[Article] Government urged to put brakes on ‘flawed’ €34bn transport plan

Slice

From the Examiner today:

Government urged to put brakes on ‘flawed’ €34bn transport plan

By Áine Kerr, Political Reporter
THE Government’s multi-billion euro transport plan is flawed and could result in massive overspending if detailed costings are not urgently undertaken, according to a report by the Economic Social Research Institute.


The analysis by the independent think-tank concluded that Transport 21 — the Government’s 10-year transport blueprint — highlighted the lack of any “evaluation culture” in the Department of Transport.

It also highlighted the absence of “economic and engineering expertise” in Iarnród Éireann, the Rail Procurement Agency and the National Roads Authority.

Last night, opposition parties accused Transport Minister Martin Cullen of using Transport 21 as a “blank cheque” making it impossible to benchmark spending.

Central to the report was a detailed criticism of the Government’s decision to provide a bundled costing of €34.4 billion instead of publishing individual project costings. This, according to the report, would make it difficult to assess if individual projects remained within their allocated budget.

Author of the report, Dr Sean Barrett of Trinity College Dublin, found:

-No cost benefit analyses have been published.

-No alternatives have been compared.

-No origin and destination date have been published to support the massive investment.

The failure of Transport 21 to address the massive cost overruns of central planks of the 2000-2006 National Development Plan was also criticised.

One of Dr Barrett’s primary concerns was the disparity in the costings of the Dublin Airport/Swords metro rail link. The Rail Procurement Agency has previously costed the project at €6 billion, while Professor Manuel Maynar Melis of Madrid costed it at €1.2bn.

The €750m Dublin Port Tunnel which opened yesterday after its costs escalated from €220 million in 2000 to €580m in 2002 was signalled out for particular attention in the report published with the ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary.

The report said that the decision in Transport 21 to proceed with further tunnelling projects in the Dublin area without evaluating the experience of the Port Tunnel “exposes taxpayers to increased risk”.

A “further questionable investment” was the Dublin Interconnector tunnel due for completion in 2015.

Fine Gael’s transport spokeswoman, Olivia Mitchell, said the report had highlighted the huge dangers and risks to taxpayers.

“It’s such an insult to the public that the Government could end up overspending on these projects, but will not tell them until 10 years down the line,” she said.

Labour’s Roisin Shortall voiced similar concerns and stated that there had been an “enormous lack of transparency” since Transport 21 was first published.

A spokeswoman for Mr Cullen said the minister was not in a position to comment on the report as he had not had the opportunity to read it.

road_high

But we have easily the worst road and rail network in Europe; what exactly are these 'experts' saying? We're grand with what we have at present..Hardly.

We need to do something drastic and T21 is a good step towards that.

Slice

The point of the report is not so much against investment in public transport infrastructure but more against the way money is spent. It's about value for money and how this seems to be lacking in T21.

See:
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061220145614/QEC2006Win_SA_Barrett%20.pdf

Time Magazine

Seán's really on a roll at the moment .

Fair play to him.

Bards

OK, so we halt T21, get acurate costings which will take about two to three years and guess what in that time inflation has put the price up further than what it would have cost in the first place.

We need T21 now, not in two or three years

rlogue

Transport 21 may or may not need to be fully costed - but look at the source of the report - none other than the same Sean Barratt who advocated the wholesale closure of the entire railway network in the 1970s and never thought the DART would be a success.

And to think the media think that he is an expert? Not from where I'm sitting. :mad:

mysterious

The irony here is, Back in the day of Mc creevey as finance, They were saying "cutbacks".

Suddenly, or well a year after the T21 launch,Now it should be scrapped? Wtf. :rolleyes:

I'd say some handyman are being paid by the government to sprout this utter nonsense, to make another blatant excuse not to finish "the development plan of many plans" Let's get real here! Though Ireland maybe catching up with Europe with all the new recent roads we are now finally getting, which is great,
But the rest is way way behind... Chronic congestion has never being at it's worst until now. I'm assounded.

Public transport is a big issue, Rail is a big issue, Dublin traffic problems is huge issue, Airports and ports are overloading and countless others dilemmas.

I don't want to sound like I'm bickering? But how is it logical to halt the T21. (let's not forget the NDP was a failure) I mean the country cannot function without getting from A to B with the lack of proper infastructure.

The Economy will be hit badly if the T21 was put on the back boiler???

In fact at present the traffic problems is costing billions to the economy already
So why not finish the the T21? instead of worrying about red figures proposed by the ESRI. It has to be finished regardless! So the ERSI should look at those figures too!

Otherwise multinationals will pack their bags, people will travel 100 miles a day to commute to work, Dublin will stay as the worst case scenerio for urban sprawl. Ireland has already dipped in attracting multinationals and dipped in competivness amongst other rival countries due to high cost and traffic problems etc and god know what else....

Greece and Portugal and Spain have a phenomenal amount of new motorways and other projects since they were also given grants aid from the EU like us when we joined. Like us they had very bad infastructure. Yet with less bouyant economies they are getting built there with little gripe.

Just note: The NRA have learned from past mistakes in getting road projects finished on schedule and more cheaply. So at least that's a noticeble improvement than on the last NDP. So when thing's are getting done it should grind to halt!!?

I've just repeated the obvious that is going through everybodies rational minds.

spacetweek

The ESRI made this report in order to address fears that the taxpayer's money might be wasted.

To be honest, I would be prepared to accept overspending if it meant that the projects weren't delayed. We need the infrastructure so urgently that it would be worth it.

mike65

Some reason to be concerned but as stated whats required is for the infrastructure to get built. Cos if it does'nt happen while things are good, then we'll be forever on the back foot. Also (and while this does'nt excuse overspending its worth noting) such projects are self financing to a suprisingly large degree - just count up all the taxes on wages, VAT and tolls!

Mike.

Slice

So the logic for proceeding with an un-costed, un-weighted transport plan without a first doing a cost-benefit analysis is because the Government has so far failed to do a cost-benefit analysis...

That is an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

is_that_so

Ibid wrote:

Seán's really on a roll at the moment .

He is and if he is wrong we certainly won't be reading a report called "Why I was wrong" :rolleyes: IMHO Fine Gael should not be using a single report to beat the Govt with. These things can come back and bite you. But at the very least there are some questions to be clarified.

strassenwolf

Irish Rail enter the fray, with some venom...

Today's Irish Times, Letters Page wrote:

Madam, - Seán Barrett's latest diatribe, masquerading as economic analysis published by the Economic and Social Research Institute, descends to the level of self-parody ("Transport 21 plan flawed, says expert", Business News, December 21st).

This country still suffers from an infrastructural deficit, much of which can be attributed to public policy being informed by such ideological bias during the 1980s and early 1990s. It was Dr Barrett who regarded the development of the Dart, the country's greatest public transport success story, as a "white elephant", and advocated closing the line and building a new road! Yet despite his having a quarter-century of such spectacular bad calls on our transport needs, credence is again given to his "expert" view on Transport 21.

Iarnród Éireann's plans, and no doubt those of the other transport agencies, have been studied and analysed many times over. Our Dublin area proposals under Transport 21 were economically evaluated by "A Platform for Change", a published document. Our national proposals were economically evaluated by the Government Strategic Rail Review, a published document.

In preparing Transport 21, we submitted a detailed cost benefit analysis developed under parameters set out for all agencies by the Department of Transport. This was independently analysed and verified by Goodbody Consultants for the Department of Transport. Each individual project will have a further detailed analysis, and public inquiries will allow full scrutiny of rail infrastructure projects, as has happened with the Kildare Route Project and the Cork-Midleton line. Yet Dr Barrett advocates paralysis by analysis in getting yet another study done, rather than moving ahead with this costed and appraised programme to deliver a world-class infrastructure for our country and its citizens.

Dr Barrett's paper is littered with out-of-date statistics and references. Contrary to the claims in his report, Iarnród Éireann's passenger numbers are the fastest growing in the EU; we are reducing core staff numbers while carrying more customers; and we have the strongest performance in delivering capital investment programmes on budget of all major recipients of Exchequer funding.

He fails to grasp the very basics of core projects - for example, he completely misunderstands (or perhaps misrepresents) the purpose of the underground Dart interconnector, which is to provide a second high-capacity commuter line through the heart of the city, boosting frequency and capacity on all greater Dublin area rail routes, and linking all modes - Dart, Commuter, Luas and Metro - into a cohesive, integrated network.

He also shows a poor grasp of transport evaluation techniques. Indeed, it is amusing to note his strident calls for yet another cost benefit analysis to be carried out when he proceeds, once again, to completely ignore CBA for public transport projects in favour of purely financial criteria.

It is time to leave behind the failed, flawed analysis of anti-public transport zealots, and take the unique opportunity which Transport 21 presents to develop a world-class public transport infrastructure. - Yours, etc,

BARRY KENNY, Manager, Corporate Communications, Iarnród Éireann, Connolly Station, Dublin 1.

markf909

Fair play Barry, thats a great reply.

strassenwolf

And on it goes...

Today's Irish Times, Letters Page wrote:

Madam, - In his defence of Transport 21, Barry Kenny of Iarnród Éireann (December 28th) claims that Sean Barrett shows a poor grasp of transport evaluation techniques. He goes on to claim that Iarnród Éireann has the strongest performance in delivering capital investment programmes on budget of all major recipients of Exchequer funding.

Surely the man cannot be serious. For instance, what transport evaluation techniques are being used in relation to the works at Tara Street station? Perhaps Barry Kenny could explain why it is taking so long - almost two years at this stage - to complete the refurbishment of one of the busiest stations in the country. What was the time-scale for this project? When can hard-pressed commuters expect to see the benefits of this never-ending saga? The same stop-start approach seems to apply to projects carried out at other stations around the city in recent times. The daily inconvenience to commuters is disgraceful.

"A Platform for Change" maybe, but not at Tara Street station. - Yours, etc,

SeanW

Metrobest?

AYM

Clearly the Irish Times were too sensitive for the full extent of IE's Barrett-bashing.

From today's Indo:

That Sean Barrett's views ('Transport 21 a joke says Barrett', Irish Independent, December 21) are informed by a blinkered, anti-public transport ideology is well known, but his latest diatribe masquerading as economic analysis published by the Economic and Social Research Institute descends to the level of self-parody.

This country still suffers from an infrastructural deficit, much of which can be attributed to public policy being informed by such ideological bias during the 1980s and early 1990s. It was Dr Barrett who regarded the development of the DART, the country's greatest public transport success story, as a "white elephant" and advocated closing the line and building a new road.

Yet despite Dr Barrett having a quarter of a century of such spectacular bad calls on our transport needs, credence is again given to his "expert" view on Transport 21.

Iarnrod Eireann's plans, and no doubt those of the other transport agencies, have been studied and analysed many times over. Our Dublin area proposals under Transport 21 were economically evaluated by A Platform for Change, a published document. Our national proposals were economically evaluated by the government Strategic Rail Review, a published document.

For the preparation for Transport 21, we submitted a detailed Cost Benefit Analysis developed under parameters set out for all agencies by the Department of Transport. This was independently analysed and verified by Goodbody Consultants for the Department of Transport.

Each individual project will have a further detailed analysis, and public inquiries will allow full scrutiny of rail infrastructure projects, as has happened with the Kildare Route Project and the Cork-Midleton line.

Yet, Dr Barrett advocates paralysis by analysis in getting yet another study done, rather than moving ahead with this costed and appraised programme to deliver a world class infrastructure for our country and its citizens.

Dr Barrett's paper is littered with the usual features which have adorned his work for decades.

Selective and out of date statistics and references completely misrepresent the facts.

Contrary to the claims in this report, Iarnrod Eireann's passenger numbers are the fastest growing in the EU; we are reducing core staff numbers while carrying more customers; and we have the strongest performance in delivering capital investment programmes on budget of all major recipients of exchequer funding.

He fails to grasp the very basics of core projects.

For example, he completely misunderstands (or perhaps misrepresents) the purpose of the Underground DART Interconnector, which is to provide a second high capacity commuter line through the heart of the city, boosting frequency and capacity on all Greater Dublin area rail routes, and linking all modes - DART, Commuter, Luas and Metro - into a cohesive, integrated network.

He also shows a demonstrably poor grasp of transport evaluation techniques. Indeed, it is amusing to note his strident calls for yet another Cost Benefit Analysis to be carried out when he proceeds, once again, to completely ignore CBA for public transport projects in favour of purely financial criteria.

Yet these views are reported without any questioning, despite the errors obvious even to any layperson.

It is time to leave behind the failed, flawed analysis of anti-public transport zealots, and take the unique opportunity which Transport 21 presents to develop a world-class public transport infrastructure, for the benefit of our citizens and our future prosperity.
BARRY KENNY,
CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS,
IARNROD EIREANN