallow. 8 services a day with the first trains getting into Galway and Cork before 8.30 a.m. and the last trains departing not before 9 p.m. This service would connect with a shuttle to Clonmel and Waterford.
An hourly shuttle service connecting Limerick with the Dublin-Cork train would take up the slack on the hours when the above mentioned service wasn't running.

Open a 3 line DART style service that runs to:

Raheen, stopping at the industrial estate (P&R), Crescent S.C., Fr. Russel Rd., and Childers Rd.
Cratloe (P&R), stopping at Moyross, Corbally, Parkway (shuttle to Annacotty industrial Estate via UL), and St. Josephs Hospital.
Annacotty industrial estate (shuttle to Parkway via UL), stopping at Crossagalla (P&R) and St. Josephs Hospital.

This service would run on a 15 minute frequency.

A longer commuter service to Ennis (hourly), Nenagh (hourly at peak, two
hours off-peak), and Thurles (peak services only).

All of these new stations would be more like a Luas stop than a railway station. They would be built in conjunction with a comprehensive public bikes scheme with many kilometres of off road bike lanes linking the station with housing estates, shopping centres and retail parks that are not within reasonable walking distance.

lucernarian · 21-03-2013 2:24am

monument wrote: »

How is one deterred from their weekly shopping? Do they go hungry and use newspapers for bog roll? Or do they avoid parking charges by walking to the corner shop but end up spending way more on products?

In any case: Retailer group RGDATA and others argue the case for paid parking at out-of-town centres...

http://www.rgdata.ie/assets/files/2013%20Files/CarParkingReport.pdf

http://www.antaisce.org/Press/AnTaisceRelatedNewsReleases/tabid/1024/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/257/Car-Parking-and-Town-Centre-degradation.aspx

Guess I should get a car for my family's current 6km round trip on bicycles to Tesco where we spend around the average for a family of our time... or 7km trip to Lidl.... :rolleyes: ...Sorry for the "rolleyes" but your artificial limits are ridiculous.

5km is going around St Stephens Green four times -- it's nothing and takes little effort for anybody half used of cycling. And -- before you say it -- nobody said cycling is for everybody.

What do you mean optional? You make it sound like somebody suggested that there will be mandatory cycling for all -- which I is a million miles away from what I said...

As usually, your generalisations are meaningless... here's some counter generalisations to highlight how meaningless generalisations are...
Public transport is often not quicker given the walking time, waiting time and delay time you have to factor in for public transport.

Walking to/from and waiting at bus and tram stops as well as train stations is often colder than cycling.

Sitting or standing beside smelly, noisy, or otherwise annoying people is not very relaxing, or is waiting for buses which never come, nor is getting caught in buses blocked by congestion.

That's quite the rebuttal for a throwaway suggestion that wasn't even really in disagreement with your points. It's not like the word "optional" suddenly means "Ulster says No!".

Also, what does "As usually, your generalisations are meaningless" refer to? That patrickbrophy18 typically makes meaningless generalisations? That's very sweeping in itself. I think the "5 km" served as a rule of thumb in his hypothesis, nothing more. Reports from RGDATA, the lobby group representing small traders in town centres, ought to be taken with a pinch of salt too.

Cycling and public transport are not really fill-ins for each other, both need separate attention and investment put in place as they fundamentally serve different needs. Chalk and cheese comes to mind here. I can agree with the idea of encouraging diversity in transport away from cars at least. Having a choice of transport modes will cater for more needs than prioritising one over the other, even if one option is more likely to be in society's best interest.

end of the road · 21-03-2013 3:54am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Terminate most services on Rosslare line at Wexford,
have morning and evening service to Rosslare to meet ferries and some exceptions in summer. Try increase service and cut journey time.

no, no, no, no, they must all go to rosslare, going down wexford quay is one of the most vital parts of the journey, you can't take that away from us (i'l get me coat)

monument · 21-03-2013 3:15pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's quite the rebuttal for a throwaway suggestion that wasn't even really in disagreement with your points.

It may seem like his post was a throwaway suggestion, but his previous postings across boards show otherwise.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Cycling and public transport are not really fill-ins for each other

The Dutch and Danish have set their policy exactly as if cycling is a "fill-in" for public transport. They say that providing for cycling is cheaper than proving the public transport which would be needed without cycling.

Transport for London said in the last two weeks that their planned investment in cycling would lead to more seats free on the tube etc.

Dublin policy of growing population inside amd around the canals depends on -- you guessed it -- more people cycling.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

...as they fundamentally serve different needs. Chalk and cheese comes to mind here.

A huge amount of public transport use in Dublin would in a Dutch city be covered by bicycle.

Large numbers using public transport for short to mid distances when they could be walking or cycling should be seen as a waste of limited resources -- resources which should be aimed at longer distances.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Having a choice of transport modes will cater for more needs than prioritising one over the other, even if one option is more likely to be in society's best interest.

Often it will be best to prioritisise one mode on top or do so for some routes or some areas etc.

Having the best of all options sounds great but is costly, often unworkable due to space and won't get the the results of more focused approches.

Chris_5339762 · 21-03-2013 3:15pm

There are some great ideas in this thread but unfortunately we just don't have the population to justify the majority of them

lucernarian · 21-03-2013 3:38pm

monument wrote: »

It may seem like his post was a throwaway suggestion, but his previous postings across boards show otherwise.

I respect that opinion, but won't that lead to more recriminations and chips on shoulders? I think it's a little too harsh a way to put down someone's opinion on a subject. Someone should be able to make a post that can be judged on its own merits, particularly when it's politely expressed and is not from someone who's known to post disruptively. It's not good to carry over such prejudice to new threads.

The sole point you raised directly in contention with my view of bikes + public transport being apples and oranges is from citing the views of Dutch policymakers. That in itself has limited bearing on what's best for Ireland. But more importantly, why would the Dutch or anyone else expressing this opinion make it a good opinion for others? It's obvious to all here that bikes and buses share commonalities. They're both modes of transport. But one is inherently designed for individual movement whereas most others are better suited to groups of people, goods transport or both.

So using public transport for individual short distance travel (and no I have no criteria establised for what counts as "short travel") should be discouraged in favour of cycling and walking. That's cool. But you're missing something obvious when you break down these distinctions in terms of routes or areas served. Public transport will form part and parcel of all transport options regardless of (populated/urban) destinations served. But walking or cycling will be precluded to many different people for different reasons. Weather is a big issue. Carriage of luggage. Accompanying children. Temporary or permanent mobility issues. Things that buses etc can all cater for, while cycling will always primarily serve the needs of a healthy individual cycling in safe conditions.

Practically all of society can benefit from the provision and use of public transport, the same can't be said for cycling. And cycling can have a reasonably significant capital cost in comparison to the number of people a bus could carry over its lifetime. That needs to be considered too.

markpb · 21-03-2013 4:10pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

There are some great ideas in this thread but unfortunately we just don't have the population to justify the majority of them

Which ones specifically do you think we lack population for?

Polar101 · 21-03-2013 4:16pm

monument wrote: »

Large numbers using public transport for short to mid distances when they could be walking or cycling should be seen as a waste of limited resources -- resources which should be aimed at longer distances.

I'd bet that for the majority, the alternative to using public transport for short/medium distances is car ownership, not walking or cycling.

invincibl3 · 21-03-2013 4:53pm

pigtown wrote: »

If I was king of Limerick (and the Midwest)

Build a new rail and bus station at Roches St. (the entire left-hand block from Parnell St. to Catherine St.) with rail underground, long and medium haul bus routes in new ground level bus station with local buses departing from the footpath outside. Make Roches St. bus and taxi only.

Intercity services would be:
Galway-Cork, stopping at Ennis, Limerick, Limerick Junction, and Mallow. 8 services a day with the first trains getting into Galway and Cork before 8.30 a.m. and the last trains departing not before 9 p.m. This service would connect with a shuttle to Clonmel and Waterford.
An hourly shuttle service connecting Limerick with the Dublin-Cork train would take up the slack on the hours when the above mentioned service wasn't running.

Open a 3 line DART style service that runs to:
Raheen, stopping at the industrial estate (P&R), Crescent S.C., Fr. Russel Rd., and Childers Rd.

Cratloe (P&R), stopping at Moyross, Corbally, Parkway (shuttle to Annacotty industrial Estate via UL), and St. Josephs Hospital.

Annacotty industrial estate (shuttle to Parkway via UL), stopping at Crossagalla (P&R) and St. Josephs Hospital.

This service would run on a 15 minute frequency.

A longer commuter service to Ennis (hourly), Nenagh (hourly at peak, two
hours off-peak), and Thurles (peak services only).

All of these new stations would be more like a Luas stop than a railway station. They would be built in conjunction with a comprehensive public bikes scheme with many kilometres of off road bike lanes linking the station with housing estates, shopping centres and retail parks that are not within reasonable walking distance.

Nice, out of interest, where would the 1/2 million extra people needed to use these lines come from?

monument · 21-03-2013 4:57pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I respect that opinion, but won't that lead to more recriminations and chips on shoulders? I think it's a little too harsh a way to put down someone's opinion on a subject. Someone should be able to make a post that can be judged on its own merits, particularly when it's politely expressed and is not from someone who's known to post disruptively. It's not good to carry over such prejudice to new threads.

The sole point you raised directly in contention with my view of bikes + public transport being apples and oranges is from citing the views of Dutch policymakers. That in itself has limited bearing on what's best for Ireland. But more importantly, why would the Dutch or anyone else expressing this opinion make it a good opinion for others? It's obvious to all here that bikes and buses share commonalities. They're both modes of transport. But one is inherently designed for individual movement whereas most others are better suited to groups of people, goods transport or both.

So using public transport for individual short distance travel (and no I have no criteria establised for what counts as "short travel") should be discouraged in favour of cycling and walking. That's cool. But you're missing something obvious when you break down these distinctions in terms of routes or areas served. Public transport will form part and parcel of all transport options regardless of (populated/urban) destinations served. But walking or cycling will be precluded to many different people for different reasons. Weather is a big issue. Carriage of luggage. Accompanying children. Temporary or permanent mobility issues. Things that buses etc can all cater for, while cycling will always primarily serve the needs of a healthy individual cycling in safe conditions.

Practically all of society can benefit from the provision and use of public transport, the same can't be said for cycling. And cycling can have a reasonably significant capital cost in comparison to the number of people a bus could carry over its lifetime. That needs to be considered too.

Will reply in detail later but..., why not follow the example of Dutch and Danish policymakers?

The main reason to follow them seems often to be cost savings -- they claim cycling for the masses is cheaper than public transport for the masses and nobody seems to be able to debunk this. It would be hard to, they have the proof!

Added to that is better population health, health savings, less emissions, more attractive towns and cities etc

Richard Logue · 21-03-2013 5:04pm

Yes and more railways and tram systems. They didn't rip up their assets to same extent we did

lucernarian · 21-03-2013 5:16pm

monument wrote: »

Will reply in detail later but..., why not follow the example of Dutch and Danish policymakers?

The main reason to follow them seems often to be cost savings -- they claim cycling for the masses is cheaper than public transport for the masses and nobody seems to be able to debunk this. It would be hard to, they have the proof!

Added to that is better population health, health savings, less emissions, more attractive towns and cities etc

Fair points, and I appreciate them to be sure to be sure.

But they are different countries and for one, I suspect they have implemented such policy decisions after public transport infrastructure has been well established and when improvements were made to cycling infrastructure too. Perhaps even the weather is kinder to cyclists there than in Ireland. We've got a lot of shovel work and mixing of concrete to do (and breakfast rolls to be eaten) before we can get our hands on mass production of bicycles for Ireland

When the big problems with transport and mobility are dealt with, we can look after individual needs then.

pigtown · 21-03-2013 5:23pm

invincibl3 wrote: »

Nice, out of interest, where would the 1/2 million extra people needed to use these lines come from?

A new plantation.

No I know it's not practical but I can still dream. I do think opening some stops in Limerick environs should be investigated though.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-08062011-BP/EN/3-08062011-BP-EN.PDF This link shows that Ireland's population is expected to grow by 23% by 2035 and 46% by 2060. That should make the population of Limerick city 123,000 in 20 years time and 146,000 in 45 years. And in all probability, cities will grow by more than rural areas so the population increase will be greater than that. I think now is the time to plan for this so that a sustainable public transport system can be developed.

monument · 21-03-2013 5:41pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

and for one, I suspect they have implemented such policy decisions after public transport infrastructure has been well established and when improvements were made to cycling infrastructure too.

The cycling push actually came in the face of growing car use and car dominance in the 70s.

Public transport was also used as a tool, but cycling was the key part of the mix -- and it shows in modal share figures today.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Perhaps even the weather is kinder to cyclists there than in Ireland.

Our capital has overall comparably weather than theirs - they have harsher winters!

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

We've got a lot of shovel work and mixing of concrete to do (and breakfast rolls to be eaten) before we can get our hands on mass production of bicycles for Ireland

Nope. Does not fit the Dutch or Dainish timelines -- from the cities I've looked at the building of better public transport most often came along side or after mass cycling provision.

Cycling provision was chosen over even better public transport.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

When the big problems with transport and mobility are dealt with, we can look after individual needs then.

What are the big problems?

What individual needs are you talking about? Cycling is mass transport for the Dutch and Dainish.

lucernarian · 21-03-2013 6:34pm

monument wrote: »

The cycling push actually came in the face of growing car use and car dominance in the 70s.

Public transport was also used as a tool, but cycling was the key part of the mix -- and it shows in modal share figures today.

I don't see the relevance of this. It's feasible that public transport available in the 70s met the needs of people who otherwise would have taken up cycling or cars. It doesn't change my earlier point. And I am trying to emphasise that they're two different countries with different circumstances with respect to Ireland. There's literally hundreds of variables between Ireland and any other country in that region and I'm going to treat this as a given. The weather comparison was a lighthearted trite remark.

monument · 21-03-2013 7:26pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

And I am trying to emphasise that they're two different countries with different circumstances with respect to Ireland. There's literally hundreds of variables between Ireland and any other country in that region and I'm going to treat this as a given.

Can you name the top five reasons? Or at least the top three?

LXFlyer · 21-03-2013 7:48pm

To be fair cycling and public transport should be promoted equally.

Prioritising one over the other against car ownership is not the solution. There are many reasons why people may choose PT over cycling and vice versa, but both are valid.

Cycling won't suit everyone, and I do wish some of the cycling enthusiasts would accept this. Personally I prefer a walk and PT, partly because there are a number of long hills between the city and my home, and frankly I would prefer not to have to negotiate them every day in whatever weather we have.

On the other hand the so called cycle lanes are by and large a disgrace in this city and something seriously needs to be done about them to bring up to an internationally accepted standard.

Cycling and PT are in my view both worthy of promotion but not to the exclusion of one or the other.

lucernarian · 21-03-2013 8:11pm

monument wrote: »

Can you name the top five reasons? Or at least the top three?

A) I'm not bothered, this shouldn't be a serious discussion and

You should read what I said, I said there are hundreds of variables (i.e. hard-to-quantify factors) that exist between countries for determining something as broad as transport strategy. If I have to start proving intangible basics like "Country A has differences in road infrastructure between Country B", why would I bother saying anything in this thread at all?? It'll just be another thread that will end up going around in circles. I think if I tried to name 3 "top reasons", you'd only question why they are important reasons at all. What's the point?

LXFlyer · 21-03-2013 8:51pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

Then I'd do away with CIE with all employees getting state redundancy and merge BAC, IE and BE into a company called Irish transport but all three to operate in competition with each other and with private services, No ex-cie staff need apply!

foggy_lad wrote: »

The staff I would not be re employing are the cie staff who are not in any of the three transport companies. Those who are employeed and paid by coras iompar Éireann not irish rail, bus Éireann or Dublin bus.

And who exactly would carry out the functions currently carried out at Group level rather than by each company separately, namely:

Group Legal Department
Group Insurance/Liability management (CIE self-insures)
Group IT - Several of the IT functions are run across all of the group companies rather than individually separate systems
Group Property Management
Commuter Advertising Network

All those jobs still have to be done - firing the staff is not going to solve that. Splitting them out between three companies would mean additional staff and additional cost.

But sure why let that get in the way of making sweeping generalised comments? Perhaps you have an inside knowledge of how each of these functions isn't required?

One of those what I'd do with transport if I was the king rants

Comments