[Article] €3bn price tag for 13 planned Luas lines in 2004, documents show

JHMEG

PLANS BY the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) for an extensive network of Luas light rail lines in Dublin – as put forward in late 2004 – would cost about €3 billion to implement, according to official documents.

The documents were only released by the Department of Transport this year after an Irish Times Freedom of Information Act request in November 2005, along with an appeal to Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0201/1224263503829.html?digest=1

Cookie_Monster

€3bn for 13 lines seems cheap compared to whats been spent already

amacachi

Yeah but it would've cost at least twice that.

wildefalcon

Much better to spend the money on a Metro to Berties house, and on to the Airport.

Wait.......we'd need an extra 2 billion to do that, darn.

Still, it would be worth it!

WildeFalcon

Metrostar

No prizes for guessing the author of this article: Frank McDonald, the man who is on a vindictive crusade to prevent Metro North from being built.

€3bn price tag for 13 planned Luas lines in 2004, documents show

The headline is completely misleading. The documents don't show that. This is Frank McDonald's erroneous calculation - extrapolating the costs of an extension to an existing suburban line to an entire network of new lines is, at best, clumsy, and at worst, pure malicious.

dynamick

Yes this is Frank MacDonald pushing his opinion that Metro North should not be built and instead replaced with luas lines. His cost estimate for 13 luas lines @3bn is found by taking the cost of one outer suburban line and asuming that all lines will cost the same per km to build. This despite the fact that the most recent city centre line ended up costing double his estimate per km. Then he writes an article saying that official documents have shown that his simplistic estimate is the total cost.

In the same article he compares the cost of Metro North (which he gives at 4.58bn) to show that Metro North is a bad project while all luas lines are good projects. Problem is that the Metro figure includes 30 years of interest while the luas costs are the cash build costs only. This is like saying a house costs 300K to buy in cash but an apartment costs 500K when you add up the mortgage payments over 30 years - so houses must cost less than apartments.

I have a feeling that the metro and interconnector will go ahead now. SSG, Mater and airport stations boxes would be giant projects that would employ thousands of idle builders. Annual funding cost for he two projects is probably about 400m which is a doable amount. I can't see any other luas lines happening though.

On street trams have no advantage over buses other than comfort. They get caught in traffic and so have unpredictable schedules, they run at the same speed as buses and take up road-space that could be used by bikes & buses. Yet FMcD thinks running a tram up the buslane through Drumcondra is the same as a Metro. He is supposed to be an environmental correspondent so he would be better interviewing experts on transport economics rather than pushing his own uninformed and confused prejudices.

Although he's very good on architecture and urban design.

JHMEG

dynamick wrote: »

In the same article he compares the cost of Metro North (which he gives at 4.58bn)

Would it not be cheaper to build a new airport near an existing train line?

Victor

JHMEG wrote: »

Would it not be cheaper to build a new airport near an existing train line?

Metro North serves more than the airport.

The construction cost for MN is €2-2.5bn. Terminal 2 in Dublin Airport is something in the order of €500m alone.

godtabh

Victor wrote: »

Metro North serves more than the airport.

A lot of people dont get this. Shows how much PR and spin can win or lose a battle for you

dowlingm

Building new airports is ridiculously expensive, requiring huge land take (cost and environmentally damaging) and attracting vociferous opposition from those nearby.

That said, my approach would have been to dispatch all carriers not allowing through connection (i.e. Ryanair) to Baldonnel, which is not far from the Kildare line south of Adamstown (and the Air Corps sent to Shannon to bolster its viability, especially given the costs of keeping it open as an ETOPS diversion airport). Yes there would be increased noise but they've been getting off lucky in south Dublin since the Magisters were retired

This would have reduced the need for a parallel runway and second terminal at DUB and instead the existing main runway could have been extended.

Cool Mo D

dowlingm wrote: »

Building new airports is ridiculously expensive, requiring huge land take (cost and environmentally damaging) and attracting vociferous opposition from those nearby.

That said, my approach would have been to dispatch all carriers not allowing through connection (i.e. Ryanair) to Baldonnel, which is not far from the Kildare line south of Adamstown (and the Air Corps sent to Shannon to bolster its viability, especially given the costs of keeping it open as an ETOPS diversion airport). Yes there would be increased noise but they've been getting off lucky in south Dublin since the Magisters were retired

This would have reduced the need for a parallel runway and second terminal at DUB and instead the existing main runway could have been extended.

I think it's better to keep one airport in Dublin for a few reasons. Firstly, Dublin airport is possibly unique in Ireland as a location that has been successfully protected by planning. It is surrounded by fields, there is no housing estates up to the border (like Heathrow), and there is tonnes of space to expand. It would be easier and cheaper to expand the current airport then build a new one, as the space exists, and there would be no need to duplicate facilities as would happen with a new airport. Baldonnel would require huge amounts of money to upgrade to handle large aircraft.
It is also very near the city - much closer then Baldonnel. This is disguised by the fact it takes so long to get to with traffic.
Secondly, one airport is, in general, more convenient for travelers arriving, leaving and transferring.
What the airport needs is a rail link - if it had this, it would be set.

godtabh

Cool Mo D wrote: »

What the airport needs is a rail link - if it had this, it would be set.

Other than guage and weight whats the difference?

MN will provide a quick reliable high frequency service from north county dublin to Dublin City connecting to bus and rail at several locations. Dont see the need for rail if this is planned

JHMEG

Victor wrote: »

Metro North serves more than the airport.

The construction cost for MN is €2-2.5bn. Terminal 2 in Dublin Airport is something in the order of €500m alone.

The point is that MN seems very expensive, and seems to be the most expensive option. I bet a cheaper rail link to the airport could be built.

Is the plan still for MN not to terminate at the Parnell Sq end of O'Connell St and not link up with any other form of transport? You seriously have to question the ability of people who would propose such a thing in the first place.

markpb

JHMEG wrote: »

The point is that MN seems very expensive, and seems to be the most expensive option. I bet a cheaper rail link to the airport could be built.

Is the plan still for MN not to terminate at the Parnell Sq end of O'Connell St and not link up with any other form of transport? You seriously have to question the ability of people who would propose such a thing in the first place.

You have to question the ability of someone to be completely ignorant of the ad nauseum discussion of this topic here, the vast media coverage and the huge amount of changes since MN was initially planned. Even then, when it was planned to terminate at Parnell Sq, it would have connected with the Luas BX line through the city centre.

Metro North runs from St. Stephens Green to Swords via the airport. It also serves O'Connell St, Parnell Sq, the Mater, Drumcondra, DCU (including future proofing for the campus that hasn't yet been built), Northwood, Ballymun and a P&R north of Swords on the M1. It links with the Luas Green line (at SSG), the Dart Interconnector (at SSH), the Luas Red line (at OCS) and the Irish Rail Maynooth line (at Drumcondra).

Running a spur off the Dart line ignores all those places (except the airport) and doesn't link up with anything except the Luas red line at Connolly which now has a reduced service because of the extension to the Point. Cheap and cheerful but not very useful. It would also put huge pressure on an already congested Northern line which cannot be quad tracked without huge amounts of CPO. Running an on-street tram would be terribly slow and unpredictable as well as messing with the traffic (think city centre section of the Luas Red line, not the Luas Green line which was built on a railway ROW).

Metrostar

JHMEG wrote: »

I bet a cheaper rail link to the airport could be built..

Don't bet your life on it.

In 2030 there will probably be a high speed line from Cork to Belfast via Dublin airport, but be sure that the price tag will dwarf that of metro north.

High speed rail is the future. Not poxy little rail spurs off a ridiculously congested two-track commuter/intercity line.

amacachi

Metrostar wrote: »

Don't bet your life on it.

In 2030 there will probably be a high speed line from Cork to Belfast via Dublin airport, but be sure that the price tag will dwarf that of metro north.

High speed rail is the future. Not poxy little rail spurs off a ridiculously congested two-track commuter/intercity line.

Be very surprised if this country could even remotely support a proper High speed line in the next century. For now the future of rail is serving the one properly dense bit of settlement we have got.

JHMEG

markpb wrote: »

Even then, when it was planned to terminate at Parnell Sq,

Jeez, imagine if we let these people run the country...

markpb

JHMEG wrote: »

Jeez, imagine if we let these people run the country...

That's not quite fair. Parnell Sq is close to the city centre, would have linked with the cross city Luas and is big enough that big swathes could be excavated to build the station with minimal impact on the city centre.

The current option will mean a huge amount of disruption (O'Connell St, O'Connell Bridgem Westmoreland St and St. Stephens Green will all be closed to private traffic and/or dug up). O'Connell st will be dug up (again) for a year. It means more utilities will have to be diverted and there's more chance of hitting areas of archaeological interest, underground streams and basements of old buildings (like Trinity). It's vastly more costly but ultimately, if we can afford it, it's a much better option, primarily because of the linkup with the Dart Interconnector.

dynamick

Rehash of same article from Frank McDonald
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0527/1224271228154.html

summary: Metro costs 5bn so why not link the luas lines on street instead?

monument

dynamick wrote: »

Rehash of same article from Frank McDonald
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0527/1224271228154.html

summary: Metro costs 5bn so why not link the luas lines on street instead?

To be fair to McDonald, that's not an accurate summary. His point is not that simple.

Also, rather than rehasing the article mentioned before in this thread about the cost of Metro North, he's seems to be more talking about an article he wrote on Bordeaux's tram system, or different articles on trams systems, and how these differs to what was done in Dublin (Bordeaux's tram system puts city on the right track, The Irish Times - Thursday, October 9, 2008, and other articles like Dublin can learn much from the tram's French connection, The Irish Times - Tuesday, June 4, 1996 -- all behind a pay wall now).

He had some very good points in the article in 2004, such as:

Frank McDonald wrote:

The key thing to its success was that the tramway wasn't treated merely as a transport project, to be implemented by engineers. As Mission Tramway's Claude Mandrau explained, its designers were obliged to deal with the entire surface of every street on which the trams would run - from building line to building line.

There were engineers involved, of course, but also teams of architects from Bordeaux, urban designers from Paris and experts on street furniture from other places. And they all worked together to produce a piece of total design, using the tramway as a sort of Trojan horse to transform the city's streets and squares.

In Dublin meanwhile, the city section of the red line, for example, is disconnected from its streets. So, footpaths along the line are disconnected leaving people walking on tracks where there's no need. Nobody thought of cyclists, no provision was made even where there was room. Same for cars parked along side the line just before the Museum stop leaving drivers to have to impede on the track. Same on sections closer to the city centre. It was stuffing the line onto the street rather than integrating it with the streets.

Frank McDonald wrote:

Like Bordeaux's Le Cub, Luas was envisaged as a three-branch light rail network with lines to Ballymun, Dundrum and Tallaght. But then Ballymun was dropped (to cut costs) and the two remaining bits were delivered as free-standing lines because our politicians couldn't bring themselves to seize roadspace from cars in the city.

And from today:

Frank McDonald wrote:

I have written before about the remarkably civilising effect this entirely street-running tramway has had on the city, allowing most of its historic core (designated by Unesco as a World Heritage Site in 2007) to be transformed into a wonderfully liberating and enormously attractive pedestrian zone. Truly, Bordeaux is a sight to be seen.

Jointed up design, a civilising effect, integration, political will and vision etc

Again, more than just about metro vs the city centre Luas link-up.

He has also valid points on how trams can connect disconnected parts of the city better. While metros can be better at moving more people longer distances (ie out to outer suburbs/commuting towns), trams can connect the city better. And I don't think anybody here can disagree with his points on Dublin transport always being poorly integrated.

I don't, however, fully agree with him. The way local and national governments have allowed planning to sprawl, there's a need to provide for these outer communities. And Metro North has a part to play in connecting the wider city.

The 5 billion figure that he continues to use could now be out of date. Hopefully it is.

schemingbohemia

how many times can frank re-hash and revisit his own articles to justify his trip to bordeaux? the fact with bordeaux is that it has, in common with many french cities, wide boulevards which allow enough room to put in a luas line without knocking down buildings. dublin is based on medieval streetscape that make it much more difficult to plonk a luas line onto.

monument

schemingbohemia wrote: »

how many times can frank re-hash and revisit his own articles to justify his trip to bordeaux? the fact with bordeaux is that it has, in common with many french cities, wide boulevards which allow enough room to put in a luas line without knocking down buildings. dublin is based on medieval streetscape that make it much more difficult to plonk a luas line onto.

One of his articles talks about how the centre in both cities have smaller streets, both centres have wider streets too, I'm sure. There is loads of room for trams in the centre of Dublin -- you just have to limit where cars can go.

I've also noticed this when the topic of propper cycle lanes comes up. Dublin has too small of streets people keep saying.

But looking around, nearly all main routes have four or more lanes, and/or extra space used by on-street loading bays and parking.

markpb

schemingbohemia wrote: »

the fact with bordeaux is that it has, in common with many french cities, wide boulevards which allow enough room to put in a luas line without knocking down buildings. dublin is based on medieval streetscape that make it much more difficult to plonk a luas line onto.

That's not true at all. A large part of the city centre was redevoped around 1757 by Dublin Corporation and the Wide Streets Commission. Entire rows of buildings were demolished to merge and widen streets (O'Connell St, Dame Street, College Green, Christchurch and George's Street), the Grattan bridge was widened and Parliament St was created. There are some small medieval streets remaining it's perfectly easy to build a tram line around them. Likewise, most of the suburbs are close to an arterial route (like Swords rd, Malahide road, Ballymun Rd, Finglas Rd) which is perfectly suitable for tram tracks. Bus lanes might suffer but there's less call for an arterial-suburban bus lane if the road has a Luas line.

Take a Luas line from College Green to Finglas for example: College Green: 4 lanes, Westmoreland St: 5 lanes and it's sister D'Olier St has another 4 lanes, O'Connell Bridge: 8 lanes, O'Connell St: 4 lanes (and could be wider), Parnell St: 2-4 lanes, Dominic St: 2 lanes (and could be wider if on-street parking was removed) and then you can use the existing Broadstone line all the way to the N2 which has 4 lanes and a median which can be built on.

Medieval my ass.

Cool Mo D

markpb wrote: »

That's not true at all. A large part of the city centre was redevoped around 1757 by Dublin Corporation and the Wide Streets Commission. Entire rows of buildings were demolished to merge and widen streets (O'Connell St, Dame Street, College Green, Christchurch and George's Street), the Grattan bridge was widened and Parliament St was created. There are some small medieval streets remaining it's perfectly easy to build a tram line around them. Likewise, most of the suburbs are close to an arterial route (like Swords rd, Malahide road, Ballymun Rd, Finglas Rd) which is perfectly suitable for tram tracks. Bus lanes might suffer but there's less call for an arterial-suburban bus lane if the road has a Luas line.

Take a Luas line from College Green to Finglas for example: College Green: 4 lanes, Westmoreland St: 5 lanes and it's sister D'Olier St has another 4 lanes, O'Connell Bridge: 8 lanes, O'Connell St: 4 lanes (and could be wider), Parnell St: 2-4 lanes, Dominic St: 2 lanes (and could be wider if on-street parking was removed) and then you can use the existing Broadstone line all the way to the N2 which has 4 lanes and a median which can be built on.

Medieval my ass.

That's not really a great example. In German cities, for example, they don't give a tram it's own segregated lane unless there is two lanes on both sides for cars. It is common for boulevards to be 6-8 lanes wide - only a very few parts of Dublin are like that.

In your example, trams would be forced to share Dominic Street and Parnell street with traffic, otherwise vehicular access to parts of these streets would be cut off. Between College green and Stephens green, which you neglected to mention, there would undoubtedly have to be lanes shared with cars and buses.

Also, the Broadstone alignment does not go all the way to the N2. To get there, you ether have to knock through a housing estate, or a slightly longer route through an industrial estate, and either option will require demolition.

The N2 has 4 lanes, but does not have a wide median, until it gets to Tesco Clearwater, which means that without expensive widening, the bus lane will be removed to accommodate tram tracks, plus cars will be entering the tracks to turn right and left. It is not until the tram reaches Finglas Village that a good level of segregation could easily be provided.

It agree that a Finglas Luas is a good option for the future, but you are seriously underestimating how much space it needs. The vast majority of Dublin's streets are quite narrow compared to many cities on the continent, especially those planned in the 18th and 19th centuries, and reconstructed after the war.

dynamick

There's really just one reason that the luas lines weren't joined up:
Garret Fitzgerald wrote an article on 30/7/1996 where he sought to mathematically prove that on-street lrt was grossly inadequate for Dublin.

GF wrote:

to carry that kind of traffic at a 70 per cent occupancy rate on an on street LRT system would require a peak frequency of 30 plus vehicles per hour which would mean that every cross street would be blocked to other traffic at average intervals of less than one minute. In practice, allowing the necessary time to halt traffic to give priority to the LRT vehicles, all traffic including buses from Harcourt Street to O'Connell Street and across to Heuston Station and on to Inchicore would as a result be almost permanently jammed at peak hours.

This is why an unsegregated on street LRT operating without under passes at junctions cannot carry more than 2,500-3,250 passengers per peak hour. Peak flows of over 3,000 an hour are attainable in continental cities with vehicles operating on street on wide boulevards, but the lower figure is more realistic for a city with narrow centre city streets like the Nassau Street College Green bottleneck and the generally narrow streets running north from the quays between O'Connell Street and Heuston Station.

Under such congested conditions, an LRT cannot operate at intervals of less than 3.5 minutes which leaves an average interval of less than one minute 45 seconds between vehicles in the two directions. Such a minimum interval implies a maximum of 17 vehicles per hour, with an effective peak hour capacity of less than 2,500 passengers an hour.

It seems to me, therefore, that on capacity grounds alone an on street LRT system for Dublin is a grossly inadequate, and indeed counter productive concept in terms of traffic management.

After this article we had Kevin Myers:

KM wrote:

...the streets of Dublin are too narrow to permit both Luas trains and reasonable traffic flow, and perhaps more compellingly, the very density of buildings in the city centre does not permit many route options for cars or trams.

That is the legacy of the Wide Streets Commission, which chose to insert an extraordinary number of important buildings and squares into a very small area. There is no way of pushing a new road through that heart of the city without killing it. And instead of recognising that reality, and committing ourselves to a transport policy which would, take the expensive but realistic long term option of going underground, we did what we have done, repeatedly in transport policy, we compromised.

Then Bobby Molloy from the PDs

BM wrote:

The Progressive Democrats have consistently supported the provision of a modern, efficient and reliable rail rapid transit system for Dublin. We believe, however, it is vital that proper consideration is given to all the alternatives before proceeding with this massive project.
...virtually all of the criticisms he has raised against the current Luas proposal were articulated by the Progressive Democrats during the course of the recent Dail and Seanad debates on this issue.

As it turned out, Luas was carrying 5000-6000 people per hour within 2 years of construction with 15 trains per hour, presumably because the RPA managed to bend the laws of physics.

The PDs in govt successfully lobbied against on-street link-up of luas and Mary O'Rourke and FF chose to build two separate luas lines with a metro to be built in the distant future and perhaps never.

Well done Garret.

monument

Cool Mo D wrote: »

That's not really a great example. In German cities, for example, they don't give a tram it's own segregated lane unless there is two lanes on both sides for cars. It is common for boulevards to be 6-8 lanes wide - only a very few parts of Dublin are like that.

I'm not quite sure how common boulevards to be 6-8 lanes wide are, I know in Berlin there are some, but these are in limited enough sections of the city.

Also where I've seen trams without their own segregated lane, there is low levels of traffic and also not too frequent service.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

In your example, trams would be forced to share Dominic Street and Parnell street with traffic, otherwise vehicular access to parts of these streets would be cut off. Between College green and Stephens green, which you neglected to mention, there would undoubtedly have to be lanes shared with cars and buses.

None of this seems that problematic.

Limiting cars on some streets and removing them fully off others is a given. And it is what Frank McDonald has talked about, it takes political will but can be done. Sharing lanes with buses for sections isn't a problem.

College Green is planned to be a 24 hour (or close enough to such) bus gate once/if Metro North starts up. Under the city centre section of the Lucan Luas, Dame Street is envisaged to become a bus gate / public transport route only.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Also, the Broadstone alignment does not go all the way to the N2. To get there, you ether have to knock through a housing estate, or a slightly longer route through an industrial estate, and either option will require demolition.

Requiring some demolition or taking of some green space etc is normal in new urban rail projects. Getting the crayons out for a second, there's very little between the Broadstone alignment and the N2, see here.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The N2 has 4 lanes, but does not have a wide median, until it gets to Tesco Clearwater, which means that without expensive widening, the bus lane will be removed to accommodate tram tracks, plus cars will be entering the tracks to turn right and left. It is not until the tram reaches Finglas Village that a good level of segregation could easily be provided.

One of the options above (my quick digital crayon drawing, nothing more) only puts the Luas on to the N2 at Tesco Clearwater, so problem solved.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It agree that a Finglas Luas is a good option for the future, but you are seriously underestimating how much space it needs. The vast majority of Dublin's streets are quite narrow compared to many cities on the continent, especially those planned in the 18th and 19th centuries, and reconstructed after the war.

From this side of thinking, it seems like you are seeing the problem as an impassable block rather than something which needs to be solved.

Besides the rest of my points and route options, if you need to run a tram on a section with two lanes, put the tram / bus way in the centre of the road.

BluntGuy

The main problem I have with Metro North is the 5-6 billion price tag that's been shuffled around. I've heard rumors of it dropping to 1.7 billion or whatever, and for that price, I would say "do it" (that's if even THAT amount of money can be found).

I don't however believe these rumors. I accept tenders may be cheaper, but to drop from a projected 5 billion to 1.7-2 billion just seems far too steep. Now I hope I'm ill-informed, I hope I'm incorrect, I hope they really have secured low tender prices. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Another problem with Metro North is there's no point extending it beyond Swords. It's serving land which was earmarked for development in the days of insanity, now that some reality has finally struck, that development should've been re-evaluated.

I think Frank writes a lot of crap, but there's nuggets of quality to be found. A network of Luas lines isn't a solution either though. Trams work best for short hops, not carrying people for 40 + minutes. Lucan Luas and Luas West in particular are not very intelligent ideas.

Personally though, I think getting Interconnector and Irish Rail sorted out should be top priority. I think Frank McDonald wrote something about that as well. Can't remember what though.

monument

BluntGuy wrote: »

The main problem I have with Metro North is the 5-6 billion price tag that's been shuffled around. I've heard rumors of it dropping to 1.7 billion or whatever, and for that price, I would say "do it" (that's if even THAT amount of money can be found).

I don't however believe these rumors. I accept tenders may be cheaper, but to drop from a projected 5 billion to 1.7-2 billion just seems far too steep. Now I hope I'm ill-informed, I hope I'm incorrect, I hope they really have secured low tender prices. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Indeed it's hard to believe that tender prices could be so far from the estimates, even given the downturn. But we can only hope it is true. And if the lower amounts -- say 2 billion -- are true we've already secured about 1/4 of that? And add to that what the bidder puts in?

On the other hand you banding around a figure of €5-6 billion is a bit over the top when even Frank is only mentioning €5 billion.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Another problem with Metro North is there's no point extending it beyond Swords. It's serving land which was earmarked for development in the days of insanity, now that some reality has finally struck, that development should've been re-evaluated.

No point? Not even for park and ride?

BluntGuy wrote: »

I think Frank writes a lot of crap, but there's nuggets of quality to be found. A network of Luas lines isn't a solution either though. Trams work best for short hops, not carrying people for 40 + minutes. Lucan Luas and Luas West in particular are not very intelligent ideas.

Lucan Luas and Luas West are projects with flaws, but these are not without positives.

Both do does not make too much sense if you only look at getting from one end to the other, but that's that's not where everybody is going. In Lucan's case the Dart is planned to be the quicker route to the city centre (walk, cycle, drive etc to Adamstown etc).

BluntGuy wrote: »

Personally though, I think getting Interconnector and Irish Rail sorted out should be top priority. I think Frank McDonald wrote something about that as well. Can't remember what though.

Fully agree with you there.

Cool Mo D

BluntGuy wrote: »

The main problem I have with Metro North is the 5-6 billion price tag that's been shuffled around. I've heard rumors of it dropping to 1.7 billion or whatever, and for that price, I would say "do it" (that's if even THAT amount of money can be found).

One problem with prices, that I don't think many people realise, is whether financing is included or not.

Think of a house - you might pay 200,000 for a nice 3 bed house, but after the mortgage, you will probably end up paying back 400,000 after 20 years at an average interest rate.

It's the same with the metro. When you see a figure around 5 billion, that means 5 billion paid back over 30 years - i.e. the total cost of the PPP. However, paying 5 billion back over 30 years like paying about 2.5 - 3 billion in todays money

So, when you see a cost like 1.7 billion, think construction cost, before interest.

When you see 5 billion, that is 5 billion over 30 years - as it is including interest on borrowing: i.e. the total cost of the PPP.

So the price of the metro to build, might be around 2-3 billion, but after paying the financing, 4-5 billion may be spent on it over 30 years.

These are not exact numbers - but should help get a feel for the costs involved.

5 billion was the predicted total cost for the whole PPP at the top of the boom.
1.7 billion is the lowest guess I've seen for solely construction.

Expect the truth for either figure to be between the lowest and highest estimate.

Cool Mo D

monument wrote: »

From this side of thinking, it seems like you are seeing the problem as an impassable block rather than something which needs to be solved.

Besides the rest of my points and route options, if you need to run a tram on a section with two lanes, put the tram / bus way in the centre of the road.

I think you might have me taken up slightly wrongly. I am 100 % in favour of extending the Green line to Finglas - it would be a very useful service. My opinion though, is that it will offer a service comparable to the Luas Red line, with lots of flat crossings and road space sharing, rather than a fast, free from traffic option (except for the old Broadstone bit, which is entirely segregated).

If the Metro was cancelled, the Finglas route would be the best bet for a rail airport link - it just wouldn't be very fast without a lot of expensive work.