Case for two metro lines 'has not been proven'

Navan Junction

Irish Times editorial, 29/08/2006

Barely a week goes by without Minister for Transport Martin Cullen or his Minister of State Pat "The Cope" Gallagher opening a fresh stretch of motorway or inaugurating a new rail project - all under the banner of Transport 21, the Government's €34.4 billion investment programme. This frenetic activity is only natural because, as noted by the first independent analysis of the 10-year programme published yesterday in The Irish Times, politicians like to be seen opening "big ticket projects".


However, since Transport 21 was first unveiled with a fanfare last November, taxpayers have been kept in the dark about the economic case for every element of it - not least the justification for two metro lines. According to Mr Cullen, the figures will be released "on a project-by-project basis. Once the tender is chosen and the price is the price, then it's a matter of being open".

Prof Austin Smyth, who compiled the analysis, is quite right when he says that in most other countries when such programmes are announced it is possible to form an opinion about the efficacy of the expenditure, based on "accurate statements of costs and full quantification of benefits". No such supporting documentation was presented by the Government; indeed, as Irish Times political correspondent Mark Hennessy wrote at the time: "Never in the history of public transport has so much been promised by so many ministers backed up by so little paperwork". That is why this newspaper has appealed, in the public interest, to Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly against the Department of Transport's refusal to respond to legitimate queries about various elements of Transport 21, notably the justification for choosing metro as a solution.

As Prof Smyth has said, even the Metro North line on its own will cost "billions", and it is entirely unclear why the Government decided to run with it when Iarnród Éireann had already put forward a much more cost-effective proposal to serve Dublin airport with a rail spur from the Belfast line. Yet without the public being told anything at all about the economic case for Metro North, the Railway Procurement Agency is moving to a final decision on its "preferred option" for the alignment. What other EU member state would proceed in such a fashion with a major public project of this magnitude? The answer is none. The Government's approach smacks of the "command and control" systems that once operated in the Soviet Union and its satellites. It is simply unacceptable that those who will foot the bill are not being told how it has been counted.

© The Irish Times

Navan Junction

Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, Irish Times, 28/08/2006


The economic case for building two metro lines in Dublin "has not been proven" and it is "probable" that Dublin's future public transport needs could be met by bus, Luas and suburban rail services, according to one of Ireland's leading transport experts.


In the first independent analysis of the Government's €34.4 billion transport investment programme, Prof Austin Smyth said it is clear that the decision to invest in metro "will involve substantially higher costs than equivalent Luas schemes".

His analysis, prepared for the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, said one of the key questions is why Iarnród Éireann's proposal for a spur off the Dublin-Belfast line was "not appraised as an alternative to metro" in serving Dublin Airport.

The estimated cost for such an airport link would be in the region of €350 to €400 million. Increasing the capacity of the railway line between Clontarf Road and Howth Junction by adding a third track to speed up Belfast trains would cost a further €400 million.

By comparison, Prof Smyth told The Irish Times yesterday, the planned metro line between St Stephen's Green and Dublin airport would cost "billions", as would the proposed orbital metro line in Transport 21 running from Tallaght to Ballymun.

"The cost of the two existing Luas lines more than doubled, so whatever figure they put forward for metro now is likely to be an underestimate," he said. However, no information had been made available on the economic case for the two metro lines.

"Last autumn's announcement of Transport 21 represents a massive expansion in spending on transport by the Government. The key question is - assuming the measures are delivered - will this represent good value for use of taxpayers' money?"

Prof Smyth added: "In most societies when such programmes are unveiled, it is possible to come to some sort of conclusion on the efficacy of the expenditure informed by the supporting documentation that typically goes hand-in-hand with such announcements.

"When Transport 21 was announced, the surprise was that it was accompanied by little on either costs or economic case and financial appraisal of the proposals it contained. This in turn has raised concerns in many quarters about the robustness of the case."

In the light of substantial cost overruns on recent transport projects, he said it was "only reasonable and in line with practice elsewhere" for the economic case for Transport 21 to be presented "with accurate statements of costs and full quantification of benefits".

Given the scale of the investment programme and the fact that politicians liked to be seen opening "big ticket projects", Prof Smyth said Transport 21 needed to be subjected to independent scrutiny, particularly in the run-up to next year's general election.

His analysis of the programme concluded that plans for the expansion of Luas are likely to deliver "substantial economic benefits", but emphasised that Dublin's bus and rail network "should be planned together with a clear strategy for interchange". However, instead of adding an entirely new element (metro) to the mix of public transport services, he suggested that Dublin should develop an integrated suburban rail network similar to Schnellbahn (S-bahn) in German cities like Berlin and Munich.

The "jewel in the crown" of such a network would be the proposed €1.3 billion rail tunnel between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock, with new underground stations in the High Street area, St Stephen's Green and Pearse Station (Westland Row).

As Prof Smyth's analysis noted, this rail interconnector would link the Dart with other commuter rail services, including the Kildare line, the Maynooth line and northern and southern suburban lines. He also concluded that the benefits would include - large journey time savings for transport users, support for major new development, promotion of sustainable transport modes, improved reliability by relieving bottlenecks, and relief of road congestion and reduction in emissions.

However, under the timetable in Transport 21, the crucial rail link would be one of the last elements to be completed - in 2015. This was symptomatic of the "general inconsistency" in the Government's programme, according to Prof Smyth.

"Several cities in Europe have developed fully interconnected suburban rail networks with high-frequency cross-city trains . . . Generally, these depend on a city centre connecting tunnel and the availability of radiating suburban rail lines.

"This opportunity now exists in Dublin where the interconnector project, together with the proven role of Dart, can easily form the basis of a fast, electrified, high-frequency suburban network for the city region . . ."

© The Irish Times

Navan Junction

My two cents? None of the projects (including Navan) seem to have been costed..

I wonder what the post election strategy is if the Government gets back in? Another rail review to get them out of delivery?

Realistically, the 2 'dead certs' in Dublin seems to be KRP and Clonsilla-Pace. Why? Because both serve new developments, and therefore it serves the interests of the builders. I haven't much faith in anything else being delivered in a hurry.

Irish Times editorial wrote:

That is why this newspaper has appealed, in the public interest, to Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly against the Department of Transport's refusal to respond to legitimate queries about various elements of Transport 21

Good.

bryanw

Ask the builders how much these projects will cost... I'm sure the government has told them...

enda1

Well the KRP is of course going ahead. Sure a lot of the stages of this have gone to tender and contracts awarded. The interconnector is also definitely going ahead. The first stage has gone to tender.

But looking at the metro, should it not continue from tallaght back to stephen's green and complete the circle. This is surely obvious no? There is nothing for the rathmines, rathgar, templeogue, rathfarnham type areas. This is a big area left out in the plans. Surely at least the firhouse area should have something, its growning so much lately!

EDIT: BTW the interconnector budget has already gone up from 1.3 to 1.5 billion. Where will it end....

MarkoP11

Its two km longer now

bryanw

MarkoP11 wrote:

Its two km longer now

What is? ...I must have missed something.

MarkoP11

Interconnector tunnel

bryanw

Could you tell me, or give me a link? I'd like to know more please...
Thanks.

monument

Have not looked over it, so dont blame me if it's wrong...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interconnector_%28rail_tunnel%29

MarkoP11

http://www.platform11.org/campaigns/extendthedart/interconnector_technical.php has the exact details

Next person I find who says it goes to Connolly will be shot

bryanw

Thanks for the P11 link - interesting...
I saw the wikipedia one before, its not as detailed as the other one.

Navan Junction

04/09/2006


After years of debate since the Platform For Change strategy was first mooted, it's time to get on with building a Metro system for Dublin, writes Martin Cullen.


Frank McDonald's article in The Irish Times of August 28th quotes extensively from an analysis of Transport 21 prepared by Professor Austin Smyth. My department has not seen this report or had any contact with Prof Smyth while he was preparing this analysis. However, I want to comment on the views attributed to him in Frank McDonald's article.

The article claims that the economic case for Metro in Dublin has not been proven and that Dublin's future public transport needs could be met through a combination of bus, Luas and suburban rail.

The strategic case for Metro comes from the Dublin Transportation Office's long-term integrated transport strategy A Platform for Change. This was published in 2001 and provides a robust basis for all the transport investment in the Greater Dublin Area under Transport 21. The work of the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) also underpins the land use development framework for the capital outlined in the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area.

As your readers already know, the Metro has been one of the most extensively analysed and discussed projects in recent years. The outline business case prepared by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) for Metro North shows that there is a good economic case for it.

This was subject to independent reviews by consultants engaged by both the Department of Finance and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport. The consultant engaged by the joint committee reviewed the RPA's outline business case and agreed that the costs and benefits had been assessed on a realistic basis.

The committee's consultant also concluded that the results of the cost benefit analysis were satisfactory and might even be bettered given the conservative native of some of the assumptions made.

Prof Smyth suggests that a spur off the Dublin-Belfast railway line should have been looked at as an alternative to the Metro serving Dublin airport. In fact, this was looked at extensively and rejected by the Dublin Transportation Office when preparing its long-term transportation strategy.

It was also looked at by the consultant retained by the Oireachtas Transport Committee. That committee accepted its own consultant's conclusion that neither bus nor rail options would provide a satisfactory alternative to the Metro.

Prof Smyth's analysis seems to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the Metro. It is not an airport rail link. It is designed to provide a high-quality rail service along a north-south corridor, meeting existing transport requirements in that corridor, serving the airport and facilitating major residential development in the Swords area. On this latter point, Transport 21 accepted the recommendations of both the Oireachtas Transport Committee and Fingal County Council to extend the Metro line to Swords.

It is also important to understand that Metro North is not an isolated line but the first phase of the extensive Metro network envisaged in Dublin Transportation Office's A Platform for Change. Transport 21 also includes financial provision for Metro West, which will provide an orbital route linking Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown and integrating with Metro North.

Before construction of the Metro, or indeed any other major rail project, can begin it will require a railway order. Before a decision on the order is made, the proposal will be subject to a full public hearing before an inspector at which all aspects of the proposed project will be scrutinised in detail. The fundamental transportation and economic case for the project will have to be made. Why the project was chosen over alternatives will have to be justified. Why the preferred route was selected over other options will have to be explained.

The public will have a right to make submissions and to test the arguments being put forward for the project. This statutory process, coupled with ongoing public consultation, will subject the project to full public scrutiny, far removed from the "command and control" by Government so inaccurately described in your recent editorial.

Prof Smyth emphasises that Dublin's bus and rail network should be planned together with a clear strategy for interchange. I wholeheartedly agree with him and I have been making this very point at every opportunity since Transport 21 was announced last November. The whole basis of Transport 21 in Dublin is the development of an integrated network with regular opportunities for planned interchange across the public transport system.

Just take the example of Metro North. There will be provision for interchange with Luas and suburban rail (via the interconnector) at St Stephen's Green, with the Maynooth and Navan rail lines at Drumcondra and with Metro West at Ballymun. A look at the Transport 21 map for Dublin shows that interchange is a core part of the investment strategy.

We have two choices in relation to the development of the transport system in Dublin. We can get on with the implementation of the investment programme set out in Transport 21 which is supported by the DTO strategy and the analysis of the various transport agencies. Or we can continue to debate how to tackle our congestion problems, leading to paralysis by analysis.

It is my strong belief that we have had enough debate over the past 10 years. What we need to focus our energies on now is the delivery of the Transport 21 programme on time and on budget. Future generations will not thank us if we miss this golden opportunity provided by our recent economic success.

Frank McDonald's article also refers to Prof Smyth's comments on the development of the mainline rail network. The reality is that the rail network was on its knees before this Government began a major reinvestment programme in 1999, driven mainly by safety concerns. In the intervening period most of the railway infrastructure has been renewed. Over 400 miles of old jointed track has been replaced with continuous welded rail. New electronic signalling systems have been implemented across the network.

The Strategic Rail Review, completed in 2003, provides an excellent policy framework for the future development of the railways and is the basis for the Transport 21 investment. Transport 21 will continue the renewal of the rail infrastructure, but its main emphasis is on the development of services.

By the end of this year, we will have brand new rolling stock providing an hourly service on the Dublin-Cork route, giving a competitive advantage to the railway well ahead of the completion of the motorway in 2010. A further 150 railcars are on order which will give us one of the youngest rail fleets in Europe. This investment will allow us to improve services on other lines, with a service every hour at peak and every two hours off-peak on the Limerick and Galway routes, services every two hours off-peak on the Sligo, Tralee and Waterford routes and at least four services a day on other intercity routes including Westport, Ballina and Rosslare. Transport 21 is also providing funding for track renewal, resignalling, level-crossings and the removal of speed restrictions, all of which will contribute to improved travel times. We are also committed to the phased development of the Western Rail Corridor and the introduction of new commuter rail services in Cork and Galway.

All this signals a bright future for the railway in Ireland.

Martin Cullen, TD is Minister for Transport

© The Irish Times

dowlingm

Mr Cullen, it's easy to criticise analysis of T21 when you have all the info and only a couple of pages and route maps are released to the public.

D'Peoples Voice

Navan Junction wrote:

04/09/2006
Over 400 miles of old jointed track has been replaced with continuous welded rail.
Martin Cullen, TD is Minister for Transport

© The Irish Times

What's distance is that in the VALID unit of measurement in the Republic of Ireland, i.e metres or is Martin trying to re-introduce the imperial system by stealth?

Slice

The strategic case for Metro comes from the Dublin Transportation Office's long-term integrated transport strategy A Platform for Change.

To say that Metro North was fully examined by the DTO under A Platform for Change is a false claim. It should be noted that the estimates, figures and conclusions of A Platform for Change were dependant on the entire strategy being implemented. Given that Transport21 falls far short on delivering any of the main recommendations in A Platform For Change (and in the timeline suggested) it no longer stands to reason that the same conclusion on the viability of Metro over Luas/heavy rail would be arrived at. That's the fallacy in Martin Cullen's argument.

dowlingm

d'people's - MarkoP11 would probably have the best info but I doubt a lot of the railway network has been converted from miles yet.

MarkoP11

Its all miles and will remain so for quite a while, there is a post every 1/4 mile on every line. So if you go metric what do you call the 78th mile box?

The DART area is metric, as in the DART cab speed display is in Km/h and the overhead posts are given metric distances everything else is imperial. That said the digital speed display on the new Cork train is in Km/h but the primary scale on the dial is mph. The only reason the roads went metric was for EU standardisation

Cullen is talking rubbish, most likely he didn't even write that piece, the truth is all this has been on the table since 1975 and if the governments of the 1960's,70's and 80's had looked after the rail network it would be in better condition than it is now, we are still playing catch up

Navan Junction

Letter to the editor, Irish Times, 12th September 2006

Madam, - The response of Minister of Transport Martin Cullen (September 4th) to Frank McDonald's article of August 28th on Transport 21 is welcome. No recent Minister has done more to raise the profile of transport and secure funding.

The Minister offers extensive comment on the paper I have been preparing, which has yet to be published. It would be discourteous to the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport if I was to respond in detail now. Suffice to say that it is usually inadvisable to comment on a document based on what is inevitably a selective review of some of the issues raised when you haven't read the complete document.

It is important, however, to address a few key points of principle. The objective of the paper is not to produce "paralysis by analysis", as the Minister suggests. Rather, as will become evident, its objective is to advance cost-effective solutions to major challenges, not only in Dublin but across the country, in response to an invitation by the institute to the transport industry for papers to address this goal.

Indeed, the Minister's comments raise alarm about the possibility of delay to Transport 21 from potential objections raised at an inspector's inquiry. After all the hard work by the RPA, Irish Rail and other stakeholders that would be entailed in reaching that stage of project development, surely it would represent an even greater risk of delaying or even derailing Transport 21 if a key project was to be subject to successful challenge at that point.

The paper sponsored by CILT is concerned with Transport 21 and its wider context, not solely with the Dublin Metro. Indeed, the Minister's confidence in the economic case for that project makes it even more surprising that he has not taken the public into his confidence by publishing the results of the economic appraisal of the scheme. Commercial sensitivity, even if understandable in the case of financial appraisal, is not an argument for withholding the economic appraisal. These appraisals are not the same.

The Minister also suggests, on the basis of Frank McDonald's article, that I have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the metro proposal. As I think my paper will demonstrate, this is not the case and invite the Minister to reconsider his observation when he receives a copy. However, it is clear that one of the metro's roles is to serve the airport. If a large percentage of air passengers is to be attracted to metro, it will have to offer high quality service to points throughout the greater Dublin area and beyond.

Given the unprecedented level of spending earmarked for transport it behoves those of us like myself, with years of practical experience in transport planning internationally and in Ireland, to contribute to raising the standard of debate and to advancing delivery of a 21st-century transport system for the country. - Yours, etc,

Prof AUSTIN SMYTH,

Kings Road,

Belfast 5.