Article: Planned Dublin metro line to cost more than €5bn

Slice · 08-08-2007 7:02pm

MarkoP11 - is the IE Northern Line option to the airport still available, and if so for how much?

in whispered tone: Shhh! P11 aren't in favour of that anymore!

MarkoP11 · 08-08-2007 7:06pm

London underground is not a good example, its a PPP (well 3 actually) to rebuild a system which is falling apart which actually very little is known about its actual condition, so it was a almost blind bidding process. And of course there have been some serious surprises which have jacked costs up.

Normal PPP is greenfield, government contracts a consortia to build it and the availability payment is set there and then and is only paid once its up and running once the PPP ends typically 20-30 years it reverts to the state

So the private sector is motivated to deliver as fast as possible since they start to get paid then and also to keep costs down while meeting spec since then the make more cash since the interest bill is lower. Upside is the risk is offloaded to the private sector and thus doesn't hit the state coffers, 2 billion is a lot of cash to have around

Few interesting points
1. CBA whatever, the Metro will make a significant operating profit similar to the Luas
2. Cork suburban rail will carry 8 million and do so at a operating profit

Grange Rd to Airport may be off the agenda as the land might have been taken out of the dev plan. Its not being developed any more in light of the metro, if metro gets pulled it will be back. And it does cover its costs of course there now is the Metro east on the table as well so the North Fringe

Slice take a break enough of the cheap shots, at least Platform 11 actually made a difference in metro north, a difference for the passenger

monument · 08-08-2007 8:24pm

Metro North would only make sound economic sense if it continued southwards from St Stephen's Green to Ranelagh, Sandyford, Cherrywood and Bray - in effect, supplanting the Luas Green Line.

So, has the RPA looked at this in any meaningful way?

Victor · 09-08-2007 12:36am

monument wrote:

So, has the RPA looked at this in any meaningful way?

I imagine the aswer is most certainly "yes". However, somewhere there are shenanigans stopping it coming forward.

It makes a lot more sense to connect them up than not connect them up. Interconnection, simplicity of journey, duplication of infrastructure, cost, disruption and common sense all say continue southside.

popebenny16 · 09-08-2007 10:12am

Slice wrote:

in whispered tone: Shhh! P11 aren't in favour of that anymore!

No, you're mixing up the concepts of "aren't in favour" with "it's not going to happen, lets make the best of the alternative" which as Marko points out is what we have helped to do. Cant recall your glorious contribution.

I presume that you would like to join us in laying down across the Metro Tracks to prevent works being undertaken?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

steve-o · 09-08-2007 12:12pm

Victor wrote:

I imagine the aswer is most certainly "yes". However, somewhere there are shenanigans stopping it coming forward.

It makes a lot more sense to connect them up than not connect them up. Interconnection, simplicity of journey, duplication of infrastructure, cost, disruption and common sense all say continue southside.

It would be a big challenge to find a place along the green line to dig the tunnel entrance and keep the Luas operational during construction. The route and design of the Cherrywood extension isn't very Metro friendly either.

Extending Metro North in a south-west direction towards Rathmines, Harold's Cross and Tempelogue has been mooted before. Has it ever been given serious consideration? I wonder if there any areas in that direction that can be targeted for high density development around potential stations.

Transport21 Fan · 09-08-2007 12:38pm

McSpud wrote:

Iarnroid Eireann could just extend the Dart & Arrow services but then how could the RPA justify their jobs with nothing to manage?

:rolleyes:

Have a chat with any of the former staff who worked for CIE and left to join the RPA.

Everything out of CIE these days is all...Broadstone...Broadstone...Broadstone...

This bothers me.

If you were an ambitious engineer and you had a choice between reopening Broadstone and Sixmilebridge, or ordering parts for a real Metro - which option would you chose?

Metrobest Knows Best.

Transport21 Fan · 09-08-2007 1:17pm

popebenny16 wrote:

Cant recall your glorious contribution.

I have it on good grounds that he took a photo of a weed spray train in south Wexford and uploaded it to IRN.

Prof_V · 09-08-2007 5:28pm

steve-o wrote:

It would be a big challenge to find a place along the green line to dig the tunnel entrance and keep the Luas operational during construction.

Alexandra College is probably the only halfway sensible location. This does, of course, mean about 3km of extra tunnel with limited potential for intermediate traffic (as it's close to the existing Green Line), so I don't think it makes sense until the Green Line gets so busy it has to be done.

The route and design of the Cherrywood extension isn't very Metro friendly either.

There's always the option of operating a Metro service to Sandyford only, sharing tracks between the portal and Sandyford with Luas services to the south end of the line.

Extending Metro North in a south-west direction towards Rathmines, Harold's Cross and Tempelogue has been mooted before. Has it ever been given serious consideration?

There's apparently a commitment to a feasibility study in T21 (insofar as anything is "in" or "out" of T21...).

I wonder if there any areas in that direction that can be targeted for high density development around potential stations.

Well, the industrial areas near the KCR. Also Cathal Brugha Barracks, if the Army decided it didn't need it, though I'd say a fair chunk of that would have to go over to open space because Rathmines is so badly served in that respect. The line would support densification in the centre of Tallaght, though this is already planned.

Transport21 Fan · 09-08-2007 5:38pm

Prof_V wrote:

There's always the option of operating a Metro service to Sandyford only, sharing tracks between the portal and Sandyford with Luas services to the south end of the line.

I was told this is the long-term plan anyways. They want MetroNorth to eventually run from Donabate to Sandyford, but we are talking about 2020.

dowlingm · 09-08-2007 5:40pm

Terminating metronorth at St Stephen's Green will be seen in the future I think as a similar mistake to terminating Green Luas there and not O'Connell St.

If Metronorth continues into Rathgar, Terenure, Templeogue it relieves the strain on the inner sectors of Green Luas and reduces congestion in a very narrow road corridor from Tallaght into the city centre.

It would be expensive, no question, but a lot of the costs of metronorth are probably startup costs (vehicle depot, setting up training and procedures, control centre) which would not only benefit metrowest but any extensions of metronorth. The TBM is already in the ground so it's a question of pushing it on and dealing with the spoil (and the canal). From the Spawell roundabout on (emergence portal?) it might be able to run overground in the N81 median if there was a case to keep going and link to metrowest and a shared southern depot and the M50 was not a showstopper.

Therefore you are left with the additional stations, tunnelling and vehicles and staff to support it. But at least this would then be in addition to rather than instead of Green Line which would stay LUAS and integrated to the forthcoming BX and D alignments to Liffey Junction.

Transport21 Fan · 09-08-2007 5:56pm

Yes indeed, and it's amazing how so many people are forgetting that a lot of the price tag of MetroNorth (and Luas for that matter) are capital start-up costs hence why the Interconnector was costed so much cheaper. CIE already had most of the kit.

Victor · 10-08-2007 3:54am

steve-o wrote:

It would be a big challenge to find a place along the green line to dig the tunnel entrance and keep the Luas operational during construction. The route and design of the Cherrywood extension isn't very Metro friendly either.

There are numerous sites - Iveagh Gardens/Adelaide Road, the old John Player site, Alexandra College.

Extending Metro North in a south-west direction towards Rathmines, Harold's Cross and Tempelogue has been mooted before. Has it ever been given serious consideration? I wonder if there any areas in that direction that can be targeted for high density development around potential stations.

There a whole load of squares in and around Rathmines that could be used - not without cost, but cheaper than St. Stephen's Green.

dowlingm wrote:

The TBM is already in the ground so it's a question of pushing it on and dealing with the spoil (and the canal).

Canals are easy - during construction you drain them and put in a small diameter pipe to handle the flow.

markpb · 10-08-2007 10:25am

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but instead of replacing the Luas Green line with a metro, why not just connect Metro North with the Green line so the trams can run from Swords to Sandyford (and beyond)? It would seem to be much cheaper and simpler.

It also allows the TBMs to be directed somewhere else, perhaps driving the metro south west instead of south. Surely we're better off achieving better coverage than replacing or upgrading an existing tram line?

dowlingm · 10-08-2007 2:14pm

markpb - they want to run metro trains up to every 90 seconds. For that to work an interlining junction at StSG between Green Line and a putative MetroSouthWest would be next to impossible I think. They couldn't make that work here in Toronto on 3 minute headways during a recent maintenance procedure without it going @rse over teakettle a few times.

Prof_V · 10-08-2007 5:49pm

Victor wrote:

There are numerous sites - Iveagh Gardens/Adelaide Road,

Which only works if the line crosses Adelaide Road on the level; that means Metro running in mixed traffic on Peter Place, too. Go under Adelaide Road and you've nowhere to put the ramp to surface level without ripping the Green Line out of Peter Place. Go over Adelaide Road (fending off the aesthetic lobby) and you get a lot of land take in the Iveagh Gardens, plus, at any workable gradient, the line will be dangerously shallow under the buildings on the south side of the Green.

the old John Player site,

Where is this? The only John Player site I know is the factory on the South Circular near the National Stadium, which certainly isn't on the Green Line. Is this the Carroll's site on the canal? The portal in the 1998 Atkins study was around here, and it would work perfectly well for a greenfield scheme. Unfortunately, you have to work around the Green Line. If you want to avoid prolonged closure of the Luas line and minimise demolition, you have to get to Luas track level north of Dartmouth Road, but the space available for the ramp would force you to cross the canal at street level:( . With a bit of demolition, you could get to Northbrook Road, which still doesn't give enough depth, especially with the sewer tunnel below Grand Parade. Basically I think there's no way of making this site work without extended Luas closure or extensive demolition.

Alexandra College.

Possibly the only workable location.

There a whole load of squares in and around Rathmines that could be used - not without cost, but cheaper than St. Stephen's Green.

Presumably you mean as tunnelling worksites, rather than for high-density development:) .

Canals are easy - during construction you drain them and put in a small diameter pipe to handle the flow.

I doubt a bored tunnel would even need that in ordinary circumstances, and the tunnel would almost certainly be bored at that point. (You could try cut-and-cover under the canal as a solution to the Northbrook Road problem, but the need to go over the sewer tunnel might make that unworkable, and anyway you'd need to extend the cut-and-cover a bit north of the canal, which doesn't seem possible without large-scale demolition, or just (im)possibly, tearing up Harcourt Terrace.)

antoinolachtnai · 10-08-2007 6:05pm

Prof_V wrote:

Where is this? The only John Player site I know is the factory on the South Circular near the National Stadium, which certainly isn't on the Green Line. Is this the Carroll's site on the canal? The portal in the 1998 Atkins study was around here, and it would work perfectly well for a greenfield scheme. Unfortunately, you have to work around the Green Line. If you want to avoid prolonged closure of the Luas line and minimise demolition, you have to get to Luas track level north of Dartmouth Road, but the space available for the ramp would force you to cross the canal at street level:( . With a bit of demolition, you could get to Northbrook Road, which still doesn't give enough depth, especially with the sewer tunnel below Grand Parade. Basically I think there's no way of making this site work without extended Luas closure or extensive demolition.

No, this can be done, without too much damage. You would have to take out a row of modern houses, but it is very feasible. The RPA would get all of what it would spend on real estate back when it sold off the site at the end of the tunneling project.

The RPA has never canvassed the owners of this property. If they want to do this, they'd better get a move on, because there is planning permission applied for to knock down at least one of these of these houses and construct a taller building.

Irish and Proud · 10-08-2007 9:44pm

That's Enough!!! Now, what else can we do with €5bn?

Let's forget about the metro for now and decide what we can realistically achieve with the €5bn.

1) INTERCONNECTOR!!! €3bn

Key part of major DART rail upgrade which will allow a fourfold increase in passenger capacity in Dublin (25m to 100m) by eliminating crossover and single point conflicts.

2) Two DART lines replacing the current line:

DART 1 - Bray/Greystones, via Loop Line, to M3(P+R)/Maynooth
DART 2 - Hazelhatch, via Interconnector, to Balbriggan/Howth

These lines (which are currently planned) will implement the increase in passenger capacity, as well as creating a much larger catchment area for the DART network.

3) Feasibility Study for DART 3: Tallaght, via Citywest, Interconnector and Grange (Northern DART Line needs to be upgraded anyway), to Airport and possibly Swords.

This third line would make good use of the Interconnector by linking the Airport to the city’s two mainline stations: Heuston and Connolly. Also, most additional sections required would be overground in relatively open terrain, so construction would be cheaper. Again, the DART catchment would be greatly expanded.

4) 3/4 tracking on sections of the Northern, Western and South Eastern Commuter Lines:) - Express commuter trains might have a purpose then! :rolleyes:

Oh no! Please don’t tell me that the SE DART line can’t be expanded

- I travel it every day and see room for 3 tracking between Booterstown and Dun Laoghaire - OK some land reclamation, road undercutting at Monkstown, a couple of demolitions, a short one track tunnel section in Dun Laoghaire, and station modifications would be required, but could be done if the political will was there. Station modifications could typically consist of switching southbound platforms from land facing to sea facing towards a new southbound track alignment - existing southbound track would become a bi directional express line with platforms at Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire stations.

A major headache regarding rail capacity is the lack of passing loops for trains running at different speeds. Passing could be accommodated by either creating multi-track sections such as the Kildare Route Project, or providing more platforms at key stations where for example, DART trains would allow connections to, and priority for, commuter trains.

With the above done, we could have a major economic boom in Dublin which could generate well enough dosh for a proper metro with proper escalator and interchange provisions in the future.

Now, about the LUAS…..

dowlingm · 10-08-2007 10:22pm

Irish and Proud - Interconnector is separately funded from metro. It's not either /or.

To me, we need the extra line that extending metronorth to Tallaght would provide rather than expensively connecting and somewhat upgrading Green LUAS to Metro, since we are now years behind where we are supposed to be. Let's face it, given the land acquisition and tunnelling you'd probably be at Harold's Cross for the same money as connecting to Green LUAS and then you're left with a somewhat useless Line BX tail.

gjim · 11-08-2007 12:08am

It's time for everyone to let go the fanciful notion that the Green Luas will be upgraded to metro. This idea/lie was created to cover Mary O'Rourke's damaging meddling with the original plan for a cross shaped tram system (extending north to the airport). Because she was too weak to politically support the orginal plan (against some city centre retailer NIMBYs) or too pig-headed to resist meddling with it, the tracks south of the canal were laid with and extra 100cm or so between them and this this was trumpeted as "future proofing" for the "inevitable" upgrade to metro. This was supposedly the public's compensation for living with a disconnected tram system in the short term.

It's simply not going to happen. The disruption would be too great and the benefits minimal. The future for this Luas line is to continue as a tram line North to Liffey junction and hopefully at some stage beyond it.

Metro North should extend to Tallaght or at least the TBM should continue south in the direction of Tallaght even if they don't have the money to lay the tracks and build the stations and so forth.

monument · 11-08-2007 12:35am

gjim wrote:

It's simply not going to happen.

Will I pass your message on to the government and all future governments?

gjim wrote:

The disruption would be too great and the benefits minimal.

Exactly what part of the disruption would be too great?

Any you're trying to claim upgrading the green line to a metro like standard and having one long line is of "minimal" benefit?

gjim · 11-08-2007 1:35pm

monument wrote:

Will I pass your message on to the government and all future governments?

Sure, why not, it wont make any difference. I'm not arguing about the merits fo the idea, I'm interpreting the intentions of the RPA.

Like I said, the original plan consisted of a cross shaped tram system which Mary O'Rourke butchered with a b*llsh*t last minute revision which promised that the middle section would be put underdround at a portal along Stephen's Green re-emerging at Broadstone. The RPA, being keen as hell to get going with anything at all, went along with her capricious meddling but quickly dropped it once they got going.

The RPA's subsequent actions have demonstrated no interest in this idea and show that they were simply playing the cute politcal game, pandering to O'Rourke's massive ego. They're extending the Green line north as a tram as originally planned and extending it south in an unmetrofiable way. Only 8 of the 13 stages of the existing line would be part of such a metro anyway. There is no masterplan for a Sandyford to Airport metro behind the RPA's actions - it wasn't even costed as an option for the Airport metro even when the remit was widened to include Swords. Their original proposal didn't even have the Airport metro terminate anywhere near the green line; they had to be pressured to bring it to Stephen's Green.

If the RPA have no interest in metrofying the Green Luas, the government isn't going to push for it and the fact that it would render about 5km of tram line (between Cowper and Parnell St) almost redundant would cause uproar. When you add the engineering difficulties of bringing tunnels to the surface around leafy Cowper, I'd be surprised if this plan is seriously entertained before we're all dead.

Prof_V · 11-08-2007 2:46pm

gjim wrote:

Like I said, the original plan consisted of a cross shaped tram system which Mary O'Rourke butchered with a b*llsh*t last minute revision which promised that the middle section would be put underdround at a portal along Stephen's Green re-emerging at Broadstone. The RPA, being keen as hell to get going with anything at all, went along with her capricious meddling but quickly dropped it once they got going.

The RPA didn't exist when O'Rourke made her decision, or for about three-and-a-half years afterwards; it was the Light Rail Project Office of CIÉ at that time, not that the extremists on either side of the RPA-CIÉ debate (and I'm not including you in that number) would acknowledge it. The plan was dropped by the DTO two years later (inA Platform for Change).

There is no masterplan for a Sandyford to Airport metro behind the RPA's actions - it wasn't even costed as an option for the Airport metro even when the remit was widened to include Swords.

My understanding is that there was no official choice of first phase until mid-2002 or thereabouts; until then, the whole DTO network (what are now Metro North and Metro West, albeit with differences of routing, plus the Harcourt Street line and the Tallaght-city centre line, along with the Citywest spur) had effectively equal status, though city centre-airport was considered the leading candidate; O'Rourke had rejected the idea of making the Sandyford line the first phase because it would delay the route's opening. (In retrospect, a lot of the trouble around the Green Line, and to some extent Metro, seems to stem from this; however, I'm sure the Government would have been excoriated here and elsewhere for holding up the Sandyford line had the decision gone the other way.)

The initial choice for a first phase was actually, as far as I can tell, Airport-Shanganagh (Frank McDonald's article is reasonably accurate on this, though not on the applicability of the 2002 figures to the current project). Seamus Brennan advised the RPA to concentrate on the city centre-airport section because it was cheaper; Swords eventually got added to this, mainly at the behest of Fingal County Council.

Their original proposal didn't even have the Airport metro terminate anywhere near the green line; they had to be pressured to bring it to Stephen's Green.

No, the version that terminated at O'Connell Street was short-lived and came at a fairly advanced stage (2005, I think), after the idea of bringing the Green Line across the river had been adopted in outline. Whatever the other pros and cons of this version, it wouldn't have broken the link with the Green Line; it would just have moved the interchange.

The RPA did, however, apparently have to be pressured to include Swords in the first phase (see above). Also, there was a suggestion in the very early stages (pre-RPA), when what's now Metro North was to go to the airport via Broadstone and Finglas, to open the mainly overground section north of Broadstone before the rest; however, I don't think terminating the whole first phase at Broadstone was proposed.

If the RPA have no interest in metrofying the Green Luas, the government isn't going to push for it and the fact that it would render about 5km of tram line (between Cowper and Parnell St) almost redundant would cause uproar. When you add the engineering difficulties of bringing tunnels to the surface around leafy Cowper, I'd be surprised if this plan is seriously entertained before we're all dead.

Possibly. However, there is always the alternative of running a mixed Luas/Metro service (which would also address the problem that the demand south of Sandyford is a bit low for Metro). Personally, I don't think it should be implemented purely to give Metro somewhere to go, but rather if and when capacity considerations require it.

BrianD · 11-08-2007 2:56pm

gjim wrote:

Sure, why not, it wont make any difference. I'm not arguing about the merits fo the idea, I'm interpreting the intentions of the RPA.

Like I said, the original plan consisted of a cross shaped tram system which Mary O'Rourke butchered with a b*llsh*t last minute revision which promised that the middle section would be put underdround at a portal along Stephen's Green re-emerging at Broadstone. The RPA, being keen as hell to get going with anything at all, went along with her capricious meddling but quickly dropped it once they got going.

The RPA's subsequent actions have demonstrated no interest in this idea and show that they were simply playing the cute politcal game, pandering to O'Rourke's massive ego. They're extending the Green line north as a tram as originally planned and extending it south in an unmetrofiable way. Only 8 of the 13 stages of the existing line would be part of such a metro anyway. There is no masterplan for a Sandyford to Airport metro behind the RPA's actions - it wasn't even costed as an option for the Airport metro even when the remit was widened to include Swords. Their original proposal didn't even have the Airport metro terminate anywhere near the green line; they had to be pressured to bring it to Stephen's Green.

If the RPA have no interest in metrofying the Green Luas, the government isn't going to push for it and the fact that it would render about 5km of tram line (between Cowper and Parnell St) almost redundant would cause uproar. When you add the engineering difficulties of bringing tunnels to the surface around leafy Cowper, I'd be surprised if this plan is seriously entertained before we're all dead.

Hear hear. Couldn't have put it better myself.

The current plans for Dublin concern me. We need to have a body that will co-ordinate both the RPA and IR. I believe that Irish Rails plans are positive. The RPA's seem to be self serving.

I can not understand that why for relatively modest investment the upgrade of all Irish Rail operated lines is not proceeding. The DART/Arrow is our Metro so let's get on with expanding the service on all lines. By all means invite third parties to do the upgrades and tender out the operation of the services if necessary.

Luas should be used to fill in the gaps between the Dart lines. It's ideal for this.

it's not ideal nor is it good that light rail be extended to Bray or Donabate. They already have heavy rail services. Why the duplication?

Why is the RPA allowed to call the Metro a Metro when it is actually a Luas? the metro will use trams similar to the existing lines. The stations will be same etc. The only difference will be that they will be completely grade separated (we hope).

it's time for the RPA to state that the Green line will never be a metro line without the complete closure and rebuild of the existing line. State that both Metro North (LuasNorth) and the Green line will terminate in Stephens Green.

Slice · 12-08-2007 12:06pm

Terminating metronorth at St Stephen's Green will be seen in the future I think as a similar mistake to terminating Green Luas there and not O'Connell St.

I agree, but whereas there were plenty who came out against two unconnected tram lines with Luas, everyone appears broadly in favour of Metro North inspite of this fact.

Prof_V · 12-08-2007 1:47pm

Slice wrote:

I agree, but whereas there were plenty who came out against two unconnected tram lines with Luas, everyone appears broadly in favour of Metro North inspite of this fact.

True, but I don't think any significant number of those criticising the unconnected lines were anything other than "broadly in favour of" Luas. The people who were dead set against it had been so from the start of the project, though the unconnected lines were grist to their mill. Also, the Metro North case isn't quite as bad; we're not getting two unconnected Metro lines, and no opportunities for interchange with other rail lines are being missed by not going south of the Green. (If anything, the lack of an interchange on the Maynooth line, now rectified, was worse, but it seemed to be overlooked by people outside the transport world.)

Victor · 12-08-2007 10:21pm

Irish and Proud wrote:

Let's forget about the metro for now and decide what we can realistically achieve with the €5bn.

1) INTERCONNECTOR!!! €3bn

Guesstimating:

Metro = 30 years x €166m/year = €5bn

Interconnector = 4 years x €750m/year + 30 years x €25m/year = €3.75bn

Not that much difference (note Interconnector is smaller project).

Operating | Yearly | Cumulative | Yearly | Cumulative
year | Payment | Payments | Payment | Payments
| millions | millions | millions | millions
-3 | €750 | €750 | | €-
-2 | €750 | €1,500 | | €-
-1 | €750 | €2,250 | | €-
0 | €750 | €3,000 | | €-
1 | €25 | €3,025 | €167 | €167
2 | €25 | €3,050 | €167 | €334
3 | €25 | €3,075 | €167 | €501
4 | €25 | €3,100 | €167 | €668
5 | €25 | €3,125 | €167 | €835
6 | €25 | €3,150 | €167 | €1,002
7 | €25 | €3,175 | €167 | €1,169
8 | €25 | €3,200 | €167 | €1,336
9 | €25 | €3,225 | €167 | €1,503
10 | €25 | €3,250 | €167 | €1,670
11 | €25 | €3,275 | €167 | €1,837
12 | €25 | €3,300 | €167 | €2,004
13 | €25 | €3,325 | €167 | €2,171
14 | €25 | €3,350 | €167 | €2,338
15 | €25 | €3,375 | €167 | €2,505
16 | €25 | €3,400 | €167 | €2,672
17 | €25 | €3,425 | €167 | €2,839
18 | €25 | €3,450 | €167 | €3,006
19 | €25 | €3,475 | €167 | €3,173
20 | €25 | €3,500 | €167 | €3,340
21 | €25 | €3,525 | €167 | €3,507
22 | €25 | €3,550 | €167 | €3,674
23 | €25 | €3,575 | €167 | €3,841
24 | €25 | €3,600 | €167 | €4,008
25 | €25 | €3,625 | €167 | €4,175
26 | €25 | €3,650 | €167 | €4,342
27 | €25 | €3,675 | €167 | €4,509
28 | €25 | €3,700 | €167 | €4,676
29 | €25 | €3,725 | €167 | €4,843
30 | €25 | €3,750 | €167 | €5,010
Total | €3,750 | €3,750 | €5,010 | €5,010

MarkoP11 · 12-08-2007 10:25pm

Victor wrote:

Guesstimating:

Metro = 30 years x €166m/year = €5bn

Interconnector = 4 years x €750m/year + 30 years x €25m/year = €3.75bn

Not that much difference (note Interconnector is smaller project).

Interconnector tunnel is upwards of 1.3 billion at 2004 prices

The whole project at 2004 prices comes to something like this

Upgrades and Improvements to the existing network €700 million
Clonsilla Dunboyne €156million
Dunboyne Nanvan €300million
The Interconnector Tunnel between Heuston and Spencer Dock €1.3 billion
Other Works including Electrification Hazelhatch/Maynooth/Pace/Drogheda Dublin €300 million
Additional Rolling Stock €700 million
Total Cost 3.5 billion

gjim · 13-08-2007 10:52am

Victor wrote:

Metro = 30 years x €166m/year = €5bn

Interconnector = 4 years x €750m/year + 30 years x €25m/year = €3.75bn

You can't do financial comparisons like that using nominal values; you have to compare like with like - i.e. using present values or future values. The error over a short period is small, over 30 years it's massive. Discounted at say 5%, those cashflows are worth €3,124m for the Interconnector and €2,218m for the metro in terms of present value. However, I very much doubt that your estimates of the cashflows are correct. The cost of finance in most PPP schemes is quite high (10% at least) usually justified in this country by pretending that they're quite risky.

strassenwolf · 13-08-2007 7:15pm

Saturday's Irish Times wrote:

Madam, - Frank McDonald's piece in last Tuesday's edition on Dublin's future transport options comes at a good time. Clearly there is a need for more public transport in the greater Dublin area, but when the economy is showing signs of slowing down somewhat it is time to look at what delivers most at least cost.

Mr McDonald examines two major projects that are planned under Transport 21. One is a new, mainly underground train line from Swords to St Stephen's Green. This is the 17km Metro North. The other is a 5.2km underground line linking the current Dart line just north of Connolly Station to the Kildare commuter line at Heuston Station. This is Dart Underground. Both will have two tracks and will have about the same capacity. The Metro will serve the growing town of Swords, the airport, Ballymun, and the older suburbs of Glasnevin and Drumcondra. The Dart, by going underground before Connolly Station, will allow more than double the number of trains to come into the city centre. These will serve the fast-growing towns of Fingal, Kildare and Meath, including new towns such as Adamstown and Ongar.

Both projects were costed more than four years ago, Metro North at €4.58 billion and the Dart Underground at €1.3 billion. There are complications with the costs. The Metro North project was scaled down prior to this figure and did not include estimates for stations included since then, and for the underground section to be extended beyond Ballymun. The Dart Underground project is intended to create two Dart lines, one from Balbriggan to Hazelhatch and the other from Maynooth to Bray/Graystones. The electrification of these sections was costed at €0.3 billion by Iarnród Éireann in 2003. The Metro North Project is due for completion in 2012, the DART Underground in 2015. Final detailed route selection for Metro North is under way; tendering is due at the end of this year. The DART Underground project is only at the public consultation stage.

We believe serious consideration should be given to proceeding with Dart Underground ahead of Metro North because DART Underground costs much less and offers transportation benefits at least as important as Metro North. - Yours, etc,

COLM HOLMES, CEO, Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2007/0811/index.html

This bloke makes a rather odd statement about the capacity of the metro and the interconnector.

The interconnector would have a vastly greater capacity than the metro, given that we're talking about 8-12 carriage trains and, potentially, similar frequencies.

The fact that the current plans of Iarnrod Eireann and the DTO don't utilise very much of the potential capacity of the interconnector does not mean that the capacities are the same. In this case, not by a long chalk.

Article: Planned Dublin metro line to cost more than €5bn

Comments