Western Rail Corridor

MG

Fair enough, the inclusion of Letterkenny IT is debatable but it represents a small proportion of the student population and there is a possibility that some students would use it. Besides the effect of this is probably compensated for by the exclusion of students from Clare, Galway, Mayo & Sligo from UCC. CIT and WIT from the equation.

On the cost of congestion, my previous post assumed that the cost of congestion was equal to direct cost + opportunity cost. I note from your reference that the cost of congestion for work time is €26.5 per hour. You say this is not relevant but it completely wrong to omit it. . I thoroughly distrust your posts and when you assumptions like this you might see why. The €8 an hour you quote is for commuters (actually it’s €8.1 but when you’re dealing with this level of misrepresentation you kind of forgive rounding €8.1 down to €8). The cost per hour of the congestion is better represented by looking at the proportion of the traffic which falls into the categories of work, commuting and leisure in Galway and applying the appropriate cost. I note too that this is the cost per person not per car or per journey. An average occupancy of higher than 1.0 per car would mean a higher cost per car.

Furthermore, this appears to be only the time value of travel time, not the operating costs or the accident costs. It therefore appears that the €20 per hour mentioned in the report is hardly as outlandish as you would have us believe.

MG

The bould Martin and Dick Fearn of IE will be speakers at a conference in Castlebar on May 13th. I don't think I've ever seen a Fianna Failer travel to speak at anything to give bad news to the locals and especially not in a constituency where FF are in such turmoil. The signs are good.

P11 should be very happy as this largely conforms with their stated policies.

ishmael whale

First question. Is WRC’s figure of 55,000 students of any relevance other than to make their assumption “that at least 15-20% i.e. 7,750 to 11,000 of these are potential regular WRC users” seem credible? Hardly, as only about 12,000 of these are living in the corridor, and attending college in the corridor. So the only about 12,000 students are actually in the zone, as it were. WOT are actually saying its reasonable to assume that 7,750 to 11,000 of these – 65% to 90% - are “potential regular WRC users”. That’s a fair example of the kind of heroic assumption we have to swallow to accept WOT’s feasibility study.

Second question. What’s the right figure to calculate a traffic congestion cost? WOT have plucked a figure out of the air. I have posted up a link to the Department of Transport. This shows that if the people are commuters the cost should be €8.10. Non commuting time would be less - €7.30. If we looked at the figures net of indirect taxes they’d be less again - €6.8 and €6.1. If they were people travelling in the course of work the cost would be higher €26.30. If there is more than one person in the car there should indeed be two charges. However, none of this explains where WOT are getting their figure of €20 – they seem to just pluck it out of the air. I’m making an assumption which I don’t think is unreasonable – that the bulk of traffic that we’re interested in is commuter traffic where you typically have single occupant cars. I’m applying the figure of €8, and getting a much lower answer than WOT. Even if every car contains two commuters, the annual cost is still only circa €50 million or half of what WOT allege.

Finally, the bottom line (which you don’t seem to query). Rail offers no significant time advantage over road and the WRC will only service a route used by 10% of cars entering Galway. Hence, its contribution to reducing congestion in Galway would be pretty much zilch.

MG

I certainly can’t defend their “county of origin” table which is poorly presented and I’m not at all sure what it is supposed to say. From my experience, a good proportion of students do use public transport regularly so its fair comment in my book to take a percentage of the student population as potential regular users.

WOT may or may not have plucked the cost of congestion from the air but my point is that it appears to be a reasonable figure. Leaving out Leisure trips as immaterial, say 20% of journeys in and out of Galway are work related, and 80% commuter. That’s an average time cost of €11.78 per hour. Assume average occupancy of 1.2 per auto, that’s €14.13 average cost per hour per car of time alone. Nothing outlandish about these assumptions, wouldn’t you agree? Add direct costs of motoring, accident, environmental costs etc and €20 is a reasonable figure.

And yes, I do query whether rail offers no advantage over road probably in terms of both time and cost.

ishmael whale

SeanW wrote:

None of what you say about the Western Rail Corridor in general can be said about the section from Athenry to Ennis.

To be clear, I totally accept that Galway-Ennis-Limerick is a different kettle of fish to the WRC. If combined with a general planning approach covering concentration of housing, industry, education, etc etc in that area it might well have a future. All I’m really saying is that it should still be evaluated objectively. If something costs 1/40th of the cost of the Luas (which is hardly the most cost-contained project on record) it should yield something of the order of 1/40th of the benefit. €21 million is not a lot in terms of what needs to be done, but it should still be used to best effect. If best effect is developing a few commuter bus corridors into Galway, then that’s what should be done.

On the DRP vs Metro, from what I’ve seen I favour the Dublin Rail Plan/ Interconnector as its a comprehensive solution. Metro seems too much like a ‘Great Big Expensive Project for Dublin’ that actually delivers very little. I can’t see the point of farting around when the key problem that seems to hold up all useful potential rail development is the capacity of the Loop Line Bridge.

PandaMania

MarkoP11 wrote:

Well as I thought from the very outset it was a spoof and the source was in West on Track no the DoT

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1384279&issue_id=12386



Looks like the report hasn't even been finished yet !

Making up a story like that is certainly not going to win Cullen's nor the DoTs love and respect if this was what happened yesterday and this morning.

MG

SeanW wrote:

Thomas Sheridan (from Sligo) ex-leader of P11

Hadn't heard he was the ex leader. Wish him well whatever he is up to. Although I think he made serious errors with P11, his heart was in the right place.

ishmael whale

MG wrote:

I certainly can’t defend their “county of origin” table which is poorly presented and I’m not at all sure what it is supposed to say. From my experience, a good proportion of students do use public transport regularly so its fair comment in my book to take a percentage of the student population as potential regular users.

Its fair comment to take a percentage of the student population as potential regular users. What’s not fair comment is WOT inflating the headline figure for the student population to which that percentage is applied.

MG wrote:

WOT may or may not have plucked the cost of congestion from the air but my point is that it appears to be a reasonable figure.

I’m simply applying a figure to WOT’s estimate of 60,000 individual journeys, multiplied by 15 minutes amounts to 15,000 hours each day. They describe €20 per hour as a “modest estimate”. I think we have to agree it cannot be regarded as a ‘modest’ estimate. Even with your add-ons you’re not really closing the gap, and certainly every add-on must reduce the claim of it being a ‘modest’ estimate. They are at the very least being generous to themselves, and recall the figure of €20 is not really explained. You’re just trying your best to retro-fit an explanation on a figure that seems to be conjured out of the air.

I don’t have any basis for saying that 20% of journeys are ‘business’. Intuitively it seems high to me.

MG wrote:

And yes, I do query whether rail offers no advantage over road probably in terms of both time and cost.

We've heard anecdotally that it takes one hour or more to get from Tuam to Galway. WOT’s timetable say 50 minutes to get by rail from Tuam to Galway. Plus we have the consideration that someone living outside Tuam and working in a business not in the centre of Galway won’t find rail service that useful. So the time advantage doesn’t seem to be there, which means we’re really only arguing over how much of a congestion cost the WRC won’t save.

PandaMania

eh... thanks MG! I am still a member of P11 and think they are a fantastic organisation who did some great things with almost no budget and no help from anybody in the "railway community" - even in the early days when we were nice to them. P11 would probably have to close shop if WoT did get their wish list. It would be absolute proof that this country's transport agenda being even more moronic than most of us suspected. There would be no room for common sense, planning and development around transport anymore and railways would have been sacrificed to the same professional whingers who are destroying the views and sustainability of our contryside with one-off houses.

If West on Track get their way - Ireland is a banana republic.

Metrobest

Is PandaMania the person formerly known on this board as P11 Comms? What has happened with P11 :eek: How come Marko's cost estimate for the metro on your homepage has changed from a definate claim of "it will cost at least €4.8bn" to "not known, route dependent..€2-€4bn"?

Sarsfield

Metrobest would no doubt tunnel his way from Sligo to Limerick with 2 stops!

Metrobest

MG

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m simply applying a figure to WOT’s estimate of 60,000 individual journeys, multiplied by 15 minutes amounts to 15,000 hours each day.

I find your figure of €8 unreasonable based on the logic I have applied in my earlier post.

ishmael whale wrote:

They describe €20 per hour as a “modest estimate”.

Whether they consider it modest or not that, that is the figure they use and the figure I have tried to reason out.

ishmael whale wrote:

You’re just trying your best to retro-fit an explanation on a figure that seems to be conjured out of the air.

No, I'm testing the reasonableness of the figure. It seems reasonable to me.

ishmael whale wrote:

I don’t have any basis for saying that 20% of journeys are ‘business’. Intuitively it seems high to me.

I don't have any figures either but given the number of commerical vehicles on the road, it seemed a reasonable estimate to me.

ishmael whale wrote:

We've heard anecdotally that it takes one hour or more to get from Tuam to Galway. WOT’s timetable say 50 minutes to get by rail from Tuam to Galway. Plus we have the consideration that someone living outside Tuam and working in a business not in the centre of Galway won’t find rail service that useful. So the time advantage doesn’t seem to be there, which means we’re really only arguing over how much of a congestion cost the WRC won’t save.

There are advantages in terms of saving time & money parking and hassle. Take the Blackash P&R in Cork. There are no real time savings to using it, but a huge advantage in hassle and cost and it has been a huge success.

MG

Metrobest wrote:

Is PandaMania the person formerly known on this board as P11 Comms?

What would Blackadder say in this situation?
Baldrick, I'm about as surprised as ...............

SeanW

MG wrote:

Hadn't heard he was the ex leader. Wish him well whatever he is up to. Although I think he made serious errors with P11, his heart was in the right place.

Yes, there was a note about this on the P11 forums. There will be an AGM on the 28th of May and Mr. Sheridan will be stepping down. His message board account is already gone

MG

SeanW wrote:

Yes, there was a note about this on the P11 forums. There will be an AGM on the 28th of May and Mr. Sheridan will be stepping down. His message board account is already gone

Restricted area. This is good news for P11, they need to open up and get new blood. I've been impressed with some of the newer members who also post here.

ishmael whale

As I understand it your points concerning the application of the €8 relate to the portion of cars will be multi-occupancy and the portion of cars that might be deemed to be business travel rather than commuting.

We have no hard information to go on with either of these points, so it really just comes down to what seems intuitively right. I’d only ask you to remember that WOT are the ones claiming their estimate is modest. Modest should mean erring on the side of caution, rather than claiming the benefit of the doubt. To my mind, erring on the side of caution does not include assuming that a high proportion of congested traffic at commuting time is people on company business. Particularly as this simply seems like a technique to close the gap between €8 and €20.

Bear in mind that the 30,000 cars entering Galway every day must also contain a fair amount that need to be costed at the lower ‘non-commuting’ rate of €7.30, so knocking up the average to €20 and applying it across the board need a strong justification, not born out by any facts produced so far. Bear in mind also that WOT multiply their daily costs by 6 working days rather than 5, which also seems less than modest. But if you decide to stonewall on this, and just claim it all seems utterly reasonable to you, I can do nothing about that.

Looking at the relevant table, the operational cost of cars seems to be determined by distance as much as by time – i.e. travelling 30 km costs .15 cent a mile at 30 kms/hr and .12 a mile at 60km/hr. I’m not confident it’s meaningful to apply this to WOT’s estimate of 15,000 lost hours.

Saving time is not the only criteria for judging commuting methods, but it is the single most important one. Convenience is also a factor – but avoiding parking hassle needs to be balanced against dependence on a timetable and proximity to place of work. The balance of convenience does not automatically lie with public transport, and certainly not with the limited service that the WRC would offer.

Business and Finance aptly described the WRC proposal as akin to someone saying ‘I’ve found an old wedding dress, lets get married.’ Looking out the other end of the telescope, a better question might be to ask ‘how do we relieve traffic congestion in Galway’, followed by a study of where traffic in Galway comes from and goes to, and ending with a specification of an initiative that might add something to the mix. Would the WRC meet that specification? I frankly doubt it, and expect the development of a number of quality bus corridors would achieve more with less resources.

Victor

SeanW, kindly use paragraphs.

SeanW

Victor wrote:

SeanW, kindly use paragraphs.

Oops ... sorry

MG

I’m not sure whether you now accept that €20 is reasonable and your issue is the “modest” description or if you still don’t accept the €20 as reasonable.

My analysis of this is based on reasonableness. The cost of congestion is measured by reference to direct costs (car operating costs) and indirect costs (decongestion benefits, wear & tearsafety benefits, pollution benefits and the value of time). We both accept that the information is not perfect and we have to make assumptions.

WOT’s main assumptions would paint a scenario like this:

20% work related, 75% commuter, 5% leisure, occupancy 1.2, 15 min congestion, 60,000 trips per day weekdays, 30,000 on weekends, Operating/pollution/safety costs etc €5.9 per hour

Your assumptions would give picture like this:

1% work related, 60% commuter, 39% leisure, occupancy 1.0, 15 min congestion, 60,000 trips per day weekdays, 0 on weekends, Operating/pollution/safety costs etc €0 per hour


So I ask you, which is the more reasonable scenario? Who is pushing their agenda more reasonably?

ishmael whale

MG wrote:

I’m not sure whether you now accept that €20 is reasonable and your issue is the “modest” description or if you still don’t accept the €20 as reasonable.

I don’t accept the figure to be reasonable, as the data is not there to suggest that the congestion costs should include a high percentage of vehicles which should get the working time costing of over €26.5, and a low amount of vehicles qualifying for the non-commuter cost of €7.30. That’s ultimately what determines how reasonable the €20 figure is. I would like to know how WOT arrived at the figure, rather than retro-fit explanations. Their estimate seems to be based on the benefit of the doubt rather than erring on the side of caution. So, while whether €20 is reasonable is just a matter of opinion, I take it we can agree that its not a ‘modest’ estimate.

WOT’s case is at best optimistic and at worst plain weird. Look at their proported four main sources of passengers for the WRC:

1. Commuters, although the service is unlikely to offer any significant advantage over road, and, for example, would only potentially be of use to a fraction of the 30,000 vehicles entering Galway daily

2. Students, where I think we agree their treatment is extremely optimistic

3. Tourists, which seems to base potential demand on the proportion of tourists arriving in Ireland without a car, but seems to take no account of people either on tour buses, or persons doing city breaks in Dublin.

4. Hospital out patients and visitors, where they make the bizarre statement “Hospitals not directly on the WRC such as Castlebar, Roscommon and Portiuncula can also potentially benefit from patients and visitors whose journeys might begin at points on the WRC e.g. people travelling from Tuam to Portiuncula or Kiltimagh to Castlebar. Proper planning of timetables and imaginative marketing will ensure that a significant section of the public will choose rail in such circumstances.” The belief that people will be persuaded to use a service that won’t actually take them to the required destination by timetabling and ‘imaginative marketing’ sounds like an outtake from Alice in Wonderland.

Bottom line – WOT’s analysis is a crock.

MG

MG wrote:

WOT’s main assumptions would paint a scenario like this:

20% work related, 75% commuter, 5% leisure, occupancy 1.2, 15 min congestion, 60,000 trips per day weekdays, 30,000 on weekends, Operating/pollution/safety costs etc €5.9 per hour

Your assumptions would give picture like this:

1% work related, 60% commuter, 39% leisure, occupancy 1.0, 15 min congestion, 60,000 trips per day weekdays, 0 on weekends, Operating/pollution/safety costs etc €0 per hour


So I ask you, which is the more reasonable scenario? Who is pushing their agenda more reasonably?

I am satisfied that the assumptions laid out above for the WOT figure would acceptable to a reasonable person.

I doubt whether a reasonable person would stand over yours. Do you stand over them? I'm afraid your bias towards Dublin in all matters is emerging again.

ishmael whale

MG wrote:

I am satisfied that the assumptions laid out above for the WOT figure would acceptable to a reasonable person. I doubt whether a reasonable person would stand over yours.

As I’ve said, neither you nor I have the data necessary to confirm (or deny) how many vehicles in Galway should be costed at €26.50. We can debate what constitutes a ‘reasonable person’, but I really don’t see how that advances the situation. I’m happy to agree that WOT are wrong to describe the estimate as ‘modest’, and allow the €20 cost to stand on the basis of giving them the benefit of the doubt, if that unblocks this particular point. After all, as I’ve said we’re really only arguing over the value of the congestion in Galway that the WRC won’t do anything to help.

MG wrote:

I'm afraid your bias towards Dublin in all matters is emerging again.

In general, I simply advocate that infrastructural investment should be provided on the basis of what benefits it brings. Equally, when it comes to regional investment, I advocate decisions being taken mindful of the need recognised by the spatial strategy, Ed Walsh of UL and others that there is a need to concentrate resources in a few regional centres to create a critical mass that can compete with Dublin. Otherwise its simply a continuation of the wasted resources of the past. I don’t see how stating this, which is simply a realistic appraisal of the practical situation we find ourselves in, constitutes Dublin bias.

As a matter of interest, does recognising the reality that Dublin Airport is operating beyond its capacity and Shannon isn’t constitute Dublin bias? While not directly relevant to this thread, your answer might help me understand your mindset.

Can I also suggest that labelling my contribution as ‘Dublin bias’ looks to me to be a formula for avoiding addressing the points I’m making. WOT make excessive claims for the benefits that flow from the WRC. We seem to agree their estimates of potential demand from students is unreliable, I’m not clear what you think about their treatment of potential commuter traffic, but I would again point out that the service is unlikely to make any contribution. Their estimate for tourist and hospital related traffic seems similarly lacking.

Do you have any problem with the general assessment that WOT’s case is clearly a crock?

ishmael whale

As an aside to the above post, and in a effort to show that I honestly think the €20 cost figure requires the benefit of the doubt, can I draw your attention to this post I did in below early February about the Westlink Bridge. As you can see, my idea of a reasonable approach was to split the difference between commuting time and non-commuting time, rather than pulling the driving at work time into the picture at all. Similarly, you’ll note I mentioned that some cars would have multiple occupants but did not try to build that into the picture.

I had a look at the rush hour traffic coming home. There were a fair smattering of multiple occupant cars, but the vast majority were single occupant. Was there as many as one in five multi-occupant? Maybe, but I’d still call that giving the benefit of the doubt. While I can’t claim to have interviewed anyone as to where they were going, but they all looked like people on their way home, very little looked like commercial traffic – delivery vans or whatnot. Out in the ‘burbs there was a smattering of leisure ‘dropping little Johnny off for guitar/drama/origami lessons’ traffic, and I’d say a more frequent sight than commercial traffic.

I’m not asking you to accept my approach as reasonable – just to accept that it truly is my idea of reasonable.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2355652&postcount=84
“….As they queued the punters reflected on the Department of Transport’s guideline that projects should cost commuting travel time at €8 an hour and non-commuting travel time at €7. Presumably if there’s two of us in the car commuting together that’s €16, they reflected, but lets be generous, split the difference and call it a cost of €7.5 per vehicle. That means a one minute delay of 90,000 vehicles on the Westlink costs €11,250. And that’s not taking into account people who use the M50, get caught in the queue but don’t need to use the bridge…. ”

Victor

Thinking about this, commuting is a loss of personal time, not work time (your boss will still insist you work your X hours). Considering this €20/hr is high.

Bogger77

Victor wrote:

Thinking about this, commuting is a loss of personal time, not work time (your boss will still insist you work your X hours). Considering this €20/hr is high.

it's personal time you're losing mainly, but having worked in galway, large numbers of commuters from claregalway northwards would leave early to try avoid the congestion, i've seen the queue reach back the Tuam road roundabout on the galway ring road.

added costs, children in creche/child care. How much per hour is that. I worked with a guy, who changed jobs rather than stay with a company whose office was moving because the amount of childcare would increase by 2hrs a day.

How many people have been killed, injuried on the roads from Tuam to Galway, Athenry to Galway, Ardrahan to Galway?

dowlingm

I actually think there isn't as much difference as the sound and fury indicates. A route like Tuam-Galway or Athenry-Galway makes some sense, especially if Oranmore is intensively developed. So let's all stipulate that Limerick-Tuam could probably work.

The case for north of Tuam is shaky, that for north Claremorris is tenuous and the burden of proof has to be on those who would reopen it. Let them now step forth.

Using third level students to make the case is especially ridiculous as they are price sensitive and will pick the bus which leaves more beer money and which will drop them to campus over a train which leaves them in the town centre. Greater Dublin probably has 50,000 third level students already in TCD/DCU/UCD/DIT before you count Maynooth or private colleges. Add to that - third level students tend to live close to campus and only need transport twice a week to bring laundry home to mammy and back

MG

ishmael whale wrote:

As I’ve said, neither you nor I have the data necessary to confirm (or deny) how many vehicles in Galway should be costed at €26.50. We can debate what constitutes a ‘reasonable person’, but I really don’t see how that advances the situation. I’m happy to agree that WOT are wrong to describe the estimate as ‘modest’, and allow the €20 cost to stand on the basis of giving them the benefit of the doubt, if that unblocks this particular point. After all, as I’ve said we’re really only arguing over the value of the congestion in Galway that the WRC won’t do anything to help.

You appear to be saying that you concede that €20 is reasonable, but you just don’t like them describing it as “modest”! Personally, I prefer a reasonable figure of €20 described as modest than an unreasonable figure of €8.

ishmael whale wrote:

In general, I simply advocate that infrastructural investment should be provided on the basis of what benefits it brings. Equally, when it comes to regional investment, I advocate decisions being taken mindful of the need recognised by the spatial strategy, Ed Walsh of UL and others that there is a need to concentrate resources in a few regional centres to create a critical mass that can compete with Dublin. Otherwise its simply a continuation of the wasted resources of the past. I don’t see how stating this, which is simply a realistic appraisal of the practical situation we find ourselves in, constitutes Dublin bias.

As a matter of interest, does recognising the reality that Dublin Airport is operating beyond its capacity and Shannon isn’t constitute Dublin bias? While not directly relevant to this thread, your answer might help me understand your mindset.

I’m in favour of developing some alternative centres of development to Dublin too – that’s why I’m in favour of providing those centres with rail links.

ishmael whale wrote:

Can I also suggest that labelling my contribution as ‘Dublin bias’ looks to me to be a formula for avoiding addressing the points I’m making. WOT make excessive claims for the benefits that flow from the WRC. We seem to agree their estimates of potential demand from students is unreliable, I’m not clear what you think about their treatment of potential commuter traffic, but I would again point out that the service is unlikely to make any contribution. Their estimate for tourist and hospital related traffic seems similarly lacking.

Do you have any problem with the general assessment that WOT’s case is clearly a crock?

Actually I am essentially accusing you the same thing. You are making excessive claims about the case against the WRC as evidenced by your €8 per hour claim above. We don’t agree on much and the student question is open - their estimates on students appear to overestimate in some ways and underestimate in others.

A properly run service providing both commuter and interregional services can certainly work from Tuam to Waterford. I do accept that the Claremorris to Sligo portion has a weak case and so too does Tuam to Claremorris (except that as it would integrate the network it may be worth accepting the loss). These services run in other countries so why not here? I remain convinced that linking by rail the second, third, fourth and fifth largest cities in the state is viable, desirable and frankly essential.

MG

Victor wrote:

Thinking about this, commuting is a loss of personal time, not work time (your boss will still insist you work your X hours). Considering this €20/hr is high.

This is dealt with above. Traffic is a mixture of commercial, commuter and non-commuter (leisure traffic) which Ismael has found costings for at €26.50, €8.10 and €7.30. If you take a mixture of daily traffic in the ratio 20:75:5, then this would equate to an average time value cost per person of €11.74. There are three important points there, one the ratio and two the fact that it is per person and three, this is opportunity cost only.

You’d be surprised how many people are getting TIL or travel time. For instance, the CIF agreements allow for travel time and think of how much construction traffic is on the road. Also consider the self employed where all time spent in gridlock is potentially forfeited earnings.

Secondly, as this number is per person, it needs to be multiplied by vehicle occupancy. A quick google suggests 1.2 as a reasonable estimate. A visual check this morning confirmed this to be reasonable to me especially as many of the multiple occupancy cars are clearly commercial vehicles with the high vis vest brigade aboard (i.e they are on the higher rate). This brings us up to €14.09 in opportunity cost alone. When you start adding the direct costs (e.g. Petrol, Wear & tear ) and environmental & safety costs you see that €20 is a reasonable figure.

ishmael whale

MG wrote:

You appear to be saying that you concede that €20 is reasonable, but you just don’t like them describing it as “modest”! Personally, I prefer a reasonable figure of €20 described as modest than an unreasonable figure of €8.

I think its clear from the extract I posted from my post on the Westlink bridge that my querying of the €20 estimate is not evidence of a Dublin bias, which is what you originally alleged. You seem to be concentrating on this point simply because I acknowledge we don't have the data to make a definitive conclusion. However, you seem less inclined to deal with the substantive point of whether the WRC will actually add much to the mix. A flat assertion that you are 'convinced' doesn't address, for example, WOT's contention that outpatients will use the service to take them to hospitals that aren't on the route.

MG wrote:

I’m in favour of developing some alternative centres of development to Dublin too – that’s why I’m in favour of providing those centres with rail links.

Does this mean that recognising the reality that Dublin Airport is operating beyond its capacity and Shannon isn't constitutes Dublin bias? I'm still not clear on your mindset.

MG wrote:

You are making excessive claims about the case against the WRC as evidenced by your €8 per hour claim above. .

I've already said that the €8 charge can't be proved one way or the other. You might note I used a figure of €7.5 when doing my own calculations - so I think you can appreciate that I think I'm being generous to them. In any case, you seem fixated by the €8 charge.

Is the fact that the WRC will only potentially be of use to a fraction of Galway traffic and excessive claim ?

Is the fact that the figure of 55,000 students headlined by WOT is totally irrelevant to the WRC an excessive claim?

Is pointing out that WOT seriously suggest that the WRC is of use to people whose destination is not on the route an excessive claim?