In the beginning, trams ran on rails across Dublin city.
And buses started travelling on roads throughout the city.
And a DART appeared and ran north-south along existing rail lines.
And then Luas began running to the south and west on different tracks.
And next came (quality) bus corridors but few new buses or park-and-ride.
And, as road traffic continued to grow, congestion increased and commute times lengthened.
And then came plans for more Luas, a Metro, an underground rail link and more bus corridors.
And chaos reigned supreme as no one took charge and the buses, Luas, Metro and rail all went their merry ways.
By any standard, NTR has already been well-remunerated for its investments in the M50 West-Link toll bridges. Instead of paying hundreds of millions to compensate for prematurely ending its tolling role on the M50, the Government should announce plans to build another bridge as part of the M50 widening. A new bridge and associated road works would cost less than �100 million and this should be used to benchmark the maximum compensation payable to NTR.
In practice, a new bridge should not be needed to break NTL's monopoly as the threat should enable the Government negotiate a fair deal for the taxpayer. However, if needs be, a new bridge could be built within three years. Bear in mind that the southbound bridge which opened in 2003 cost, according to NTR's website, only �23 million and took just two years to build.
Minister Cullen has proposed that a new transport authority for Dublin should be modelled on Transport for London. In suggesting this, I hope that he has seen that TFL's role is "to implement the Mayor's Transport Strategy for London and manage the transport services across the capital for which the Mayor has responsibility". Notwithstanding the Minister's decision in 2004 to abandon Minister Dempsey's plans for directly elected mayors, he should ensure that Dublin's authority is headed by a directly elected Lord Mayor with a five-year term. Anything less would be a complete misreading of Transport for London.
The establishment of a single authority to assume total responsibility for all aspects of traffic and public transport in Greater Dublin is long overdue. The proposed body must have real powers and operate as an authority in both name and deed. In the long run, it is unlikely to be effective unless it controls (or, at least, supervises) Dublin Bus, LUAS and DART and has real clout with the four local authorities and other vested interests which collectively and separately are making such an utter mess of Dublin's traffic. A directly elected chairperson would help ensure real accountability and responsibly as demonstrated in London.
Yesterday's headline to the article about Luas - Studies show that Luas makes economic sense - made me see red (ink) as it made no reference to the expectation that the capital cost of Luas could exceed €750m - equivalent to about twelve times Dublin Bus's annual subsidy.
A few basic assumptions can be used to illustrate the economic nonsense of Luas. Let us assume that it carries about 30,000 passengers a day (versus 500,000 for Dublin Bus and 90,000 for the DART); that interest and depreciation rates each run at 4% a year; that the invested capital is repaid over 25 years; and that a fare of about €1.50 per trip covers all operating and related costs etc. On this basis, the real cost of a Luas ticket is about €8.60, over five times the proposed fare! How does this make economic sense (except to the tiny minority that will use the service)? On this basis, it would be cheaper to give free taxi and bus vouchers to all prospective LUAS users for decades to come.
Once again, our policy makers have lost the plot. No amount of spinning, huffing and puffing will ever justify Luas. As a massive "white elephant", Luas should have been scrapped. The funds could have been used to provide more buses and a larger subsidy to Dublin Bus to benefit of ALL commuters in Dublin instead of just a tiny minority.
Congratulations to the Director of Traffic at Dublin Corporation for bolting the stable door by telling the Kenmare Economics Conference last weekend that buses are still the solution to Dublin's traffic problems.
Why wasn't this view fully considered before the "powers that be" decided to invest €650 million (and counting) in LUAS? If we add the current debacle over the DART's weekend closures (investment of €170 million plus), the height of the Port Tunnel (€450 million) and the on/off debate about a Metro (several billion), one must wonder whether anybody has a clue as to what should be done about Dublin's traffic.
Surely the time is long, long past for the establishment of a single authority to assume total responsibility for all aspects of traffic and public transport in Greater Dublin. This body might be set up on an ad hoc basis but progressively it should acquire real powers. In the long run, it is unlikely to be effective unless it controls (or, at least, supervises) Dublin Bus, LUAS and DART and has a significant say about traffic and related matters with the four local authorities and other interests which together and separately are making such an utter mess of Dublin's traffic .
Maybe the colour of the Luas trams should be white and the Sandyford Luas line should finish at Stadium Ireland where a zoo could be established for white elephants, pet projects and wild ventures.
I think that the proposed investment in these inflexible trams and their highly specialised (and temporary) and unsightly infrastructure should have been spent on additional buses, better bus services and subsidised bus fares pending the development of a metro-based solution.
The €430 million allocated in the National Development Plan for just three Luas lines contrasts sharply with the €220 million to be invested in the bus network for all of Dublin. In 1999, the cost of running Dublin Bus was €113 million and its subsidy was only €13 million. For the money being invested in Luas, the proposed investment in buses could have been doubled and the balance of €210 million used to provide bigger subsidies and better services for many, many years to come. Is it too late for reason to prevail?