Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cost of building Luas system

Options
  • 18-06-2010 4:32pm
    #1
    quad_red
    Registered Users Posts: 5,561 ✭✭✭


    Hi all,

    I'm trying to find somewhere a total breakdown of how much it cost to build the red and green luas lines (excluding extensions).

    Can't seem to find the figures. Any assistance most appreciated.

    Regards
    Q


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    quad_red wrote: »
    Hi all,
    Can't seem to find the figures. Any assistance most appreciated.

    Docklands extension cost €60m a KM.


  • Options
    #3
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luas

    The cost of building the Red and Green Lines was €770m.[26] This was three times original predictions that the system would cost €254m.

    Friend who is a senior engineer reckoned it cost more than that. There was some crazy stuff going on like an italian company insisting on sourcing certain materials from Italy at 5/6 times the cost from here or UK.


  • Options
    #4
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    quad_red wrote: »
    Hi all,

    I'm trying to find somewhere a total breakdown of how much it cost to build the red and green luas lines (excluding extensions).

    Can't seem to find the figures. Any assistance most appreciated.

    Regards
    Q
    Red line: 16km
    Green line: 9km
    Total length: 25km
    Total Cost: €775 million
    €31m/km

    Assuming 5% and 30 years payback, the state will pay €50m a year until 2034 to pay back the luas build cost.

    Luas operating surplus
    2005: €.2m
    2006: €5.6m
    2007: €6.9m
    2008: €6.2m
    2009: €3.8m


    As Luas carries about 25m passengers per year then that's a subsidy of about €2 per journey with about 20c recouped from the operating surplus.

    The Cherrywood extension (Line B1) is due to open this autumn. It cost about 300m for 7.5km or €40m/km About half of this was recouped from developers.

    The Docklands and Citywest extensions were also part-financed by developers.

    All the above costs include the cost of vehicles.


  • Options
    #5
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,473 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    how the **** does a Km of rails, concrete, steel and wiring cost €30m+ :confused:

    does that include land buying costs?


  • Options
    #6
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    seems like a lot alright but it is put out to tender

    I guess the main expenditures are:
    design
    land purchase
    services diversion
    construction including track, overhead catenary, power supplies, bridges etc
    rolling stock
    stations and ticket machines and passenger info displays cost a few quid
    testing

    I think motorway is about €10m/km for comparison


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,473 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    dynamick wrote: »
    I think motorway is about €10m/km for comparison

    :confused: motorway takes up much much more space (wider) and will generally have much much more groundwork, how is it still so much cheaper

    Madrid built its Subway for $40m a km, roughly €32m. slightly better value for money I think


  • Options
    #8
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    Motorway goes through open countryside where land is up to 1000 times cheaper.

    There are fewer services to locate and divert.

    RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:
    • 24 hour tunnelling permitted
    • faster planning approval
    • lower wages
    • no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
    • experience of building metros : 250km built already
    • lower fire safety standards
    • high tolerance for traffic disruption
    • monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland


  • Options
    #9
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,473 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    dynamick wrote: »
    RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:
    • 24 hour tunnelling permitted
    • faster planning approval
    • lower wages
    • no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
    • experience of building metros : 250km built already
    • lower fire safety standards
    • high tolerance for traffic disruption
    • monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland

    so we really should have just got the Spanish firm in then to build us a metro. :) all of that is achievable in Ireland with a little political will, except maybe the fire standards.


  • Options
    #10
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    so we really should have just got the Spanish firm in then to build us a metro. :)
    Both of the shortlisted bidders included Spanish construction companies.
    all of that is achievable in Ireland with a little political will, except maybe the fire standards.
    To be fair, many of the items listed have been achieved:
    • Ground below 10m now belongs to the state since this provision in the 2006 Stategic Infrastructure Act
    • 24 hour tunnelling has been applied for in the Railway Order
    • the planning approval process took longer than expected but it was the first time and nobody wants to screw it up
    • negotiations with bidders took place during planning approval so this may reduce the time to agree a contract after approval is granted
    • wages have of course fallen
    • land for stations is cheaper
    • a developer contribution scheme is in place
    the safety standards aren't going to change


  • Options
    #11
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,542 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    dynamick wrote: »
    Motorway goes through open countryside where land is up to 1000 times cheaper.

    There are fewer services to locate and divert.

    RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:
    • 24 hour tunnelling permitted
    • faster planning approval
    • lower wages
    • no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
    • experience of building metros : 250km built already
    • lower fire safety standards
    • high tolerance for traffic disruption
    • monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland

    when did "monotube construction" become illegal in Ireland..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    when did "monotube construction" become illegal in Ireland..
    it is safer to have travel in one directiion only or to not have trains side by side in tunnels if there was a derailment or small accident.


  • Options
    #13
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,542 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    it is safer to have travel in one directiion only or to not have trains side by side in tunnels if there was a derailment or small accident.

    Yes, but according to the other poster the RPA actually claim it is illegal.


  • Options
    #14
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    dynamick wrote: »
    Motorway goes through open countryside where land is up to 1000 times cheaper.

    There are fewer services to locate and divert.

    RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:
    • 24 hour tunnelling permitted
    • faster planning approval
    • lower wages
    • no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
    • experience of building metros : 250km built already
    • lower fire safety standards
    • high tolerance for traffic disruption
    • monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland

    Add "less pandering to incessant whinging from shopowners about disruption and traffic loss even though cars cant park outside their shops ANYWAY"


  • Options
    #15
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    it is safer to have travel in one directiion only or to not have trains side by side in tunnels if there was a derailment or small accident.

    Seems ridiculous, how often have we heard of the London Circle line having a mishap?

    Most of the Barcelona Metro is "two way" and "cut and cover" I would guess most of Dublin would be the same.

    To make a monotube railway would involve a poured concrete wall down the middle of the rail line. This would also pose more hassle for shut down maintenance.


  • Options
    #16
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    when did "monotube construction" become illegal in Ireland..
    I got that wrong. Monotube construction is not illegal and the RPA didn't say it was. The RSC recommends twin tunnels in its guidelines but says monotube is acceptable with a dividing wall.


  • Options
    #17
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,774 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Broadly, my conclusion from looking at this is that rail skills and products tend to be expensive because they are very specialised, compared to road materials and road vehicles. There are relatively few vendors which makes things more difficult.

    As a result, stuff like signalling equipment ends up working out very expensive when you consider that the signalling systems are very simple and really offer very little functionality over what was available twenty or thirty years ago.

    The same thing goes for the maintenance. There are a lot of people who can do road maintenance and do it well, but for rail, you are dealing with a limited pool because of the specialised skills and equipment required.

    What makes it worse is that because working on a railway usually entails shutting the line down completely, most of the work needs to be done at night, usually at weekends in order to have a long enough time gap between services to actually get a reasonable amount of work done.

    Maintenance of a tunnel is a separate thing. Tunnel maintenance is always going to be difficult and expensive. It certainly isn't just a matter of building it and forgetting about it. Constant inspections and checks are needed, and any maintenance has to be carried out in a relatively confined, dark space. Replacing rail in a tunnel, especially a monotunnel must be something like closing all the windows and curtains in your living room and doing a bit of welding. Not easy and certainly not cheap.

    Rail systems are fantastic in terms of customer experience, and the volumes they can potentially carry, but you need a lot of volume to make the expense worthwhile.


  • Options
    #18
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    dynamick wrote: »
    I think motorway is about €10m/km for comparison
    Buying the land alone for the South Eastern Motorway (Dundrum to Shankill) was €500m for 7-9km.

    Of course, tailways come with their own rolling stock - you don't have to bring your own.


  • Options
    #19
    mmacaogain
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭mmacaogain


    Edinburgh's tram service started running today.
    £776m (€954m), 14km.
    €68m / km


  • Options
    #20
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    4 yr old thread. Don't resurrect ancient threads from the dead.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement