Sir, – After John FitzGerald’s recent proud assertion that he is a train enthusiast (“The draft rail strategy is fun but most of it is fantasy”, Economics, Opinion, August 18th), while decrying any significant rail expansion, we have another self-confessed rail fan also calling for the recently published Strategic Rail Review to be largely ignored (Michael McDowell, “Nostalgic fantasies about rail travel won’t change reality. What we need are roads”, Opinion & Analysis, August 23rd).
The vast majority of rail enthusiasts in Ireland are also rail advocates, and who see the recent rail review as the first indication in the 101-year life of our new State that, at last, the retrenchment and decline of our national rail system will start to be reversed.
Carbon emissions of rail, both passenger and freight, are 10 per cent those of road transport, and climate change alone will ensure that we are indeed on the cusp of a new golden age of rail in Ireland, simply mirroring a worldwide pro-rail trend! – Yours, etc,
JIM DEEGAN,
From Blair and Clinton to civil servants in the shadows, archive papers reveal scale of peace push
JFK’s four days in Ireland among happiest of his life, his father told De Valera
‘Buying the bank seemed daring’: how one couple transformed a rural bank branch into a home and business
Megan Nolan: A conversation with a man in his late 30s made clear the realities of this new era in my dating life
(former board member
National Transport
Authority),
Dublin 1.
Sir, – I agree with much of Michael McDowell’s article. However, in posing seven specific questions, he is implicitly inferring that there is an absence of a selection, appraisal, and decision-making process for public expenditure projects. Not so. There is a comprehensive public spending code that contains rules and procedures that are required to be upheld across the Irish public service. Of course, the code of itself is not a panacea. There is a responsibility on Government departments and State bodies to apply the code in rolling out public expenditure. There is also a necessity to have regular reports published to demonstrate that the code is being fully implemented. Only in this way can Irish taxpayers be assured that they are getting value for money from public expenditure. – Yours, etc,
TOM FERRIS,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Lauding the draft rail strategy, Anthony Gray (Letters, August 22nd) compares Ireland unfavourably with Denmark and Norway.
As a rail enthusiast myself, I believe it’s important to be realistic about what can be achieved and what makes sense in the Irish context. Denmark has an area of about 43,000sq km compared to our 70,000sq km and Denmark has a population 20 per cent bigger. So their population density is far higher than ours. They also didn’t endure close to 70 years of consistent emigration that removed much of the population needed to sustain the rail network outside the larger inter-urban routes. Denmark’s main rail spine from Copenhagen to Flensburg connects into the wider European rail network, something our network cannot do. As for how oil-rich Norway is able to afford its extensive rail network covering an area over four times that of Ireland’s, I’ll leave that to your readers to work out.
Mr Gray also laments the presence of the Dart on the main Dublin to Belfast line but then ignores the fact that to provide additional wholly separate commuter lines into the city will require extensive land acquisition and demolition of high-value residential housing in the city.
We need to significantly improve what we have, based on what we have, and not pretend we can start from somewhere else and spend money without regard to the actual benefit to society. – Yours, etc,
DANIEL K SULLIVAN,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – John FitzGerald makes a number of interesting observations. He notes the need to address sustainability aspects of dispersed development, which probably does not get the attention it deserves. He alludes to the delay in carrying out schemes and recommends that projects “on the stocks” for years should actually be brought to fruition. He is being kind here as there has been apparent paralysis affecting our decision-making relating to infrastructure. The most extreme example is the Dart Underground idea which was put forward over 50 years ago and although approved in 2011 is now pushed out to 2042. Is the announcement of a new team to deliver Metrolink (Business, August 21st) a sign of actual change? The most interesting point that John FitzGerald raises concerns the projected decarbonisation of the electricity system by 2040. He notes that at that point most road transport would be using clean electricity. He concludes that “it won’t matter by then whether people travel by road or rail”. If that is correct, then if road and rail transport were more or less emission-free the argument for more road investment and the completion of the motorway network looks easier to justify. – Yours, etc,
DANIEL O’CONNOR,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Michael McDowell writes that development of the railway network is a “nostalgic fantasy”, and that continued investment in roads, including motorways, is a more “realistic” mobility option, given Ireland’s rapidly expanding population and the need for balanced regional development.
I respectfully suggest that in the context of the climate and ecological crises we face, the opposite is true – the idea that we have sufficient carbon budget to continue building motorways, and to base our mobility primarily on private motor vehicles (even if powered by electricity), is itself a nostalgic fantasy based on late-20th century energy and material-use assumptions. The population expansion Michael McDowell cites must be accommodated in non-car-dependent communities organised primarily around low-carbon transit options. The Welsh government recently cancelled all major road building projects. This represents the ecological realism that we urgently need to adopt. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN WALL,
Dublin 8.