The Holy Gospel of Sean Barrett according to the Village

[Ronald Binge]

Today's Village has an article by Emma Browne that repeats uncritically Sean Barrett's ESRI report on Transport21, especially the red herring about the failure of AerDart in comparison to Aircoach.

Perhaps it is timely to remind the general public of how we would be if the railway had been fully scrapped as advocated by Dr. Barrett and others in the Doheny and Nesbitt School of economics in the 1980s.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Oooh, must have a look at this Lunchtime...........

[Nigel Fitzgricer]

It is like Barrett has been asleep for the last 20 years and failed to notice the huge growth in commuter rail ridership.

Either that, or we are dealing with some form of economic dogma he is defending to then end. Which having watched the documentary on Enron last night, these 'free market at all costs' economists are prone to getting whipped up into now and again. But like so many of these guys they are loaded with all kinds of contradictions. Didn't he give his support to the Western Rail Corridor at the launch of Transport 21? while slagging off all the other Dublin-based rail projects in T21?

The thing is, in many ways Sean Barrett is correct about semi-states like CIE will never provide first class public transport. The problem is he always comes to the wrong conclusion - that if CIE RAIL TRANSPORT = BAD, then ALL RAIL PUBLIC TRANSPORT = BAD.

In many ways Sean Barrett is a classic 'Litter Irelander' just like Dev was. He makes the assumption that CIE is the last word on rail public transport provision, but fails to notice that this stuff works very well in much of the rest of the world. It would be like he had a problem with the ESB and his solution would be we all go back to using candles to light our homes rather than look to other countries were public electricity supply work well.

Vince Browne is also not a big fan of public transport either. He was very critical of the Luas during construction. Kept repreating the Barrett mantra that a bus would be just as good. Even though if these people did their research they would find that rapid bus transit has failed to make a major impact with the travelling public when benchmarked against light or heavy rail commuter projects.

http://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-09a.htm

The bottom line is, as long as we have public transport in this country controlled by arrogant semi-state politically-appointed managers, and which is operated and financed mainly for the benefit of trade unions, then there is always going to be Sean Barett's waging their crusade against it. It's much too easy a target and the victim will always be the rail transport user and advocate.

This is why educating the public on the benefits/success of rail transport in Ireland, while presenting best practice examples to emulate from around the world is the only effective way to combat the half-baked mutterings of the likes of Barrett. Until recently, most of the disagreement against Barrett tended to be "CIE are amazing, no really!" usually written by some retired CIE engineer trying frantically to stay at room tempeture in the IRRS library. I personally have little time for CIE, but even less for Sean Barrett.

I would have to say that the biggest issue with the Village article is just how lazy Irish journalist are when it comes to reporting on public transport - especially rail. Sean Barrett's name has be floating around for years on the subject so they assume he is the only one worth calling for a soundbite. Name one other source from the 1970's that is called up by Irish journalists as the current voice on the subject in 2007. You can't.

But it is also worth bearing in mind that the guy is a failure his entire life when he came to trying to kill off rail transport. For all the work and energy he has put into trying to kill off rail, Sean Barett has achieved nothing, because to most people other than right wing economists and ignorant journalists he is talking a lot of crap and the evidence to support this is there for all to see on the crowded rail platforms every rush hour.

The biggest counter-argument against 'The Holy Gospel Accroding to Barrett' is the tens of thousands of Irish commuters who ignore his dogma and use DART, Luas and Commuter Rail to get to work each morning as well as the many thousands of others who wished they could take a rail service to work and who do not currently have one.

[Mark Gleeson]

Strange isn't it that Dr Barrett will be travelling home tonight by rail, well?

IE have shown a consistent improvement in the operating ratio in recent years, revenue is growing much faster than costs.

Its still playing catch up

[Colm Donoghue]

Originally Posted by Nigel Fitzgricer

The biggest counter-argument against 'The Holy Gospel Accroding to Barrett' is the tens of thousands of Irish commuters who ignore his dogma and use DART, Luas and Commuter Rail to get to work each morning as well as the many thousands of others who wished they could take a rail service to work and who do not currently have one.

Or the fact he gets the dart himself when he could easily get a bus

the auld "DAISNAID"

[Mark Gleeson]

Well think its Maynooth line actually

[Colm Moore]

Originally Posted by Nigel Fitzgricer

http://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-09a.htm

BTI claims that "BRT" buses will produce fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than electric light rail transit (LRT). To do this, they exaggerate the relative ridership of "BRT" vs. LRT, and they compare compressed natural gas (CNG) and hybrid diesel-electric propulsion with coal-fired electric power. However, I detect some problems with their contentions.

Comparing CNG to coal isn't "fair" as coal (a) has a poor CO2 / energy rating (b) has a higher sulphur rating - sulphur has a much higher greenhouse gas effect. The article goes on to state much LRT electricity comes from cleaner energy sources.