Michael O'Leary: "Dublin Metrolink - Waste of Money"

Until then it's really about biting the bullet and looking at things that are proven to work in terms of mobility around cities like Athens that started to be built before even Plato was conceiving Forms
In the spirit of the utterances of Plato are you suggesting that maybe we can build an imperfect copy in this physical world of the theoretical Metro that exists in his intelligible world of Forms?
 
This is laughable.

Its not critical for an individual living in the north west of the country that has no access to a motorway or rail in order to travel to dublin.

I would argue that infrastrutural improvements in the north west are critical for the north west and the Ireland as a whole.
Are we back on the Motorway to Letterkenny bandwagon?
 
Are we back on the Motorway to Letterkenny bandwagon?
I do think our motorway and rail network should extend to the north west of our country as it does to all other parts.

And this point is made in the context of spending 20bn on a train from the airport to st stephens green.
 
I do think our motorway and rail network should extend to the north west of our country as it does to all other parts.
What is the maximum subsidy per passenger that you'd accept for a train service to Letterkenny?
Would you be okay with a subsidy per journey of the scale of the Limerick-Ballybrophy line which in 2012 was €550 for each passenger?
Passenger numbers have gone up nationally so that might be down to a few hundred euro now.
How about free taxis from Dublin to Letterkenny for anyone who wants one? That would be much cheaper.

And this point is made in the context of spending 20bn on a train from the airport to st stephens green.
Wow, that's the first I've heard of that. There's already going to be a line from the airport to Stephen's Green as part of the much large and more comprehensive €20 billion Metro project. Is this in addition to that?
 
This is laughable.

Its not critical for an individual living in the north west of the country that has no access to a motorway or rail in order to travel to dublin.

I would argue that infrastrutural improvements in the north west are critical for the north west and Ireland as a whole.
What a redundant form of debate. I'll deal with the tangible benefits in a second but urban locations subsidise rural. Yes rural areas provide certain tangible benefits a city never can, but there is an absolute that populations have become more urban and that is where activity tends to lie. In Ireland we are heavily reliant on the success of Dublin and Cork (for example) - the tax receipts and redistribution alone show this. And before the "balanced regional" types come in, this is not unusual internationally. Secondly, Ireland 2040 already has massive redistribution on infrastrucutre and Dublin will continue to be under invested in relative to its needs under the plan. This follows decades of Government policy in Ireland that was inherently anti urban and gave up the goodies to making everyone a little less grumbly.

That said, I don't begrudge that under Ireland 2040 the north west is getting more funding per capita or that it happens annually with taxes. It has to. That's society.

The thinking of "where is my train or motorway to Dublin" is pretty funny though. People from outside Dublin conceive it as somewhere they take a trip to for a match or concert or even going to the Airport, not a living and breathing place with actual needs.

In terms of the direct benefits, I'll tell you what they are. By removing PSO and bus reliance in Dublin, we can subsidise other places more. Dublin does not need as many PSO routes as it has. It has them because the urban environment is constrained in terms of how it copes with the the economic demands of the capital and the State. With MetroLink going to be autonomous (buses may ultimately be, I don't know, but they won't ever carry the same number of passangers), we will have on day one a profitable service that removes the need for many buses in the capital. This is good for all, including good for local communities.
 
Last edited:
I do think our motorway and rail network should extend to the north west of our country as it does to all other parts.

And this point is made in the context of spending 20bn on a train from the airport to st stephens green.
Oh Lordy, another one listening to MOL.

MetroLink will go from Charlemount to past Swords, not SSG to the Airport. It will also unlikely to be €20bn but if it is, that's money well spent.

For the record I have no issue with building Motorways to the NW either. But if you want to be able to afford that then you also have to invest in Dublin and Cork as well.

There has been basically zero heavy rail built in Dublin since the Loopline bridge in 1891. The Luas (cheap light rail that is in no way equivalent of heavy duty Metro / Subway services equivalent cities have seen investment in) for most of it goes over old railway lines preserved post closure but built in the 1800s and shares roads the rest of the way. And that was investment in Dublin's rail when private operators could do it, not the State. Actual infrastructural investment has been absolutely tiny by authorities.

What benefit do you think someone living within the Canals gets from the Motorway network day to day? Do people realise that a significant number of Dubs rarely see even the M50? These people often don't even own cars, yet have seen their streets and city torn up for people looking to commute in from the suburbs or who are "up for the match".
 
I used to try smart answers like that when people caught me out. But then I grew up.
I'm not sure what your point here is caller, it's a word people use day to day now to discuss forms of debate. It might be a little uncouth, but my contribution here is certainly more substantive than your little post in here.

Unfortunately we continue to see people (just on this page alone) ignoring the actual details of this project.
 
What benefit do you think someone living within the Canals gets from the Motorway network day to day? Do people realise that a significant number of Dubs rarely see even the M50? These people often don't even own cars, yet have seen their streets and city torn up for people looking to commute in from the suburbs or who are "up for the match".
What an odd attitude to what comprises a city and how a city works.

Without the motorway network, would these people have teachers to teach their children, nurses to look after them when they're ill, Gardai to police their streets, or tradesmen and repairmen to fix things in their homes?
 
What an odd attitude to what comprises a city and how a city works.

Without the motorway network, would these people have teachers to teach their children, nurses to look after them when they're ill, Gardai to police their streets, or tradesmen and repairmen to fix things in their homes?
I am not against motorways. I am making the point that many people would conceive it as a "Dublin" centric investment. It absolutely aids Dublin (although it could be argued that it is the car centric vision of society that forced the need for expensive ring roads), but it actually has little relation to many Dubliners day to day lives.

For the record, I am very pro motorway. I am not some Green Party member who wants to block their construction.
 
I genuinely think you're underestimating this - for the reasons I point out above. Without commuters, many modern city functions simply wouldn't work.
Services worked in urban locations before the motorcar. Cities predate them. We also had mass transit and commuters before they arrived on streets. Quality of life has improved generally for other reasons.

I think the car is wonderful in so many ways but it hasn't been good for urban locations, on balance.
 
Your response was talking about the motorways. Streets that got torn up as I described was for the car, by and large.

I'd accept that there were costs to building the railways / tramways too, but nothing as pervasive as roads to cater for cars.

At it's most extreme we see cities in the US that would be beyond recognition to people 100 years ago.

If the car was invented today or planners knew what they do now 100 years ago, like smoking it would be heavily restricted in use from day one. Within city boundaries I'd expect you wouldn't just have congestion charges, but outright bans on private cars.

Anyway, it's just a theoretical point. I am not proposing eliminating the car. The point I was making that for urban life that the Canals that the influence of the car hasn't been a good one. So when we frame debates on transport spending (which is where this pot of money comes from) and people saying "I don't have a motorway, why build a Metro?!" that we have to look at historical investment. The country invested heavily in roads for decades followed by the motorway network. Heavy rail is having its long overdue moment.

And for people who want to suggest an autonomous Metro won't make a difference, go live somewhere like Copenhagen which didn't have one 30 years ago and imagine life without it.
 
Back
Top