Re: Re: The destruction of St. Stephen’s Green
Why should it have to break even in operational terms? Almost no public transport in the entire world covers its operational costs. The DART doesn’t, .
The Dart did make a profit operationally until an election promise of extending Dart to Greystones was implemented post 1996
the London Underground doesn’t,
Excluding fleet replacement for rolling stock built pre 1960 LUL turns a profit; the wider TfL loses money however most of that is due to running buses in Greying suburbs reminiscant of most of the proposed route for metro.
and the New York Subway doesn’t come within an asses roar of covering even half its operating costs.
Funny that a google search for New York Subway subvention or operating subsidy doesn’t reveal a figure beyond the overall ‘mass transit subsidy’ of $770m p.a.
That is a total subvention of $38.50 per citizen per year for all forms of transit combined; on that basis to extrapolate these figures the total subsidy in New York for commuter rail, subway and bus totals $38.5m total assuming a population of 1m people i.e. Dublin / North Kildare / South Meath North Wickla.
You point to build it and they will ocme at a time when global purchasing managers indexes are averaging 35 or a 30% decline in year on year output. The financing costs on this project at government bond rates would be €200m per year assuming that it even broke even.
You propose a subvention of 5.19 times the overall subvention per citizen in New York for all transit networks inluding subway, commuter rail and bus just to build a single line.
If that’s what passes for viability I’m glad I pay my tax elsewhere