[Article] Costly Metro project should be derailed

Navan Junction

Costly Metro project should be derailed
Irish Times, Sat, Oct 20, 2007

The 'astronomical' cost of Dublin's Metro North, as the Taoiseach himself once complained, should force a rethink, argues Frank McDonald, Environment Editor.

This is what Bertie Ahern told the Dáil on June 30th, 2004: "To put a metro into the city on the scale proposed . . . would take up an enormous section of the capital programme for the entire State for an inordinate number of years."

As he said then, "the difficulty is the cost . . . has been astronomical and . . . is way out of line with what is considered reasonable for the taxpayer to bear . . . My feeling is it will be extremely difficult to undertake the entire project."

The Taoiseach was referring to estimates by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) that the likely price-tag for the first phase, linking Dublin airport with the city centre, would be €4.88 billion - a figure that caused consternation in Leinster House.

Three years later, the RPA is motoring ahead with a scheme that will cost even more - at least €5 billion, as revealed by The Irish Timeslast August. And the cost of repaying this capital investment would equate to €22 for every trip taken on the line from Swords to St Stephen's Green.

That's the figure cited by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service in a report on the metro project commissioned by Senator Paschal Donohoe (FG). It assumed that fares would cover the annual operating costs, leaving taxpayers to service a huge capital debt for 30 years.

So what has changed? How is a project branded by the Taoiseach as astronomically expensive in 2004 now proceeding in these more financially-straitened times? The short answer is that we don't know, because of the blanket of secrecy surrounding Metro North's funding.

All monetary figures in documents released to The Irish Timeslast July - nearly two years after they were first sought - were systematically blacked out. It was only by examining one letter closely that it was possible to discern a 2004 estimate of €4.58 billion.

Add the cost of construction inflation since then, as well as an extra station on the east side of Parnell Square plus the cost of putting the line underground in Ballymun, rather than running it along the main street, and it is clear that the estimate would now exceed €5 billion.

Even after allowing for such "value engineering" cost savings as underground stations with bare concrete walls, no escalators between street and concourse levels, and a minimal number of ticket machines - this exceeds the figure which Mr Ahern found "astronomical" in 2004.

It seems hard to credit that his change of tune could be related to the RPA's 2005 decision to reroute the largely underground metro via Drumcondra, in the heart of his constituency; this made sense anyway because it would provide a connection with the Maynooth commuter line.

The Cabinet originally gave its approval for a much more extensive metro in January 2002. The first phase was to include a line from Dublin airport through the city centre to Bray (supplanting the Sandyford Luas then under construction), as well as a spur to serve Blanchardstown. Rather optimistically, 2007 was set as the completion date for this phase of the metro. On foot of Cabinet approval, the RPA prepared an outline business case in 2002 for what has become known as Metro North and a fuller business case for the 17km (10 miles) line in 2003. A spokesman said a more recent cost-benefit analysis of the scheme was submitted this year.

None of these documents has been published, although one can imagine that the latest one has been scrutinised in detail by the Department of Finance. In the meantime, the RPA has shortlisted a number of "qualified candidates" to build and operate the metro. "It is intended that the Railway Order application process will commence in early 2008. The pre-application consultation process with an An Bord Pleanála has commenced and the public consultation process is ongoing," the RPA said in a statement on September 13th.

The RPA was much more forthcoming about figures in the past. It gave a full breakdown to the Oireachtas Committee on Transport in 2003 - €1.72 billion for construction, €903 million for risk provision, finance and insurance, €811 million for cost escalation and €458 million for VAT.

In addition - and this is the really interesting bit - the RPA's then chairman, Padraic White, explained that the public-private partnership (PPP) arrangement would cost the State €676 million, plus a further €313 million in fees for the consultants who would put it together.

So it's no wonder that major international companies such as Acciona, Alstom, Barclays Private Equity, Bombardier, Bouygues, HSBC Infrastructure Fund Management, Keolis, Macquarie Bank, Mitsui, Siemens and Veolia are all delighted to be put on the RPA's shortlist.

Under Department of Finance rules, all public capital projects costing €30 million must be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, which is also supposed to examine alternatives. In the case of Metro North, these would presumably include a Luas line or rail spur to Dublin airport.

Even with "value engineering", such as the no-frills stations now proposed, the acknowledged cost-benefit ratio is weak at just 1:1.31 - nearly three times lower than the RPA's equivalent calculation for a city centre link between the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines.

The business case for Metro North is also based on extraordinarily optimistic assumptions such as the projection that it would carry 34 million passengers per year - eight million more than the two Luas lines carried in 2006 - with trains running every four minutes.

As the report commissioned by Paschal Donohoe pointed out, the RPA's assumption that 44 per cent of car users would transfer to metro in the catchment area it served also "seems particularly implausible" in the light of British figures showing much lower levels of "modal shift".

The metro project would only make economic sense if it was extended southwards from St Stephen's Green to Sandyford, Cherrywood and Bray. But this would involve digging another tunnel from the Green to Ranelagh, and nobody can (or will) say how much this would cost.

"How can anyone estimate the cost of a metro if a detailed design or even a geo-technical study is not completed?" one experienced transport engineer asked.

And if the cost of the project increases, the slim positive ratio would fall and could even become negative.

What's certain is that Metro North would be by far the most expensive public project in the history of the State, costing at least six times as much as Luas or the Dublin Port Tunnel. Indeed, a much more extensive Luas network could be built for considerably less money.

The Green Party remains committed to metro, whatever the cost. And now that it's in Government, its Ministers - John Gormley and Eamon Ryan - will presumably fight to get their way. But it will be up to Brian Cowen and his department to determine whether it goes ahead.

It would require a great deal of political courage to abandon such a "big-ticket" project. However, given the emerging budgetary position and the demise of the Celtic Tiger, it would be the prudent thing to do - and save the money for investment in projects that make sense.

London link: approval for new service

This week the British government finally gave its approval for a £16 billion (€23 billion) underground rail link across London from Paddington to Stratford, with intermediate stations at Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Whitechapel.

Crossrail, Europe's biggest civil engineering project, will provide a Parisian-style rapid rail service carrying 200 million passengers a year. It will link all the tube lines running through central London, thereby making it much easier for public transport users to get around.

Dublin also has a "Crossrail" project - the proposed underground rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock. But it is way down the list of priorities in the Government's Transport 21 programme and may not be built at all if the metro project eats up the money.The Iarnród Éireann project would perform the same role as London's "Crossrail" by linking existing and planned commuter rail services as well as the Tallaght Luas line (at Heuston), the Sandyford Luas line (at St Stephen's Green) and Dart (at Pearse Station).

As a result, it would serve many more public transport users than Metro North, or the proposed Metro West, a souped-up Luas line running from Tallaght to Ballymun via Clondalkin and Blanchardstown - an orbital route on which there isn't even a bus service at present.

According to Iarnród Éireann, the interconnector combined with electrifying commuter rail services to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda would result in a four-fold increase in peak rail patronage by 2016, giving superior access to Dublin from nearly all population centres.

The capital cost of this programme was estimated in 2002 at €3.4 billion, of which the interconnector - let's call it "Crossrail" - would account for €1.3 billion. Five years on, it would cost significantly more - but nothing like as much as Metro North.

© 2007 The Irish Times

aliveandkicking

This type of sh1te is getting increasingly tiresome from Frank McDonald. Yes the interconnector is massively important but why does he have to keep attacking the metro at every opportunity.

He is an intelligent man, he knows them figures are completely bogus. The actual construction cost of the metro is approx €2.2 billion.

It is because it will be a public private partnership that it will end up costing the state €4bn+ but that is paid over a 30 year period not all in one lump.

The metro will cost the state approx 130 million per year for 30 years.

It is also likely the metro will make an operating profit each year like Luas does.

I used to have a lot of respect for Frank McDonald but not anymore, his anti-metro agenda and his use of bogus figures made up by an opposition TD means he has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. He is turning into another Sean Barrett.

fitzyshea

TBH I don’t give a shi* how much these projects cost, well within reason, just get them built. I’m fed up of all the bureaucracy in this country. Its time that the Dublin Transport Authority was set up and someone got these projects advanced and ready to go before all the money is gone-according to Brian Cowen!

D'Peoples Voice

To put this in perspective, the last round in benchmarking cost us over a billion euro EVERY year!
Spending in the health service has gone from EUR4 billion in 1997 to over EUR 18 billion in 2007!
Will the Metro give us a better return than these two?

Transport21 Fan

aliveandkicking wrote: »

I used to have a lot of respect for Frank McDonald but not anymore, his anti-metro agenda and his use of bogus figures made up by an opposition TD means he has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. He is turning into another Sean Barrett.

He is already there. His anti-metro stance is becoming a pathetic crusade. He lives in Temple Bar and has absolutely no understanding of people trying to commute in from the suburbs and what they deal with and what they want. He is the essence of the cafe-society mindset.

You should read his Chaos at the Cross Roads again with fresh eyes and you'll realise what utter rubbish most of it is in terms of the solutions he offers. He is pro Western Rail Corridor and anti-Metro for dealing with gridlock. That's our Frank for ya.

strassenwolf

This is an interesting one for Frank. (And many others)

After coming out wholly in support of the proposed cable car across the city, to a considerable amount of derision from almost anyone who paid any attention to the proposal, he could completely ruin his residual reputation by being seen to help scupper the metro.

Or maybe he's right.

Metrobest

Frank is deliberately misleading his readers, trying to create an impression that we´re being "rìpped off" by the metro whereas the reality is the opposite. We need the metro and it´s quite clear to me that the RPA version is the best version which will be delivered at the lowest possible cost to Joe public. Why does Frank McDonald think there´s something untoward going on here? The facts relating to metro North are on the table and have been so for years.

Why is Frank McDonald coming out now so against spending money on a metro? And demanding cost benefit analysis that have been performed already? Anyway, how can you do any meaningful cost benefit analysis on something that will being unquantifiable social and economic benefits to an entire corridor of North Dublin.

On another point in relation to why a Dublin metro will cost more to build in Dublin that other cities, it should be noted that the comparions made to the Madrid metro (which is where much of the "dublin metro is too expensive" nonsense has originated) are made in relation to MetroSur, a circular line built in new suburbs of Madrid where it´s easy to dig big holes in the ground and put in a metro. Seeing the Madrid metro in the flesh, it´s clear that a Dublin metro could never be built in the same fashion.

Dublin metro will cost more to build on a per kilometre basis than other European metros but that will down to such things as specifications, engineering and indeed the fact that Ireland´s labour costs are higher than the European average.

So, Frank McDonald needs to accept that there is no metro rip off.

If he doesn´t, it´s him who´ll look the fool.

BrianD

Fair play to McDonald - I wouldn't agree with him on everything - but we're being sold a pup of a a "metro" by the RPA. It's poor value for money and inadequate. Building something rather than nothing is not acceptable.

T21 wrote:

He is already there. His anti-metro stance is becoming a pathetic crusade. He lives in Temple Bar and has absolutely no understanding of people trying to commute in from the suburbs and what they deal with and what they want. He is the essence of the cafe-society mindset.

What an absolutely childish comment to make. It really underlines that you have no logic to your continuous glowing support of transport 21 and their ineptidude. Where somebody lives is irrelevant. A public transport system should be of benefit for all citizens allowing them to transit wherever they may reside. There are many people who live in the city centre who work in business parks or industrial areas around the fringes of the city.

dermo88

Looking back at Ireland as an emigrant, I can only laugh. Its history repeating itself, with the standard excuses. No vision for the future. No realisation that if we don't invest now, we will have nothing to give future generations, except more gridlock.

I could'nt care less who ran the Metro system, or whether it was heavy rail or light rail. I could'nt care less if it was CIE or the RPA. I think T21fan is condemning Irish Rail/CIE excessively. Granted, I have no love of them either, but they are much better than they were before, and thats not saying much. All I know that both Metrowest and Metronorth are needed. They are needed yesterday, not in 2012, or 2015 or 2020. It is more than 30 years since I was in nappies, and the Voorhees report was produced. Meanwhile what have we got. A one and a half line electrified railway, and two unconnected light rail branch lines.

Thats some legacy. I think I'll crawl back under my rock and keep my mouth shut, because I have nothing good to say, and when I've nothing good to say, I may as well say nothing. Its just going to piss me off, and my clothes are too nice to ruin by pissing against the wind.

Time Magazine

aliveandkicking wrote: »

He is turning into another Sean Barrett.

Lol. As much as I hate being stuck in a room with Dr. Barrett for two hours every week, we could really do with more people like him in this country.

Transport21 Fan

Metrobest wrote: »

Frank is deliberately misleading his readers,

Other than a handful of grossly overweight cycling campaingers with no social skills, who precisely is Our Frank's constituency? He has lost the respect of just about everybody in the architectural and urban planning world with this transformation into the Latte Barrett.

Most Irish people have never heard of him (or that other archaic gob****e and pathological failure Sean Barrett). Most Dubliners have no idea who Frank McDonald is. Outside the narrow confines of the Irish Times, he is nothing in the overall scheme of things. He is a throwback, an anachronism, a Haughey era radical who matters not anymore. He and Duncan Stewart should start a refuge for Polar Bears in the Ukraine. Nobody would miss either one of these 70's leftovers.

However you ask most Dubliners should the metro be built and they will reply "should of have up and running years ago"

aliveandkicking

BrianD wrote: »

Fair play to McDonald - I wouldn't agree with him on everything - but we're being sold a pup of a a "metro" by the RPA. It's poor value for money and inadequate. Building something rather than nothing is not acceptable.

Brian, can I ask you what you think is wrong with the current metro proposal? Why is it inadequate? Do you really think a metro capable of having 90m trams/trains running every two minutes is inadequate?

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you that we were being sold a pup by the RPA. Back then they were proposing 60m trams, no integration with the DART except a crazy travelator idea from Tara St to College Green, no integration with the Maynooth line at all, no integration with the red Luas line and only going as far as the Airport not to Swords. Back then I was a staunch critic of the metro proposal (read my posts here from around that time) but now I'm glad to say what the RPA are offering now is a millions times better.

aliveandkicking

Ibid wrote: »

Lol. As much as I hate being stuck in a room with Dr. Barrett for two hours every week, we could really do with more people like him in this country.

I don't know the man at all, all I know is he has consistently badmouthed rail transport over the years. If the politicians had listened to him we would have no Dart or Luas today. Can you imagine Dublin today without the DART, the Arrow or the Luas? If this man got his way Dublin's traffic would be even more of a disaster than it already is.

Transport21 Fan

aliveandkicking wrote: »

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you that we were being sold a pup by the RPA. Back then they were proposing 60m trams, no integration with the DART except a crazy travelator idea from Tara St to College Green, no integration with the Maynooth line at all, no integration with the red Luas line and only going as far as the Airport not to Swords. Back then I was a staunch critic of the metro proposal (read my posts here from around that time) but now I'm glad to say what the RPA are offering now is a millions times better.

Same here. But now all that has been cleared up it is amazing why some people would still have any problem with the final metro proposals. I just don't get it.

John R

Meh, I think alot of this stems from the nagging feeling that the Interconnector which is by far the more important project will be quietly binned like so many other transport projects in the past.

The boom is swirling down the toilet bowl and at this rate we will be lucky to get one major rail project in the capital completed.

The Metro should go ahead but the Interconnector should also happen.

Time Magazine

aliveandkicking wrote: »

I don't know the man at all

If you ever stumble upon him by chance, run away. He will talk to you for hours about nothing . Lovely man though.

all I know is he has consistently badmouthed rail transport over the years.

And for good reason. It really is fecking expensive.

If the politicians had listened to him we would have no Dart or Luas today. Can you imagine Dublin today without the DART, the Arrow or the Luas?

Yes. There would be an almighty number of buses. Contrary to what some people think, he doesn't argue against rail because he doesn't like public transport, he argues it because he thinks it would be better spent on buses. You can disagree with him, of course, but more people thinking and speaking so critically would only be a good thing. He had a big effect on deregulating the taxis and would do the same with buses if he had more influence. Now that would really change the face of public transport in Dublin.

If this man got his way Dublin's traffic would be even more of a disaster than it already is.

I disagree. For one, he regularly proposes a London-esque road charge into the city because of the traffic. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he would support a move for a €20 charge to drive into the city, on condition of buses every couple of minutes from all angles.

strassenwolf

aliveandkicking wrote: »

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you that we were being sold a pup by the RPA. Back then they were proposing 60m trams, no integration with the DART except a crazy travelator idea from Tara St to College Green,

Of course, without the travelator, integration with the DART will still be dependent on construction of the interconnector. If, as John R suggests above, that were to be quietly binned, where would you have a connection between the metro and the DART?

no integration with the Maynooth line at all,

The proposed integration is hardly ideal, apparently because the powers that be are not prepared to cause a lot of traffic disruption along Drumcondra Road.

no integration with the red Luas line

Again, hardly an ideal connection between the two lines. It will require quite a long walk to make the connection. And all because the RPA decided that, instead of having two very busy stations at Trinity and O'Connell Street, where a really good connection to the LUAS could have been made, they would go for one monstrously busy station at O'Connell Bridge. All for the sake of saving a few quid.

I can understand if they decided to cut back on stations in the suburbs, but merging two of the potentially busiest stations - quite probably the two busiest stations in the event that the interconnector is not built - makes little sense.

and only going as far as the Airport not to Swords.

In many ways I agree with you. I'm still not sure that it wouldn't be better to have the line built such that it has two branches - one to the airport and the other to Swords - but that apparently isn't to be.

Back then I was a staunch critic of the metro proposal (read my posts here from around that time) but now I'm glad to say what the RPA are offering now is a millions times better.

A million times better? Surely that is overstating the case for the metro as currently proposed? Certainly any visitors to Dublin, who see stations with no escalators and bare-walls, would be doubling themselves up with laughter as they try to imagine what the original proposal might have been, if you were to tell them that the end product they see is a million times better than the original plan.:D

murphaph

Can I ask the naysayers, what would you do in the RPA's position?

You have a fixed budget, not a blank cheque remember. And, go.......




I've taken the time to speak to members of the RPA and their consulting engineers at the open days. You can literally feel the frustration inside them. They want to build the very very best but they can't. Let's be honest here, would anyone like metro north binned because there are no tiles on the walls (which can be added later anyway) or escalators at some stations (which can be added later anyway)?

The original proposals were rubbish. No integration worth speaking of and short platforms. The current proposal is a world away from that. The interconnector has flaws guys! The proposed Heuston low level station will only have 1 entrance/exit, same at Christchurch and possibly Docklands. Only Pearse and Stephen's Green have more than 1 entrance. Contrast to ANY humble underground station in Munich/Berlin-multiple access points to it, spreading its catchment area considerably!

BendiBus

strassenwolf wrote: »

I'm still not sure that it wouldn't be better to have the line built such that it has two branches - one to the airport and the other to Swords - but that apparently isn't to be.

Why would that be better? It would effectively halve the number of Airport-City & Swords-City services. Also, I suspect that Swords-Airport will be a very popular trip in itself with all the airport workers.

murphaph wrote:

The proposed Heuston low level station will only have 1 entrance/exit, same at Christchurch and possibly Docklands. Only Pearse and Stephen's Green have more than 1 entrance.

Yeah, I raised that issue with them, and put it on a comment card, at their roadshow.

I just hope the bloody thing actually goes ahead. In fairness, I do get the feeling that the Government, and Ireland in general, has finally copped on that we actually need a proper infrastructure to get on in the world. Except for Frank McDonald.

Transport21 Fan

The Interconnector is not being binned. It's just more complicated than Metro North, both from a fiscal and engineering standpoint. The Metro North is pretty straightforward by comparison.

Still, I do have to wonder why CIE did not put the Interconnector under Heuston and avoid these complicated discussions/payments with Diagieo.

dermo88

In one word....Engineering. Thats why Iarnrod Eireann are putting the Heuston underground stop underneath the Guinness factory. Making a big 200-300 meter x 40 meter box underneath Heuston would hardly be a barrel of laughs.

As for Interconnector, I'll believe it when I am on it, just as it was with Luas.

monument

The way things are going with government spending, and the sign of things to come, the interconnector is about as safe as houses (....which should be viewed with today's unstable house market in mind).

Can any of us really say that Metro North and/or the "Dart Underground" are any where near sure things? No, of course not.

On the price of the Metro North project, the government are free to back the posters here who claim that it'll cost X, Y, or Z. They are free to set the record straight. Otherwise, Frank has documents to back up what he is saying.

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

Most Irish people have never heard of him (or that other archaic gob****e and pathological failure Sean Barrett). Most Dubliners have no idea who Frank McDonald is. Outside the narrow confines of the Irish Times, he is nothing in the overall scheme of things...

I normally find my self knocking people who talk up the Irish Times' influence, I'm afraid I'll have to do the opposite here.

Transport21 Fan wrote: »

However you ask most Dubliners should the metro be built and they will reply "should of have up and running years ago"

Being simplistic can be nice, but Frank McDonald's question would be more like 'do you want to see one Metro line built or a massive upgrade of the Dart? This is due to lead to Dart services on the two western rail lines, more frequent services on the current lines'.

...and the answer for a lot of Dubliners would chance quite quickly.

bk

monument wrote: »

Being simplistic can be nice, but Frank McDonald's question would be more like 'do you want to see one Metro line built or a massive upgrade of the Dart? This is due to lead to Dart services on the two western rail lines, more frequent services on the current lines'.

...and the answer for a lot of Dubliners would chance quite quickly.

Honestly I'm not too sure about that, most ordinary people consider Metro to be all sexy, while the Dart is old, slow, infrequent and overcrowded.

Now of course all of us here know that the Dart underground should be a completely different beast, but most ordinary dubs don't know this and I bet you that if you ask them, far more then a majority would vote for Metro.

Also the Dart Underground will mostly serve stations that are already served by rail transport, just not as efficient as Dart, but most of the stations are currently served by commuter rail. The Metro on the other hand will serve a massive area of Dublin that currently has no rail transport at all. So I'd expect most people would rightfully consider Metro North to be the priority.

Of course many people would say, why can't we have both?

If anything is to be dropped, then I'd hope Metro West or the Luas line link ups would be dropped before the interconnecter (while retaining the land for Metro West for future development).

markpb

monument wrote: »

Being simplistic can be nice, but Frank McDonald's question would be more like 'do you want to see one Metro line built or a massive upgrade of the Dart? This is due to lead to Dart services on the two western rail lines, more frequent services on the current lines'.

...and the answer for a lot of Dubliners would chance quite quickly.

I think you're being simplistic too. The interconnector is no use at all to the vast swathes of city that aren't currently served by train. Unlike other city metros (and hopefully Metro North), it won't have the frequency or speed to be useful for short hop inner-city journeys. In fact, the only group who will really benefit from it are commuters from outer suburban areas and possibly people who live/work on the Dart line. Like others have said, both are needed because they solve two totally different problems but together they form the backbone of a city rail _network_, something we don't have at the moment.

monument

markpb wrote: »

I think you're being simplistic too. The interconnector is no use at all to the vast swathes of city that aren't currently served by train. Unlike other city metros (and hopefully Metro North), it won't have the frequency or speed to be useful for short hop inner-city journeys. In fact, the only group who will really benefit from it are commuters from outer suburban areas and possibly people who live/work on the Dart line. Like others have said, both are needed because they solve two totally different problems but together they form the backbone of a city rail _network_, something we don't have at the moment.

It'll connect the four rail lines, commuter rail, the red line Luas, the green line Luas, and it'll be another rail connection between the two main rail stations.

As for areas served, it'll include areas such as parts of the south inner city and large areas on the two western rail lines.

As for frequency, the Maynooth line will clearly have a far better frequency with Dart rather then just commuter, while having the Northern - Kildare lines linked should lead to a far more frequent service then now seen on the Dart.

bk wrote: »

Honestly I'm not too sure about that, most ordinary people consider Metro to be all sexy, while the Dart is old, slow, infrequent and overcrowded.

Now of course all of us here know that the Dart underground should be a completely different beast, but most ordinary dubs don't know this and I bet you that if you ask them, far more then a majority would vote for Metro.

Yeah, that's what I meant by an upgrade - tho I could have worded it better, was in a rush at the time.

bk wrote: »

Also the Dart Underground will mostly serve stations that are already served by rail transport, just not as efficient as Dart, but most of the stations are currently served by commuter rail. The Metro on the other hand will serve a massive area of Dublin that currently has no rail transport at all. So I'd expect most people would rightfully consider Metro North to be the priority.

If you were to explain the massive improvement in services, people in west Dublin and near the northern line would - I'd guess - go for the Dart Underground.

The linking of the Dublin's rail services the project will create a knock on effect for public transport, unlike Metro North which is pretty much a standalone project for the most project.

bk wrote: »

Of course many people would say, why can't we have both?

Hopefully we can.

markpb

Exactly.... anyone already on the Dart/suburban lines will benefit so there's a boost in service levels but not in coverage. Without decent coverage, you don't get a network effect and you can't get people out of their car and onto public transport.

When (if) both are built, there'll be a decent network and there's a greater chance that people can do their entire journey on rail so they'll be more willing to make the change.

bk

monument wrote: »

It'll connect the four rail lines, commuter rail, the red line Luas, the green line Luas, and it'll be another rail connection between the two main rail stations.

I think you have just summarised why it isn't the number one priority. It mostly just connects up existing rail lines.

Yes it will greatly improve integration and capacity/frequency on existing lines, but it isn't going to increase coverage of areas currently unserved, unlike Metro North.

Having said that, IMO it is the second most important rail project after Metro North.

strassenwolf

BendiBus wrote: »

Why would that be better? It would effectively halve the number of Airport-City & Swords-City services. Also, I suspect that Swords-Airport will be a very popular trip in itself with all the airport workers.

It is planned to build the metro tunnel through the city - that's probably going to be the costliest part of construction. So we might as well use it to the full. Splitting the line at some point probably makes sense so that the most expensive section can be used properly - this is common practice on many underground systems. Having Swords and the Airport as separate termini may or may not be the best solution - it might be better to eventually have a branch going off somewhere else entirely - but it might be one way of eventually using the line to the full.

I am simply saying that it seems a pity to see this as one line, when it really has the capacity to eventually be effectively two, or possibly three, spreading the catchment area while sharing track in the city centre. (While two termini is more common, Frankfurt has one line which splits into three outside the city centre, though it must be said none of these go to an airport). While I fully acknowledge that my above suggestion may not be the best way to do this, the capacity may well be there.

I take your point that there are, relatively (compared to other parts of the city), a lot of people from Swords who work at the airport. I don't know how many people work at the airport - perhaps 5,000 (?), but what proportion will choose the metro over their current method of getting to work?

Dublin Airport currently handles around 21 million passengers per year. So, let's say that this figure eventually reaches 30 million, what with terminal 2 and so forth. And let's assume that all the passengers that go out via the airport also come back to the airport, and all the passengers who come in also go out that way. If 80% of passengers were to use the metro to/from the airport - I'd be surprised if it were that high, but let's just assume it - that's 24,000,000 airport-related journeys by passengers (ARJPs) per year on the metro, 12,000,000 in each direction.

52 weeks in the year, approximately:D (I'm not really sure what the situation is in the week after Christmas - most people returning to Ireland stay for about a week, while most leaving do so for about a week, so I'm not sure if the period directly after Christmas is as busy as other weeks) - thus we have an average of 230,769 ARJPs per week in each direction. (12,000,000/52)

Then let's say that travel on Saturday and Sunday combined amounts to half of a normal weekday - is this fair? If it is, we have 41,958 ARJPs per day
in each direction (230,769/5.5)

The figure given on another thread for the eventual capacity of a metro tram is 670 passengers. And it is aimed to eventually have these trams every 2 minutes.

I would, however, expect that the eventual capacity of the trams to be somewhat lower than that, what with a lot of these ARJPs also involving things like suitcases. I’m not sure if this has already been taken into account in calculating the potential load. (Since I don’t know, I am going to assume that it has not, purely for the purposes of being able to complete the calculation).

This might reduce the realistic load to, say, 500 passengers per tram on airport-bound trams, while trams bound for some other terminus (e.g. Swords) would have a capacity of 670 passengers With a potential 30 trams an hour, that is a total capacity of 7,500 passengers per hour on airport-bound trams and 10,050 on other trams. Total 17,550.

Assuming that it is around 5,000 people who work at the airport, and our eventual network enables greater numbers of people to live outside Fingal and work in the airport, let's say 3,042 of these will use the metro to get to work.

That gives 45,000 airport-related journeys (ARJs) per direction per day.

Let’s look at the city to airport direction.

With, say, 20 trams between 5 and 7 in the morning, all airport-bound as there is a lot of demand for early flights but little demand to go anywhere else, you could deal with a lot of those 45,000 ARJs (theoretically 10,000)

Then you have, say, 30 trams an hour between 7 and 10 and between 4 and 8 in the evening (theoretical capacity 122,850 (17,550 x 7)), and 15 trams an hour between 10 and 4 and 8 and 12 (theoretical capacity approx. 105,300)

Total theoretical capacity per direction per day, for that timetable – which clearly has scope for increases in the off-peak hours – 238,150

By way of comparison, the 6 lines (3 pairs of lines in the city) of the Munich U-Bahn carry around 900,000 passengers per weekday. If you could consider that the system has two directions (into town, out of town), that’s 450,000 passengers per direction per day. The U4 isn’t really a very busy line, so we’ll call it half a line. This gives 81,818 passengers per direction per line per day (450,000/5.5). Two lines together through the city = 163,636.

The potential figure in Dublin seems to comfortably exceed that.

So yes, dividing the line into two does reduce the number of journeys to or from either terminus. On the other hand, it can spread the catchment area considerably, without twice incurring the large costs of tunnelling through the city. Obiously, one would have to see all the figures for potential demand at the stations along the proposed single route, but I’d be surprised if they approach a potential 238,150 passengers per day. And once you take out the 45,000 ARJs, (just for one direction, mind), you are left with a potential capacity of 193150.

Is one corridor really going to be able to provide anything like that demand?

bk

strassenwolf wrote:

It is planned to build the metro tunnel through the city - that's probably going to be the costliest part of construction. So we might as well use it to the full. Splitting the line at some point probably makes sense so that the most expensive section can be used properly - this is common practice on many underground systems. Having Swords and the Airport as separate termini may or may not be the best solution - it might be better to eventually have a branch going off somewhere else entirely - but it might be one way of eventually using the line to the full.

Well we are already sort of doing that. Metro West would be an example of a line that will come off Metro North and head to places like Blanchardstown, etc.

It maybe even possible that we will end up with trams going straight onto Metro West from Metro North, without the need for people changing.

If the 670 figure is correct, then I'd say that they have already taken into account luggage, as by my estimates based on the 40m Luas, a 90m tram should be able to take over 800 people.

Anyway I don't think luggage is going to be that big of a deal, I don't think many people who are going on long holidays with lots of luggage are going to drag it on the Metro, they will likely continue to take a taxi or drive.

The people heading to the airport who will take the Metro will be people who work at the airport, business people on day trips, short weekend trips, with only the odd mad back packer dragging big luggage on board.

One thing you seem to have left out in your estimates. The population of Swords is currently 40,000, but is expected to grow to 100,000 in the next 10 years, many of whom will work in the city centre. Also many people at other stops along the way (Drumcondra, etc.) and even between O'Connell St and Stephens Green will likely use it.

markpb

bk wrote: »

Also many people at other stops along the way (Drumcondra, etc.) and even between O'Connell St and Stephens Green will likely use it.

Don't forget all the other locations that will be directly accessible by train by that time - everywhere on the red and green luas lines, Dart lines 1 and 2 and the IR suburban network. The potential growth for all the lines is huge if the network is built up.

marmajam

Dear posters, I have to take you to task regarding your unfair dissing of our boy Frankie. You don't appreciate how far thinking he truly is. Just suppose Metro north, West, Luas and Suas, personal hovercrafts anti-gravity buses etc and so on are built as promised in Bertie's Ceausescuesque transport21 dream. What will our boy have to write about? The days of rubbishing the skinny M50 might be coming to an end and things look worrying work wise, what with his homemade uranium laptop project eating funds, not least in hospital fees..............Things are already bad enough at the Irish Times. There just is'nt enough news to fill that paper every day as it is. Now, he could try writing big but.............he's been warned about that already and with John Waters usually pulling that stroke ..............

Metrobest

aliveandkicking wrote: »

A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you that we were being sold a pup by the RPA. Back then they were proposing 60m trams, no integration with the DART except a crazy travelator idea from Tara St to College Green, no integration with the Maynooth line at all, no integration with the red Luas line and only going as far as the Airport not to Swords. Back then I was a staunch critic of the metro proposal (read my posts here from around that time) but now I'm glad to say what the RPA are offering now is a millions times better.

I want to point out that the travelator idea is not crazy at all. Barcelona metro is building a travelator to connect the Catalan "dart" commuter trains with the metro lines at Diagonal. The travelator is needed because the underground walkway that connects the two is cramped and too long. It does not facilitate easy integration.

To not build a travelator to connect O´Connell Bridge station with Tara Street is, in my opinion, highly stupid because such a travelator would stimulate interchange between these lines in a way that a surface connection cannot.

It is always better to install facilties such as travelators, multiple exits and wide platforms from the word go; not spending money on these things is false economy because eventually they will be required and it always costs more to do it retrospectively.

In relation to the interconnector while I now accept the idea that it is a good thing and is needed, I do feel that it is the thing that will actually cost the most money to build. Simply put, I think CIE will make a balls of it. They couldn´t even manage to upgrade the DART properly, so how in god´s name will they be able to engineer a tunnel under Viking Dublin without causing numerous buildings to implode?

Looking at the sitation in Barcelona currently, where construction of the TGV tunnel between the airport and central Barcelona has caused a surface line to subside and a commuter rail tunnel to collapse, in a city that has decades of experience with rail tunneling, I wouldn´t like to think what would have happened if CIE were in charge of that project!

murphaph

Metrobest wrote: »

I wouldn´t like to think what would have happened if CIE were in charge of that project!

Nothing would have happened.

I've agreed with you on a lot of things lately MB, but a long travelator in a tunnel to Tara St. would be an extravagance that would be better spent elsewhere for the time being.

Anyone heading Bray->Maynooth on the DART and wanting the O'Connell St area will likely depart at Tara and walk anyway. Anyone wanting St. Stephen's Green will depart an walk or change at Pearse, anyone wanting the Mater Hospital can stay on as far as Drumcondra and take metro southbound 1 stop.

The very limited number of journeys made easier by a travelator connection between Tara and O'Connell Bridge wouldn't justify the relatively large expense incurred in driving the tunnel and installing a mega long travelator-remember this metro system may be devoid of regular escalators at many stops! The money spent on the Tara connection could easily pay for multiple escalators at all stops not at grade. That would be a better use of the limited funding I believe.

They should of course leave the option open to later drive a pedestrian tunnel in the design of the O'Connell Bridge stop as we do not know the future direction of any southside extension to the metro. It may link to green line but it's possible it will also swing out towards Tallaght, in which case a better connection at Tara would be beneficial.

BrianD

Metrobest wrote: »

To not build a travelator to connect O´Connell Bridge station with Tara Street is, in my opinion, highly stupid because such a travelator would stimulate interchange between these lines in a way that a surface connection cannot.

No problem with them but I think the distances are too long to be practical and would would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs for users.

In relation to the interconnector while I now accept the idea that it is a good thing and is needed, I do feel that it is the thing that will actually cost the most money to build. Simply put, I think CIE will make a balls of it. They couldn´t even manage to upgrade the DART properly, so how in god´s name will they be able to engineer a tunnel under Viking Dublin without causing numerous buildings to implode?

You accept anything that the RPA tell you but not CIE?!? We all know that a line north to swords is needed and we are discussing the finer details of it here. Whether the RPA or CIE build it is not that relevant it is needed. We all know that the interconnector is needed (again makes no odds who builds it) but you wouldn't accept it because it was a CIE project?!??? Are you for real? RPA are asking people to jump off the north wall ... off you go!!

The fact of the matter despite all their faults, and cock ups in the past, IR have demonstrated that they are now well able to deliver major projects on time and on budget. To be frank, the RPA don't enjot that record though its early days for them. Let's face it the interconnector won't be built by CIE - it would probably be one of the big international contractors who would be building it as no such expertese exists here.

Looking at the sitation in Barcelona currently, where construction of the TGV tunnel between the airport and central Barcelona has caused a surface line to subside and a commuter rail tunnel to collapse, in a city that has decades of experience with rail tunneling, I wouldn´t like to think what would have happened if CIE were in charge of that project!

That's an idiotic statement to make that has no basis in fact! How can you possible make that statement? Surely the same should apply to the RPA who have no tunneling experience either? Oh hang on, who caused HArcourt st to subside ... oh, the RPA!

Metrobest

The very limited number of journeys made easier by a travelator connection between Tara and O'Connell Bridge wouldn't justify the relatively large expense incurred in driving the tunnel and installing a mega long travelator-remember this metro system may be devoid of regular escalators at many stops! The money spent on the Tara connection could easily pay for multiple escalators at all stops not at grade. That would be a better use of the limited funding I believe.

They should of course leave the option open to later drive a pedestrian tunnel in the design of the O'Connell Bridge stop as we do not know the future direction of any southside extension to the metro. It may link to green line but it's possible it will also swing out towards Tallaght, in which case a better connection at Tara would be beneficial.

Philip, compared with many underground connections at metro stations in various European cities the distance between Tara Street and O´Connell Street is not insurmountable and it´s a shame, I believe, to leave the two unconnected.

Here in Barcelona I have to change everyday at Passeig de Gracia station which has a long, claustrophobic tunnel. There are ways of avoiding this connection, but at the end of the day people, though they hate it, use it because it´s the fastest connection for many journeys. (A similar walkway at Diagonal-Provenca is to be converted to a travelator).

If time is money, and travelators save time, then travelators in the long run save money - to business, to society (in terms of lower stress levels and higher productivity and efficiency.)

Nobody did a cost benefits analysis on the Spire or on the square in Smithfield, these are public spaces which have a positive aesthetic quality and improve people´s quality of life. The travelator does all that too, yet it also yields a useful function in terms of connnecting what may well be Ireland´s two busiest stations. Why am I the only person on this forum advocating it?

I want the MetroNorth to be the best metro possible and for it to avoid the mistakes made in the Barcelona metro, ie. narrow platforms, claustrophobic tunnels and lack of travelators (many of the Barcelona stations were built during the Franco dictatorship). (We don´t have that excuse: we voted for Bertie Ahern.)

Whether or not there is an underground connection between Tara Street and O´Connell Bridge, the reality is that people will find themselves making connections between these two stations, for example the nurse traveling from Dun Laoghaire to the Mater or the trade union official from Sandymount en route to his office in Parnell Square. Yes, such connections could be made via Drumcondra but they can be done much more speedily and confortably via a travelator to Tara.

It´s horrendously disruptive to install a travelator retrospectively, however do it first time round and it´s a doddle. I don´t have a figure on how much a Tara-O´Connell Bridge travelator would cost but it wouldn´t be huge - at the end of the day this is supposed to be Ireland´s showpiece metro station which every tourist to the city will end up using, do we want the Europeans to think we´re a bunch of idiots for not connecting these two stations, as would surely be done in any other EU city building a metro like this?

And Philip don´t worry that a travelator will deprive other stations of their escalators. While MetroNorth may not provide escalators to street level it has always allowed for escalators from Concourse to platform level, along with lifts for the disabled to street level. Again that´s common practice in new metro lines across Europe, such as Madrid´s.

Metrobest

BrianD wrote: »

IR have demonstrated that they are now well able to deliver major projects on time and on budget. !

*laughs*

the last major project they (mis)managed was DART Upgrade which came in half a year late.

And did they ever get back those DART carriages they sent to be refurbished in Ukraine or some other random place?

And then there was the fiasco of the drivers going on strike over the new Cork-Dublin train project. And even those trains were late to come on stream.

Brian you must have some deep nostalgia about Irish Rail or some other connection to the company, I find it so strange that as someone who´s lived outside Ireland and seen how the first hand the rail systems operate in other countries you can possibly defend Irish Rail?

monument

Metrobest wrote: »

And did they ever get back those DART carriages they sent to be refurbished in Ukraine or some other random place?

Was that delay not the refurbisher's fault?

Metrobest wrote: »

...And even those trains were late to come on stream.

Again, was that not the train builder's fault?

Metrobest wrote: »

Brian you must have some deep nostalgia about Irish Rail or some other connection to the company, I find it so strange that as someone who´s lived outside Ireland and seen how the first hand the rail systems operate in other countries you can possibly defend Irish Rail?

Him having nostalgia a side, you're not building a massive case of major IR projects not on time and on budget.

You list one building project, two new/refurbished train issues which I'm nearly sure the train builders were in the wrong, and one union issue.

When we're talking about building projects you look to be going off in a tangent.

bk

Metrobest wrote:

Why am I the only person on this forum advocating it?

Because most people see that while Tara is currently an important station, once Metro North and the interconnector are built, it becomes far less important with easier connections at other stations.

Interchange between Metro North and Kildare Line/Dart at Stephens Green, interchange between Metro North and Maynooth Line/Dart at Drumcondra. I can't think of a single reason why someone would want to go to Tara unless they work/live close by.

Much more important to ensure there are exits at both sides of the quays at the O'Connell St Station

monument wrote:

Was that delay not the refurbisher's fault?

.....

Again, was that not the train builder's fault?

It was most definitely CIE's fault for badly managing these projects and allowing their subcontractors to get away with such outrageously over scheduled projects
(I actually don't think the DART station upgrades taking an extra 6 months is a big deal, but the DART carriage situation is truly awful).

murphaph

Metrobest wrote: »

It´s horrendously disruptive to install a travelator retrospectively, however do it first time round and it´s a doddle. I don´t have a figure on how much a Tara-O´Connell Bridge travelator would cost but it wouldn´t be huge - at the end of the day this is supposed to be Ireland´s showpiece metro station which every tourist to the city will end up using, do we want the Europeans to think we´re a bunch of idiots for not connecting these two stations, as would surely be done in any other EU city building a metro like this?

And Philip don´t worry that a travelator will deprive other stations of their escalators. While MetroNorth may not provide escalators to street level it has always allowed for escalators from Concourse to platform level, along with lifts for the disabled to street level. Again that´s common practice in new metro lines across Europe, such as Madrid´s.

It's over 1000 feet from O'Connell Bridge to Tara MB. That's a proper long tunnel. It's not just an extended exit shaft. It would cost in the low millions to build. It would require services to be diverted like a 1000ft of Luas track. It would not be a doddle.

I have seen metros (like Berlin) where the concourse to street has no escalator and it's a big let down compared to (for example) Munich where most statons have an escalator up to street (in fact most are bi-directional with sensors at each end) level. Remember especially for metro north that many passengers will be armed with luggage from the airport. I'd rather the cash was spent on equipping every underground/elevated station with proper escalators. Each to their own but definitely I would like to allow for the travelator to be added later.

bk

Navan Junction wrote:

Three years later, the RPA is motoring ahead with a scheme that will cost even more - at least €5 billion, as revealed by The Irish Timeslast August. And the cost of repaying this capital investment would equate to €22 for every trip taken on the line from Swords to St Stephen's Green.

That's the figure cited by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service in a report on the metro project commissioned by Senator Paschal Donohoe (FG). It assumed that fares would cover the annual operating costs, leaving taxpayers to service a huge capital debt for 30 years.

Anyone know where I might get this report?

Freedom of information request perhaps?

The reason I ask is that I've been doing the maths and I've absolutely no idea where they come up with the figure of €22 per trip for the capital cost over 30 years.

Based on the following assumptions:
- €5 billion build cost
- 34 million passengers per year
- over 30 years
- Fares cover operational and maintenance costs

I come up with a figure of just €4.90 per trip to cover the capital cost over 30 years.

There is a big difference between €4.90 and €22

The only way I can come up with a figure of €22 per trip was if:

1) the cost of building the Metro was €22 billion!!!!
2) or if you wrote off the capital cost off over 7 years rather then 30
3) or if the expected number of passengers was only 7.5 million per year
(unlikely as the Luas red line already gets 14.5 million per year)

Seriously I've absolutely no idea where the figure of €22 comes from and I'd love to see the report that the Oireachtas Library and Research Service compiled.

marmajam

BK, allow the 22 Euros for a mo' - in 30 yrs time it will very very likely cost 22 Euros in fare to make the trip from CC to Swords..........or more.
The maths are a feeble attempt of the anti public transport lobby to derail these projects.
From their perspective the plebs can make their way to work by walking, or horse and cart if more than 15 miles, and not on the back of any tax funded fancy travel machines.
Also what's with the 30 years? - are the owner's going to put it back in it's box then and take it home? They don't seem to have noticed that the 1st London 'Tube' - Paddington to Farringdon - stills runs 142 years on?
In 2150 it might cost 2,222 Euros to get from the road works in O'Connell/Osama Bin Laden St to Not-Ryanair-terminal 33 in Dublin Airport.
Mind, 2,222E x 30 million trips will buy individual horse and carts for every chinese language student in Dublin. And China.
I suggest that the backs of all envelopes at the evil empire HQ, Irish Times, be confiscated.
Immediately.
And the school math's teachers of big Frankie MacDonald et al publicly beheaded as an encouragement to the rest.

paulm17781

Metrobest wrote: »

Why am I the only person on this forum advocating it?

Does that in itself not speak volumes to you?

monument

bk wrote: »

It was most definitely CIE's fault for badly managing these projects and allowing their subcontractors to get away with such outrageously over scheduled projects

The problem with the Luas tracks which the contractors said they would pay for etc is also most definitely the RPA's fault then?

paulm17781

monument wrote: »

The problem with the Luas tracks which the contractors said they would pay for etc is also most definitely the RPA's fault then?

Who managed the Luas? The RPA, it is their fault.

Who managed the DART upgrade? CIE, it is their fault.

Project management isn't just outsourcing and forgetting about it. It is managing the project so it gets done on time, properly and preferably under budget.

monument

I aggree.

But it's funny that the RPA lovers (or at least the over the top ones) attack IR on one side and previouly dissmissed the problems with the Luas tracks as the contractors' fault.

bk

monument wrote: »

I aggree.

But it's funny that the RPA lovers (or at least the over the top ones) attack IR on one side and previouly dissmissed the problems with the Luas tracks as the contractors' fault.

I agree completely with Paulm above, all projects will have problems and mistakes made. What is important to me is how they handled the situation.

For the problem with the tracks, the RPA admitted their was a problem, forced the contractors to pay for their mistakes and it was quickly fixed, all good project management process.

The problem with the Dart carriages has been on going for the last two years, CIE won't even admit there is a problem and don't seem to be doing anything, they don't seem to be pushing Siemens to fix the problem quickly or pay for their mistakes.

CIE seem to be following the typical old government department approach to project management. Hide the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. This isn't good project management.

Metrobest

murphaph wrote: »

It's over 1000 feet from O'Connell Bridge to Tara MB. That's a proper long tunnel. It's not just an extended exit shaft. It would cost in the low millions to build. It would require services to be diverted like a 1000ft of Luas track. It would not be a doddle.

I have seen metros (like Berlin) where the concourse to street has no escalator and it's a big let down compared to (for example) Munich where most statons have an escalator up to street (in fact most are bi-directional with sensors at each end) level. Remember especially for metro north that many passengers will be armed with luggage from the airport. I'd rather the cash was spent on equipping every underground/elevated station with proper escalators. Each to their own but definitely I would like to allow for the travelator to be added later.

Philip I agree metroNorth stations should all have escalators to street level but at least in the case - no pun intended - of passsengers who carry luggage, these folks will be able to take the lift, a quicker and more convenient option in such a scenario.

But there will be no lift, no travelator, to connect passengers making connections between O'Connell and Tara and that's what I believe is shortsighted. Because whatever happens with Drumcondra and Pearse and the Green, the reality is that people will make connections at points where it's most central to do so as this saves time. That's the experience here in BCN.

At the very least allow for a travelator to be installed at a later date but realise that installing one retrospectively will be hugely disruptive. I am witnessing this disruption in Barcelona where a travelator is being installed at the Diagonal Station "incanviador" and entire streets have lanes closed for many long months to facilitate construction. It's never an easy task to do these things retrospectively so why not do it now and give Dublin a world class interchange, a flashy metro station that visible to every tourist visiting the city?

It's also not hard to make the leap of faith to believe that metroNorth and West will stimulate demand for future metro lines, making the travelator all the more essential to install. Right now!

Metrobest

Just to illustrate my point, some pics from the fabulous Bilbao metro and its travelator...

BendiBus

Metrobest wrote: »

But there will be no lift

How can there be no lift in any station that isn't at ground level? Accessibility regulations effectively make them compulsary don't they?

paulm17781

Metrobest wrote: »

Just to illustrate my point, some pics from the fabulous Bilbao metro and its travelator...

Fwoar... that's hot!

Calina

Metrobest wrote: »

..... so why not do it now and give Dublin a world class interchange, a flashy metro station that visible to every tourist visiting the city?

see here I have problems...I'm getting a vibe of style over substance to be honest with you.