[article] Journeys on Metro North line would cost €22 - study

Navan Junction · 03-10-2007 2:37am #1

Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, Irish Times

Wed, Oct 03, 2007

Every trip on the proposed Metro North line between Swords and Dublin city centre would cost taxpayers at least €22 and possibly a lot more, according to an independent study commissioned by Fine Gael Senator Paschal Donohoe.

The study, which was carried out by the Houses of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, notes that this would be more than five times the €4 cost to taxpayers of every trip on the city's two Luas lines, based on a capital outlay of €700 million.

Taking the estimated cost of €4.58 billion (in 2004 prices) for Metro North, as revealed by The Irish Times last August, the study notes this would amount to more than one-third of the funding for all public transport projects in the current National Development Plan.

"The total capital costs for Luas, including land acquisition and VAT, were estimated at roughly €700 million, or an amortised rate of €104.5 million per annum", it continues. With 26 million passengers carried in 2006, this equates to a capital cost of roughly €4 per trip," the study notes.

"Using the same criteria as employed for the Luas, and assuming a total capital cost of €5 billion, in line with the Irish Times report, the amortised capitalisation cost for Metro North would be about €22 per ride over the 30-year project life-span."

It states that former minister for transport Martin Cullen had forecast last year that Metro North would carry 34 million passengers per annum, offering a connection from Dublin airport to St Stephen's Green in less than 20 minutes, with trains running every four minutes.

"Assuming operating times similar to Luas, we can infer 59,419 trains per direction per annum. This would imply average train capacity of 286 passengers", the study states.

"While specifications for carriage length and capacities are not available, this seems like a very heavy passenger volume."

The assumption that 44 per cent of car users would transfer to metro also "seems particularly implausible".

The study includes a table summarising British evidence showing lower levels of "modal shifts" following the opening of light rail systems there, including Sheffield (22.3 per cent), Manchester (19 per cent) and Midlands Metro (14 per cent).

Noting similar ranges in the shift from car to new metro systems in Athens (16 per cent) and Madrid (26 per cent), it notes: "In the absence of a thorough traffic impact study, a Metro North estimate of almost double the nearest UK example appears exaggerated."

The Oireachtas research unit's study complains that neither the original (2002) outline business case for Metro North nor the revised business case prepared a year later, nor the cost-benefit analysis underpinning them, had been made publicly available.

"In the course of this research report, the Library and Research Service contacted the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) and made a request for these documents, and/or any documents relating to cost estimates for the line but were denied on the basis of commercial confidentiality".

A spokesman for the RPA said yesterday that the Department of Finance now had a cost-benefit analysis of Metro North, produced this year. "No decision will be made . . . without it [ Government] being satisfied that the cost-benefit analysis stacks up," he added. Asked about the study's estimate of a cost to taxpayers of €22 per passenger trip on the proposed 17km line, the spokesman said it "isn't correct". When pressed to say what the actual figure might be, he said he couldn't say because this information was confidential.

© 2007 The Irish Times

markf909 · 03-10-2007 9:44am

So whats the alternative then Frank? :rolleyes:

spockety · 03-10-2007 9:44am

Although they seem to be using a 30 year 'project life span'.. it's worth noting that the Metro will probably be used for centuries.

It is this kind of short term thinking that has held back infrastructure in this country for the last few decades and it's time we took a hit now so that our grand-grand-grand-grand-children can reap the rewards.

mickoneill30 · 03-10-2007 9:51am

How much does a trip cost the taxpayer now? I'm not talking about the cost of a bus ticket or petrol but the cost for thousands of commuters taking 50 -> 90 mins to take a 10 mile trip. It has to be costing business a fortune too.

For me - Its currently costing me 3 hours a day. It's costing my business a fortune as I've just handed in my notice so I can work nearer to home which means a fair whack of money in recruiting and training my replacement.
On the other side of the coin though, my money is staying in Swords as I will do anything not to have to battle that traffic into the city without a really, really good reason.

markf909 · 03-10-2007 10:05am

spockety wrote:

Although they seem to be using a 30 year 'project life span'.. it's worth noting that the Metro will probably be used for centuries.

It is this kind of short term thinking that has held back infrastructure in this country for the last few decades and it's time we took a hit now so that our grand-grand-grand-grand-children can reap the rewards.

Great point.

Can you imagine in 1893, the Metropolitan line closing down due to the end of its "life-span".

Awful journalism.

paulm17781 · 03-10-2007 10:38am

What's he trying to achieve (other than attention)? "Journalism" like that is the kind of thing that gets projects pulled. What happens if Metro north gets pulled? Dublin (and to an extent the whole country) miss out on a critical piece of infrastructure. Nice work Frank. :rolleyes:

jlang · 03-10-2007 10:54am

But it depends what you're comparing to. The cost to build a new road to take that amount of traffic would also be extremely high as you'd be CPO-ing a lot of houses in North Dublin.

weehamster · 03-10-2007 10:54am

markf909 wrote:

So whats the alternative then Frank? :rolleyes:

Irish Rails Dublin Integrated Rail Plan. Cheaper and would have a far greater effect in reducing traffic levels.

strassenwolf · 03-10-2007 12:04pm

paulm17781 wrote:

What's he trying to achieve (other than attention)? "Journalism" like that is the kind of thing that gets projects pulled. What happens if Metro north gets pulled? Dublin (and to an extent the whole country) miss out on a critical piece of infrastructure. Nice work Frank. :rolleyes:

I hardly think that's fair. He is reporting on a report which was created by the Oireachtas library. While we know that Frank is a critic of some aspects of the metro project, and may be focussing on certain aspects of this report to back up his previous positions on the matter, it is right that these things get coverage in the public domain, rather than gathering dust in the aforementioned library.

Would you apply your same argument to the 2005 Platform11 report "The proposed metro is flawed", which criticised the then proposal on the grounds of safety, capacity, integration and cost?

Was there not a danger that that report might have resulted in the project being "pulled"?

markpb · 03-10-2007 12:13pm

weehamster wrote:

Irish Rails Dublin Integrated Rail Plan. Cheaper and would have a far greater effect in reducing traffic levels.

The DIRP is mostly about the Interconnector which is happening anyway. More importantly, it misses out on a huge chunk of north Dublin that will be properly served by the Metro. All IR's airport link does is serve the airport which is redundant because a lot of the airport staff live in Swords and the northside, not on the dart line. IR's fascination with serving the sprawl and ignoring the city is amazing.

This should never have been an either-or decision, the network is more important than any single line.

paulm17781 · 03-10-2007 12:17pm

markpb wrote:

The DIRP is mostly about the Interconnector which is happening anyway. More importantly, it misses out on a huge chunk of north Dublin that will be properly served by the Metro. All IR's airport link does is serve the airport which is redundant because a lot of the airport staff live in Swords and the northside, not on the dart line. IR's fascination with serving the sprawl and ignoring the city is amazing.

This should never have been an either-or decision, the network is more important than any single line.

True. IE should also get their Airport spur though, it would give much better integration. In a real city they would do that.

Chris_533976 · 03-10-2007 12:52pm

The number of times that infrastructure has been built in this country and is then found to be at 2020 capacity ON THE DAY IT OPENS is staggering. At least here there seems to be a bit of planning for the future. And what does the major newspaper do? It moans about it.

Prof_V · 03-10-2007 5:59pm

Some of the statements seem a little tendentious. I'm not sure where the "very heavy passenger volume" comes from. I'd expect Metro North to carry somewhat more passengers relative to length than the Green Line - the latter had about 1.4 million passengers/km/annum in 2006, whereas 34 million on Metro North is about 1.9. The Metro North figures are future ones (I'd say probably 2016), so that would explain some of the difference; the higher capacity and possibly higher speed will also be factors.

As for the "average train capacity", it's important to remember that not all journeys are going to overlap, so it wouldn't all be used at once, and that the vehicles would be longer than Luas - the story is accurate insofar as there's no definite specification for the initial length so far, though I seem to remember 60m being stated somewhere.

In relation to modal shift, first off I assume that's 44% of Metro passengers coming from cars rather than 44% of car users (in what area?) transferring to Metro. As far as the overseas examples are concerned, I'll grant Athens (though it would help to see more details), but Madrid is questionable because it's presumably an extension to a well-developed network, so diminishing returns would kick in - a far higher proportion of people would already be using public transport. The British light rail examples are also of fairly limited relevance to Dublin because those systems are far less heavily used than even Luas, let alone Metro.

mickoneill30 · 03-10-2007 6:58pm

Just build something quick. My missus left Swords today on a 41C at 8:35AM. She got into work on Abbey St. at 10:20AM.

I'm just in from work after getting the 41X back. X stands for Xpress. They might want to change that to Xcruciating. What's happened to the traffic recently. It wasn't this bad this time last year.

gjim · 03-10-2007 10:58pm

I can't make those figures add up. Take the Luas analysis, for example. Even assuming that the entire 700 million cost incurred the reduced 13.5% VAT, the net cost to the exchequer would have been 616 million. The cost of long term government borrowing is low - currently around 4.5% for 16 year bonds. So 616 million costs about 45 million a year over 20 years.

The only way to get the 104 million amortized figure is to assume that the Luas will have to be completely replaced from scratch in 7 years?

This even ignores the fact that the Luas is making an "operating" profit.

lostexpectation · 03-10-2007 11:09pm

so how much does metro north say it will cost, what was it supposed to cost?

aren't these airport rail links quite expensive in other countries too?

OTK · 04-10-2007 9:34am

gjim wrote:

I can't make those figures add up. Take the Luas analysis, for example. Even assuming that the entire 700 million cost incurred the reduced 13.5% VAT, the net cost to the exchequer would have been 616 million. The cost of long term government borrowing is low - currently around 4.5% for 16 year bonds. So 616 million costs about 45 million a year over 20 years.

The only way to get the 104 million amortized figure is to assume that the Luas will have to be completely replaced from scratch in 7 years?

This even ignores the fact that the Luas is making an "operating" profit.

Yes, I can't make sense of it. Metro costs (before interest) are about 3X luas costs. Passenger numbers for metro are supposed to be 1.3 X luas passengers.

So the metro subsidy (per passenger) would be (3 / 1.3) = 2.25 X luas subsidy. Whereas they have come up with a figure of 5.5 X luas subsidy.

The amortization estimate seems to assume 18% interest over 30 years. They must have paid for it on the government credit card.

Victor · 04-10-2007 2:21pm

gjim wrote:

I can't make those figures add up.

Ask Senator Donohoe to explain his figures.

murphaph · 04-10-2007 2:43pm

Senator Donohoe should be hanged for treason or something. I can't put into words quite how angry I am coming home from Berlin to read this bullsh!t. Funny how I used a 100 year old underground system (as well as a heavy rail line and bus) to get from hotel to airport, oh and all on one PAPER ticket that cost 2.10. But we've been here before. We here generally know that integrated tickets do not equal 'smart cards' etc. etc. but why are irish people in general so bloody ignorant and downright greedy, only interested in their own little patch of dirt in the suburbs and with little care for society or public infrastructure as a whole. I had never been to Berlin before but it was a good time to go-it was the day of german unity yesterday so we trundled around the sights and went to the Bundestag (housed in the old Reichstag building) and found out that it is the most visited parliament in the world. It is NO COINCIDENCE that a nation which takes an interest in politics and what their politicians get up to gets the public servants it deserves and thus the infrastructure it deserves. We are a greedy bunch of materialistic slobs and we deserve what we get. If we as a nation (ie, more than a couple of dozen regular posters here!) cared about quality of life for all, we'd get it.

Instead we get a Lucan Luas designed and built by FF and their mates, exclusivle for the purpose of getting votes in a constituency they have done poorly in of late.....and the people are to schmuckish to question if it's the best solution for them.

All of our politicians are to blame down all the years and they have gotten away with it because WE LET THEM.

Victor · 04-10-2007 3:20pm

murphaph wrote:

Funny how I used a 100 year old ..... bus

They really need to repalce the bus.

OK, you needed a laugh.

/gets coat.

Metrobest · 04-10-2007 4:16pm

markf909 wrote:

So whats the alternative then Frank? :rolleyes:

Who cares what every trip on Metro North costs taxpayers a few cent? (22 euros is a ridiculous amount based on flawed methodology, as Frank McDonald well knows)

We need Metro North, the city is choking under the weight of traffic. We can´t afford not to build it.

Frank McDonald wants to have his cake and eat it; he´s always making exaggerated claims that Dublin is a "doughnut city" and the "LA of Europe" - although even LA has a metro system - and yet when proper solutions to curtrail sprawl such as Metro North are advanced Frank McDonald places them under such scrutiny that you´d think the government were purchasing nuclear weapons. His bias, his anti-metro North stance, disgusts me. He of all people should be clamouring for MORE metro lines in Dublin, not NONE...

The fact is, metro north is a tiny portion of the government´s total expenditure, especially considering it will have a lifespan far longer than the current coalition! Once built, it will probably be self-financing operationally, like luas. Yes, there is an initial outlay of billions, but that´s repaid multiple times over in terms of social and econoic benefits. Those benefits can´t be quantified on a piece of paper by some politically-motivated minion in the Oireachtas library.

The health service commands a budget of billions each year, and I read recently that the government is going to spend 5 billion on water. Why isn´t Frank McDonald casting his scrooge-like eye over the costs of new hospitals, schools or water treatment plants. Why does metro north have to be analysed to death, while a new hospital is treated as a fait accompli?

And is it not the case that every recent big project in Irish history, such as the Port Tunnel and Luas, has proven its value from pretty much the day it came into operation, and people wondered why there was ever a debate over these projects in the first place?

Why do we never learn the lessons of the past? We moan about Ireland´s crap infrastructure, yet every time an ambitious solution is proposed the likes of Frank McDonald rear their heads and try and kill it. Tall poppy syndrome.

Big projects like metro north are essential to the sustained success of Ireland, both from an economic and social perspective, and it saddens me to see the nation´s leading "quality" newspaper publish gutter, scaremongering nonsense about metro north, trying to kill a project that Dublin and Ireland has never needed more greatly if we´re not to begin a slow descent back into the 1980s.

murphaph · 04-10-2007 4:22pm

lol, well spotted. Funnily enough though it raises another point-the german cities I've spent time in generall ahd a mix of bus vintages, some definitely getting on for 20 years old.........but they were still in good overall mechanical order having been maintained properly and fed with proper diesel, not cheapo unrefined russian muck which gives Bus Atha Cliath that characteristic whiff. Our buses on the other hand need replacing every few years as they are knackered.

This may or may not be true so I stand to be corrected but anyway....

My father's business used to supply a Volvo commercial distributor with pneumatic tools. This distributor has a very large interest in the maintenance of commercial vehicles. They have a team which was (is?) based in at least one Dublin Bus garage servicing the drivetrains of buses under warranty. They apparently used to offer to show the DB mechanics the latest diagnostic software tools and so on (vehcle engines and subsystems being controlled by microprocessors in general these days) but they all refused to be shown a thing as the Volvo mechanics were non-union. Hence, as soon as the vehicles went out of warranty their quality of maintanace slid down the toilet.

As I say. May or may not be true and I heard it third-hand. Make up your own minds if that is something likely to happen in a semi-state belonging to CIE.

markpb · 04-10-2007 4:33pm

murphaph wrote:

Our buses on the other hand need replacing every few years as they are knackered.

It was my understanding that the buses are being replaced in the name of greater accessibility. I can only hope they only mean more spaces for wheelchair users because the new buses do nothing for extra pasengers, extra luggage, the abundance of strollers that aren't folded up or actually getting passengers on and off the bus faster.

murphaph · 04-10-2007 6:54pm

markpb wrote:

It was my understanding that the buses are being replaced in the name of greater accessibility. I can only hope they only mean more spaces for wheelchair users because the new buses do nothing for extra pasengers, extra luggage, the abundance of strollers that aren't folded up or actually getting passengers on and off the bus faster.

You are in part correct. We did indeed order and purchase hundreds of wheelchair inaccessible buses right into the 1990's. Of course then people started to appear in 'disabled formats' and we reacted quickly by retiring nearly new buses in favour of accessible ones. Sure how were we to know that people in wheelchairs and with prams would want to access buses.

and you are also correct that instead of opening up public transport we are closing it up by making buses less accessible through the removal of the centre doors. German buses have 3 doors on the sides. Berlin double deckers are a special case-they have 3 doors also but in addition, they have 2 staircases! Dwell times at german bus stops are extremely low, on a par with rail.

I was in Berlin for 2 nights. I was ticket checked by undercover officers 3 times. Maybe that was 'unlucky' but I doubt it. They were all guys in their 20's/30's who were (VERY!) casually dressed and operated in pairs, selecting one coach at random and waiting for the doors to shut before producing ID and verbally identifying themselves "Good evening ladies and gentlemen, please produce your tickets for inspection". One working from each end of the coach. I saw nobody caught without a valid ticket.

So they have an open honour system that depends on checks, we have a closed barriered system that doesn't. I'd like the stats on fare evasion to compare.

mickoneill30 · 04-10-2007 10:54pm

murphaph wrote:

You are in part correct. We did indeed order and purchase hundreds of wheelchair inaccessible buses right into the 1990's. Of course then people started to appear in 'disabled formats' and we reacted quickly by retiring nearly new buses in favour of accessible ones. Sure how were we to know that people in wheelchairs and with prams would want to access buses.

I presume you're only talking about Dublin Bus there. The private buses don't seem to have the same requirement for wheelchair accessible.

markpb · 05-10-2007 9:56am

murphaph wrote:

Sure how were we to know that people in wheelchairs and with prams would want to access buses.

I'm fairly sure other cities were prams aren't allowed on buses unless they're folded up. At a push, they definitely shouldn't be allowed during busy periods. Last week a driver on the Malahide road let a woman and pram onto an RV bus blocking the entire aisle at rush hour. Dwell time was huge because no-one could get past her to get off and course the middle doors weren't used.

A little common sense would go a long way.

murphaph · 05-10-2007 11:40am

markpb wrote:

I'm fairly sure other cities were prams aren't allowed on buses unless they're folded up. At a push, they definitely shouldn't be allowed during busy periods. Last week a driver on the Malahide road let a woman and pram onto an RV bus blocking the entire aisle at rush hour. Dwell time was huge because no-one could get past her to get off and course the middle doors weren't used.

A little common sense would go a long way.

True, restrictions are placed on prams and bicycles during the rush hour in many cities.

Just to highlight how 'tight' Berlin (just as an example) timetabling is.......I was on a U-Bahn the other day and it and another U-Bahn (different number) pulled in alongside (allowing cross platform interchange with no addition to journey time) and the two drivers switched train in what was clearly a well oiled procedure. They almost ran from one end to another, shook hands without breaking stride midway along the platform and off we went with probably 10 seconds added to normal dwell time!

If that were here the two trains would be late, the station would be locked and the two drivers would stop for a chat about the Man U match the night before whilst their sloppy uniforms hang off and the 'skulls' stand patiently on the trains whilst already late for work due to the 'incident' at Howth Junction!

Ham'nd'egger · 05-10-2007 1:35pm

murphaph wrote:

Our buses on the other hand need replacing every few years as they are knackered.
.

Not so, Murphat. The newer model of bus in the DB fleets (ALX400) were rolled in as they are both wheelchair assesible and have greater carrying capacity over older models, as do the Enviro400s (EVs).

The oldest buses on the DB network in passenger service is the RA Volvo *******ns; they were introduced in 1994-6. Dublin Bus policy is to sell on buses upon 11 years of service. Most of them will be in active use in the UK, though some have been bought by private operators in Ireland and a few are in the hands of Bus Eireann; regardless, they are still of Some older RA's operate on city tours and training, as will the RH series. (RA and RH are the same type of bus; the RA are badged Volvo while the RH are badged Leyland).

murphaph · 05-10-2007 2:59pm

Hamndegger wrote:

Not so, Murphat. The newer model of bus in the DB fleets (ALX400) were rolled in as they are both wheelchair assesible and have greater carrying capacity over older models, as do the Enviro400s (EVs).

The oldest buses on the DB network in passenger service is the RA Volvo *******ns; they were introduced in 1994-6. Dublin Bus policy is to sell on buses upon 11 years of service. Most of them will be in active use in the UK, though some have been bought by private operators in Ireland and a few are in the hands of Bus Eireann; regardless, they are still of Some older RA's operate on city tours and training, as will the RH series. (RA and RH are the same type of bus; the RA are badged Volvo while the RH are badged Leyland).

Why is this the policy ham'nd'egger? Berlin, Munich et al have much older (usually MAN) buses in perfect nick running daily (british operators are well known for running old buses but I find they are often in not such good internal condition but presumably they are maintained mechanically as they are still running. I suspect their maintenance is to a higher standard to be honest. Do you know anything about where Dublin Bus gets its fuel from nowadays?

markpb · 05-10-2007 3:05pm

murphaph wrote:

Why is this the policy ham'nd'egger?

At a guess, they feel the depreciation and costs of maintenance will ramp up after ten years but I could be wrong.

Also, another reason they replaced old buses was because the government embargo on buying new buses meant that had to replace single deckers and imps with double deckers and double deckers with tri-axel double deckers to achieve an increase in capacity without increasing the fleet size.

Ham'nd'egger · 05-10-2007 3:46pm

I am not too sure as to why it is so but I'd guess at the following...

Newer fleets are more reliable that old and cheaper/more available than older units. Standard models are also quicker and easier to maintain.
Newer units instil a better customer image over older units.
New buses are lighter on fuel and will have cleaner emissions.
Newer units tend to be larger and as such can shift more people.
Newer units tend to be better fitted, eg wheelchair access, ABS, air suspension, CCTV as standard.
Older buses can be cascaded to other duties as appropiate.
EU/State grants would be available to upgrade new models.

Quite often, bus operators install new engines into old buses to extend their life; CIE did this in the 70's with the old D class and London transport did likewise with the Routemasters. It is a cheap way to keep an old bus on the road, but it can present technical issues and does nothing to improve a bad chassis or body.

I don't know where CIE get's it fuel from, other than their Bio diesel comes from a crowd called Greyhound. The group would buy diesel in bulk on international markets so they would shop around as much as possible for a lower price.

marmajam · 06-10-2007 9:32am

Metrobest, you are closer to the truth than you realise. Big Frank suspects that Metro North IS a nuclear weapon.
Frankie does'nt like big projects and has been developing a 'small is beautiful' homemade laptop from uranium and plasticine in his shed.
There's no cure for the radiation poisoning which inflicts the sufferer with nuclear visions and schoolboy howler maths.
Irish times correspondant is an experimental form of psychiatric therapy wherein the patient is cosseted in his perceptions in the hope that they will burn themselves out in time.

murphaph · 06-10-2007 10:18am

Hamndegger wrote:

I am not too sure as to why it is so but I'd guess at the following...

Newer fleets are more reliable that old and cheaper/more available than older units. Standard models are also quicker and easier to maintain.
Newer units instil a better customer image over older units.
New buses are lighter on fuel and will have cleaner emissions.
Newer units tend to be larger and as such can shift more people.
Newer units tend to be better fitted, eg wheelchair access, ABS, air suspension, CCTV as standard.
Older buses can be cascaded to other duties as appropiate.
EU/State grants would be available to upgrade new models.

The problem I have with all these explanations is that they apply equally to a city like Berlin, where one sees many 20 year old buses in daily service in good apparant condition and such things as PIS/CCTV have obviously been retrofitted but look and work well. I still believe it goes back to a poorer standard of maintenance. You still see buses in Dublin going about with engine panels not properly fixed shut and absolutely filthy to boot. I would suspect this is symptomatic of the overall care and attention these very expensive pieces of machinery receive once DB takes ownership of them. Iarnrod Eireann are proving daily that having a new and modern fleet does not result in any improvement in service if the ethos behind the company is wrong. I actulayy have a lot more faith in DB than IE in general and blame Dublin City Council and the DoT for a poorly performing bus service more than I bame DB itself, but I still question the merits of replacing a €100,000+ bus after 11 years, just because.

Hamndegger wrote:

I don't know where CIE get's it fuel from, other than their Bio diesel comes from a crowd called Greyhound. The group would buy diesel in bulk on international markets so they would shop around as much as possible for a lower price.

Hmmm, I suspect it may still be coming from a russian supplier so. That odour is uniquey DB. I believe it is actually CIE who buys it for them and it's also used in locomotives.

[article] Journeys on Metro North line would cost €22 - study

Comments