Maybe I am the only one, but I can recall more RPA adverts then Irish Rail adverts. In recent years, the only Irish Rail advert I can think of is the one here.
There’s loads of adverts in the papers that I can recall for the Luas, and the Metro - from pre-construction to ‘we’re running extra services at such and such dates’.
I’m sure you have “proof” (as you say) that Irish Rail or even CIE spend more in advertisements relative to their networks sizes compared to the RPA?
I’m sure you’ll also have proof that the have spent comparably more on adverts in the SBPost and the Indo, then any other paper?
Also, with regards to CIE and the RPA, you, and others here to a lesser extent, look to ignore that both are essentially branches of government, whose major projects as well as major faults are the government’s responsibility.
On professor Melis, strangely you have given valid reasons why he can be critical of our systems – so I can only conclude that your problem is your beloved RPA looks to be getting some of the blame.
Nobody has an issue with “Serious infrastructure” costing “serious money”, the issue is what “serious money” amounts to and is such coupled with the end product value money. If PPARS and electronic voting are extreme examples of waste, and if, in the end, public-private partnership on the building and tolling of roads is an extreme example of how projects can be more costly to the taxpayer*, is it not just prudent to healthy question, and scrutinise all major projects?
Is it ‘not willing’ or ‘not able’ to answer my questions in regards to the Post’s hacks and their public transport usage?
* your example of building apartments on old rail yards could be another example of ‘value for money’ now, ending in something possibly being more costly (monetary terms or not) in years to come.