Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )

BrianD

Jack Noble wrote: »

Yesterday's Sunday Business Post has report on details of a Dept of Transport memo prepared for the new government warning of the consequences of cancelling Metro North at this stage. Memo released to SBP under FOI.

DoT quoted as saying cancellation will damage Ireland's reputation abroad wrt PPPs and infrastructure projects and harm prospects for future PPPs. It says it will make it difficult to attract bidders for future PPPs. It says only options open to new govt are cancelling project altogether or proceeding on schedule with main works starting in 2012.

I will post quotes and link later when latest SBP issue goes online.

EDIT: Here's the report from yesterday's Sunday Business Post:

Absolute nonsense and you have to question the DoT's wisdom and capabilities in this area. There are many major infrastructure projects worldwide that get cancelled, delayed or postponed. It won't damage our reputation whatsoever.

Anybody who is involved in a PPP is taking a punt. Two out of the three contenders for MN won't get the business. If the project is shelved then all three are quids in and have the homework done for next time round. These consortia are tendering for jobs all the time.

I think what the DoT have to be more concerned about is if there is any interest or future in the PPP model in this country at all.

DWCommuter

Jack Noble wrote: »

If one or both are cancelled then it is back to the drawing board for public transport in Dublin - for the second time in nearly 40 years.

Watch this space.;)

We procrastinated when we had money. Now we will revert back to inward looking, poverty stricken type.

Jack Noble

DWCommuter wrote: »

Watch this space.;)

We procrastinated when we had money. Now we will revert back to inward looking, poverty stricken type.

That is exactly my fear at this stage.

Jack Noble

BrianD wrote: »

Absolute nonsense and you have to question the DoT's wisdom and capabilities in this area. There are many major infrastructure projects worldwide that get cancelled, delayed or postponed. It won't damage our reputation whatsoever.

Anybody who is involved in a PPP is taking a punt. Two out of the three contenders for MN won't get the business. If the project is shelved then all three are quids in and have the homework done for next time round. These consortia are tendering for jobs all the time.

I think what the DoT have to be more concerned about is if there is any interest or future in the PPP model in this country at all.

Well, that's the DoT's advice to govt - and we have seen repeatedly over recent years what happens when govt ignores civil service advice.

PPP is not my ideal model for infrastructure development but it's pretty much the only option left open to Ireland now - if it is open to us at all at this stage - thanks to FF's disastrous handling of the economy over the last 14 years.

Like lods, your opposition to Metro seems to blind you to the realities of the situation.

As I said, the only thing that will kill Metro now is if the PPP bidders are unable to attract funding or the terms are too onerous on the State. Political whim or ideology will not come into it.

BrianD

Jack Noble wrote: »

Well, that's the DoT's advice to govt - and we have seen repeatedly over recent years what happens when govt ignores civil service advice.

For example?

PPP is not my ideal model for infrastructure development but it's pretty much the only option left open to Ireland now - if it is open to us at all at this stage - thanks to FF's disastrous handling of the economy over the last 14 years.

There's nothing wrong with the PPP model per se but they have been used in this country is ridiculous. Look what's happening on our toll roads for example. Look back to the original PPP type projects such as the West Link. The more recent PPP projects were undertaken when money was cheap and available. I'm not sure how realistic the PPP model is when money isn't available.

Like lods, your opposition to Metro seems to blind you to the realities of the situation.

Not sure why you made a stupid and uninformed statement like this. MN is not immune to the new world financial order and particularly since it's a project that a failed economy is trying to introduce.

As I said, the only thing that will kill Metro now is if the PPP bidders are unable to attract funding or the terms are too onerous on the State. Political whim or ideology will not come into it.

The most likely outcome. The fact of the matter is that if the project is cancelled or postponed it will not effect our reputation in this field nor will it effect future bids should the project come back to tender.

monument

BrianD -

Let me question your wisdom and capabilities in this area... Three bidders do not spend the bulk of the money, only two do for very good reason -- they have had to spend millions. It's one thing to do that, take their punt and lose to the better bidder. But dragging this on and on is craziness, even canning it is better.

The idea that delaying further or scraping MN "won't damage our reputation whatsoever" is unreal. Our reputation is already dented because of our very slow system (should be faster to say yes or no). It would harm the PPP system (for better or for worse) and we could say good bye to Dart Underground. And this could well go beyond PPP, we have a slow planning system, and nearly everybody in business or in the business of attracting investment is screaming for better transport.

As I asked on the Dart thread -- are you blinded by your hate for MN? The German town you mentioned has two S-bahn stations, which the town's buses feed into, the buses don't trundle along small congested roads to the next town over.

Jack Noble

BrianD wrote: »

For example?

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2011/deptreview.pdf

There's nothing wrong with the PPP model per se but they have been used in this country is ridiculous. Look what's happening on our toll roads for example. Look back to the original PPP type projects such as the West Link. The more recent PPP projects were undertaken when money was cheap and available. I'm not sure how realistic the PPP model is when money isn't available.

Toll roads and the M50 Westlink are a very bad example - they have been totally discredited at this stage. State has done very badly out of these and I doubt they will be repeated at this stage. Metro North and roads like M17/M18 and Arklow-Rathnew/Newlands Cross will be straight, mortgage-style contracts with fixed repayments. That is a more viable and affordable option that gives certainty to future administrations.

Not sure why you made a stupid and uninformed statement like this. MN is not immune to the new world financial order and particularly since it's a project that a failed economy is trying to introduce.

The comment stands because it relates to the current situation. As it is stands MN is proceeding - unless the PPP funding bid fails. The majority of arguments you have put up against Metro have been shot down on this and other threads. You appear to base your oposition now on wishful thinking rather than reality.

The most likely outcome. The fact of the matter is that if the project is cancelled or postponed it will not effect our reputation in this field nor will it effect future bids should the project come back to tender.

We will know for sure either way in May or June. As for your latter argument, we will only know the effects of cancellation in the years to come when new bids are sought for this or other projects. It's a hell of a gamble to say 'ah sure, it'll be alright on the night'. Which is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in, btw.

lods

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

How The Programme for Government was reached.
Phil Hogan, Fine Gael, Brendan Howlin, Labour, Dan O'Brien, Economics Editor Irish Times.

16minutes

PAT KENNY

No mention of Metro North
Going to a foreign company
Very expensive project.


Brendan Howlan

Commitment to looking at all infrastructure/capitol projects.
Strong element in both parties want it to go ahead.


Phil Hogan

says nothing on the matter.


Hardly a ringing endorsement or a no brainer

Jack Noble

lods wrote: »

16minutes

PAT KENNY

No mention of Metro North
Going to a foreign company
Very expensive project.

The PfG is clear that any infrastucture projects will be based on the cost benefit analysis. That covers Metro North, Dart Underground and every other major project. There is no need to be specific on any particular project. Why bind themselves into commitments when there is no need to?

Two construction companies remain in either consortia - one Irish (Sisk, based in Clondalkin) and one Portuguese. Whoever wins, the vast majority of the workers will be Irish or already living in Ireland. The rolling stock companies are obviously not Irish because we do not have such companies here.

Kenny, like most other media presenters, pundits and journalists, has repeatedly shown himself to be ill-informed on Metro and Dart. I actually find that surprising in Kenny's case as he trained an engineer, albeit a chemical one. I would expect more curiosity and research on his part.

Brendan Howlan

Commitment to looking at all infrastructure/capitol projects.
Strong element in both parties want it to go ahead.

Which is what I have consistently been saying for six months and what both FG and Labour said in their manifestos.

Phil Hogan

says nothing on the matter.

Why would he - Howlin has just commented for the government?

Hardly a ringing endorsement or a no brainer

No need to say anything else now - the new minister and Cabinet will have their say later in the year when the PPP BAFO bids are submitted and the updated CBA laid before them. That's when any decision will be made.

How difficult is that for you to understand and accept?

lods

Two construction companies remain in either consortia - one Irish (Sisk, based in Clondalkin) and one Portuguese.

Metro Express is the name of the bidder not Sisk, as you can see they make up a small element of the group

METRO EXPRESS

John Sisk & Son : Leading Irish construction firm

AIB : Irish bank

Mercury : Irish engineering group which built the Luas electrical systems

Bombardier : Builds trams and locomotives

Macquarie Group : Part of the Australian bank of the same name; owns and runs rail projects around the world

Global Via Infraestructuras (GIV) : Spanish group, already working on M50 upgrade and operator of seven rail networks

Transdev RATP : Combination of London-listed rail and public transport builder and operator Transdev, and Paris Metro operator RATP

FCC : Spanish construction group

Alpine : Austrian-based tunnel-building specialis

No need to say anything else now - the new minister and Cabinet will have their say later in the year when the PPP BAFO bids are submitted and the updated CBA laid before them. That's when any decision will be made.

But apparently without the PPP price they can tell us now that the CBA is 2:1:rolleyes:

How difficult is that for you to understand and accept?

Always with the personal dig at the end jack. its not really needed

Jack Noble

lods wrote: »

Metro Express is the name of the bidder not Sisk, as you can see they make up a small element of the group

Sisk is the construction element of the consortium - and that is far from a 'small element'. I would suggest it is the most important element of all which covers the majority of the capital cost and will employ the bulk of the workforce on the project.

But apparently without the PPP price they can tell us now that the CBA is 2:1

:rolleyes:

That CBA figure was based on the bids submitted BEFORE the Railway Order was issued by An Bord Pleanala last October. The BAFO is likely to come in less than those bids now as ABP shortened the route. The updated CBA will likely now be even more positive based on a lower capital cost.

Always with the personal dig at the end jack. its not really needed

It wasn't a personal dig - it was a legitimate question. I can't help it that you see it as a dig.

I will also add that you really haven't thought through your replies because every point you make digs bigger holes in your arguments.

(That's not a dig either - it's a simple observation based on the evidence here.)

DWCommuter

Jack Noble wrote: »

Here's what RPA said when questioned by Derek Wheeler on Metro North Facebook page about the problems with the M17/M18 PPP in Galway.

And the answer could hardly be described as convincing. It was a standard response. Their answers to the DU questions are equally standard fodder. There's no depth to be had on that page.;)

Jack Noble

DWCommuter wrote: »

And the answer could hardly be described as convincing. It was a standard response. Their answers to the DU questions are equally standard fodder. There's no depth to be had on that page.;)

My point was that the RPA have said little or nothing on the PPP over the years and only speak in vague generalities - which is exactly what the reply on Facebook was. I take nothing from it either way.

When I spoke to an RPA official recently he said little more than the PPP process was still live and they had no indications of any problems on the funding front, either from the State or the private sector. Obviously that can change on either or both fronts in the coming months and we just have to wait and see.

I look at the glass as half-full, others see it as half-empty. We will know soon enough who is right.

BluntGuy

monument wrote: »

The programme for Government takes the same line as FF and FG etc -- it'll go ahead if the price is right and the funding can be done. I'm not sure what more you or anybody could expect other than outright lies.

A direct and straightforward response. Perhaps this is a cynical viewpoint, but the issue of whether it will go ahead is almost always neatly sidestepped with the "we have to wait for a CBA" or vague statements about funding. The whole attitude, particularly of the outgoing government, is one of non-commitment and feels like they are simply putting off the inevitable day they will have to announce it has been postponed or cancelled.

The impression they wish to give is that the PPP process is going along just fine and we're simply waiting for a best and final offer. Little, if any mention has been made of the fact that the financing itself may involve taxpayers putting up a not unsubstantial amount of the construction cost. There were whisperings about this kind of "risk-sharing" as early as 2009.

I will concede we should give the incoming government some time to prepare its infrastructure plans and its new NDP and whatnot, but my overriding suspicion at this point is that Metro North will not be included in them, at least not in the short-term. We shall of course see in time.

Jack Noble

BluntGuy wrote: »

A direct and straightforward response. Perhaps this is a cynical viewpoint, but the issue of whether it will go ahead is almost always neatly sidestepped with the "we have to wait for a CBA" or vague statements about funding. The whole attitude, particularly of the outgoing government, is one of non-commitment and feels like they are simply putting off the inevitable day they will have to announce it has been postponed or cancelled.

The impression they wish to give is that the PPP process is going along just fine and we're simply waiting for a best and final offer. Little, if any mention has been made of the fact that the financing itself may involve taxpayers putting up a not unsubstantial amount of the construction cost. There were whisperings about this kind of "risk-sharing" as early as 2009.

I will concede we should give the incoming government some time to prepare its infrastructure plans and its new NDP and whatnot, but my overriding suspicion at this point is that Metro North will not be included in them, at least not in the short-term. We shall of course see in time.

It has been known since the start that the State would have to put in initial funding - for enabling works and a percentage of the final price for 'implentation payment' in 2013 in 2014. The exact percentage is unknown and won't be until a winning PPP bid is finalised.

We know that the enabling works in 2011 and 2012 will cost €250m because the NTA chief told us so late last year in an interview with the Sunday Business Post.

However, I believe the Greens let slip the cost to the State in a rather careless line one of it's election documents. It said the cost to the State of Metro North will be €700m, which I believe includes the enabling works.

But we will know for sure later in the year when the BAFOs are submitted.

As for the lack of commitment, much as I support Metro North, I don't think any government can or should give a commitment, absolute or even provisional, on the project going ahead without seeing the final price and terms on offer of the PPP.

DWCommuter

Jack Noble wrote: »

As for the lack of commitment, much as I support Metro North, I don't think any government can or should give a commitment, absolute or even provisional, on the project going ahead without seeing the final price and terms on offer of the PPP.

This is the issue that continues to alarm me. When we were awash with money, MN and DU were "going ahead." Commitment was defined as being Government policy aka a programme for Government. However the dithering continued at Government level. By early 2005, there was so much pressure on the Government to come clean on its rail based transport plans, that they "invented" Transport 21 as some kind of all embracing plan that would deliver. Has it? No. If the Government had been really committed to delivering the aforementioned projects, we'd be well underway. They funded the "cheap" options like the WRC, Midleton, KRP and the Pace line. (The latter two being developer friendly at 100s of millions rather than billions in expenditure.) The two key projects that bring Ireland into the 21st century have been stalled. (MN & DU)

Why?

Because as I have said before, there is no appetite at Government level for spending "billions" on a rail based transport system such as MN or DU. MN has seen more attention than DU because its concept was adapted by Government over 10 years ago as a populist "European" thing to do. It looked cool, sounded great and would be great, as it wound its way under Dublins streets. So we now find ourselves with contracts nearly ready to be signed. The bluff has been called. The politicians are quickly running out of road. Luckily for them we are in recession, so their procrastination will aid them in putting off the decision.

Interestingly, CIE had originally proposed a cross city link (above ground) connecting Spencer Dock with Barrow street, but they ditched this when the Government supported a Metro and instead rolled out the interconnector aka DART Underground because they thought the money was beginning to flow. But with a Government hellbent on the populist Metro idea (not necessarily a bad one) DU was always going to struggle and it has in terms of Government support, only becoming policy in November 2005 under the fake fudge that was Transport 21.

At the end of the day the Government did commit to MN many years ago, but in my opinion they never had any intention of actually building it. It was populist thinking. Governments think nothing of spending millions on planning things that they are reluctant to build, especially when they have loads of money to protract the process and make it look like progress is being made. (think about the millions and millions spent on consultants) As for DU, its no more than a neglected piece of infrastructure that had easy money thrown at it for planning, while the trendy and favoured MN was creeping up on an unsuspecting Government via the lads and lassies in the RPA who really do believe it will be built. It won't. And our new Government have the perfect excuse.

Glass half full? Read Irish political History to fully appreciate why the glass is always half empty.

Jack Noble

DWCommuter wrote: »

This is the issue that continues to alarm me. When we were awash with money, MN and DU were "going ahead." Commitment was defined as being Government policy aka a programme for Government. However the dithering continued at Government level. By early 2005, there was so much pressure on the Government to come clean on its rail based transport plans, that they "invented" Transport 21 as some kind of all embracing plan that would deliver. Has it? No. If the Government had been really committed to delivering the aforementioned projects, we'd be well underway. They funded the "cheap" options like the WRC, Midleton, KRP and the Pace line. (The latter two being developer friendly at 100s of millions rather than billions in expenditure.) The two key projects that bring Ireland into the 21st century have been stalled. (MN & DU)

Why?

Because as I have said before, there is no appetite at Government level for spending "billions" on a rail based transport system such as MN or DU. MN has seen more attention than DU because its concept was adapted by Government over 10 years ago as a populist "European" thing to do. It looked cool, sounded great and would be great, as it wound its way under Dublins streets. So we now find ourselves with contracts nearly ready to be signed. The bluff has been called. The politicians are quickly running out of road. Luckily for them we are in recession, so their procrastination will aid them in putting off the decision.

Interestingly, CIE had originally proposed a cross city link (above ground) connecting Spencer Dock with Barrow street, but they ditched this when the Government supported a Metro and instead rolled out the interconnector aka DART Underground because they thought the money was beginning to flow. But with a Government hellbent on the populist Metro idea (not necessarily a bad one) DU was always going to struggle and it has in terms of Government support, only becoming policy in November 2005 under the fake fudge that was Transport 21.

At the end of the day the Government did commit to MN many years ago, but in my opinion they never had any intention of actually building it. It was populist thinking. Governments think nothing of spending millions on planning things that they are reluctant to build, especially when they have loads of money to protract the process and make it look like progress is being made. (think about the millions and millions spent on consultants) As for DU, its no more than a neglected piece of infrastructure that had easy money thrown at it for planning, while the trendy and favoured MN was creeping up on an unsuspecting Government via the lads and lassies in the RPA who really do believe it will be built. It won't. And our new Government have the perfect excuse.

Glass half full? Read Irish political History to fully appreciate why the glass is always half empty.

DW, I agree with some of what you say but not all of that.

I think a number of transport ministers in the FF-led govts, particularly the late Seamus Brennan and Noel Dempsey, actually understood the importance of projects like Metro North and Dart Underground. Martin Cullen, I am not so sure of.

But one thing I can agree with you on is that there was a large element of PR about the FF approach to a 'sexy' project like Metro North, as opposed to the more important 'workhorse' project like Dart Underground. And a lot of that was driven, I believe, by Bertie Ahern who really was only ever interested in one thing - leading FF back into govt and getting re-elected as Taoiseach. Everything he did was geared to that end - not the long-term development, prosperity and sustainability of the economy and country as we have all discovered to our cost in recent years.

However, I believe there are a number of big differences now compared to the 1980s.

1. Metro has a Railway Order while Dart Underground will have one within a year;

2. A funding process - PPP - is in train and we will know very soon if it is a runner for one or both projects;

3. Metro and DartU are at the heart of a long-term transport strategy developed since 2000 and now re-affirmed in the latest plan for the next 20 years and there is strong support in official circles for the projects;

4. There are people who will be ministers in the new govt who understand the importance of sustainable, effective and efficient public transport for the development and growth of the economy and quality of life for people;

5. On the economic front, proceeding with Metro North in 2012 will provide for significant job creation in Dublin and a major stimulus for the economy and the exchequer at a time when both are needed. Starting DartU in 2014/2015 - best case scenario at this stage, unfortunately, will be even more significant and keep the economic effects going up to 2020 at least;

6. Finally, unlike the 1980s, we have a template for what can and will go wrong in future decades if Metro/Dart are not developed. Many of the problems faced in Dublin today - gridlock, bad planning, housing sprawl, low densities, business constriants, etc - can be directly traced to the axing of the original Dart project in the 1980s. Axing Metro/Dart now would simply be repeating history and storing up even more problems for the future - canny, experienced politicians like Noonan and Quinn who were there in the 80s will be aware of just that. Would you agree?

As I said, I'm a glass half full person and I hope to see that glass topped up to the brim over the coming years - but I'm around enough to know that I could also get the current contents chucked in my face.

Jack

lods

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-metro-north-is-mad-and-immoral-our-new-government-must-have-the-courage-to-stop-it-2573524.html

independent.ie
Kevin Myers: Metro North is mad and immoral -- our new Government must have the courage to stop it
By Kevin Myers
Thursday March 10 2011

SO, we have a Government -- and one of the first pleas the new Cabinet will hear is from Department of Transport officials, campaigning for the Metro North project. They will argue that Ireland's credibility in managing major procurement projects would be dealt a serious blow if the Government cancelled it.

Sorry, but that's wrong: the real damage to Ireland's credibility will occur if Metro North goes ahead. The entire project is a classic case of statist ideology triumphing over economic sense. No good can come of it. Huge and possibly irreversible damage will be done by Metro North to Dublin's commerce and to its infrastructure.

The argument from the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) in support of Metro North is of course merely self-cyclical. Railway-procurement agencies procure railways, not buses or parks or theatres or cafes in the centre of Dublin. Equally, sheepdogs don't lead the blind and lifeboats don't cut lawns, so it's illogical to expect any arguments other than railway-procuring ones from such a body.

Other defenders of Metro North are ideological and support rail as a sort of juju-dogma: steel wheels good; rubber tyres bad. Others use a pseudo-Keynesian argument that state-supplied money will kick-start our ailing economy. But that is simply a dogma based on New Deal folklore.

We are not the Tennessee Valley River Authority within a closed continent. Instead, we have the most open economy in the world. Money spent on creating a meteorite crater in St Stephen's Green and another one beside the Mater Hospital won't necessarily stay here. After all, we know that over a billion euro from the phoney housing boom, which was Fianna Fail's last exercise in pseudo-Keynesianism and which literally ruined us, was remitted to Poland.

Look, I love the Poles deeply, their gorgeous women especially; but I see no reason to burden our great-grandchildren with massive debts in order that Krakow should enjoy the crack generated by Metro North construction. The Railway Procurement Agency maintains that the cost-benefit ratio is 2:1 -- meaning €2 returned in revenue for every €1 spent. Two euro where, please?

The RPA is already planning to move street monuments, electricity, phone and gas lines out of the way. They're like mastodons, growling and ready to go. Meanwhile, catastrophe lies ahead for Dublin. For one thing we should have learnt by now is that we are incapable of controlling the costs of government-run projects.

The Metro, officially, is going to cost €5bn. Very reasonable. Perhaps. But then remember the other government schemes. The Dublin Port Tunnel went from an estimated cost of €220m in 2000 to €580m in 2002 to a final cost of €789m. That's a 350pc over-run. The M50 widening increased from €190m to €560m: three times the original estimate. The Luas went up from €290m to €750m -- a 350pc increase.

So the Metro, if built, could well cost three times the original estimate, meaning that the final bill will be about €15bn. And this is not for ploughing up a greenfield site in Meath, but for laying waste to much of Dublin's already-bleeding commercial centre.

Even if it stays in budget, Metro North promises a metropolitan catastrophe, for the creation of a vast underground station beneath St Stephen's Green will involve the destruction of much of the parkland, the felling of many of its trees, the removal of its statuary and its probable closure for two years. The excavation of spoil from the crater will require 400 lorry movements a day, over two years, through the city centre's narrow streets. What joy all that will bring to the local restaurants, hotels, theatres and shops!

Even at the height of the boom, this scheme could have never made any sense: but now we are already mortgaging the financial wellbeing of future generations merely to pay for day-to-day government expenditure. Have we not learnt from the Tiger days that grandiosity is invariably rewarded with an even grander failure?

It is clinically insane to borrow yet more money to build an underground railway -- parallel to the existing and hugely under-used Port Tunnel -- in order to cut a few minutes off the travel time to the airport from St Stephen's Green, WHERE ALMOST NO ONE WILL BEGIN THEIR JOURNEYS ANYWAY.

MOST worryingly of all, senior civil servants have clearly taken the Metro project to their hearts, so ministers are hardly ever likely to hear a sceptical analysis of the last great undertaking left over from the boom days. And one perfectly lethal argument that government advisers can always adduce in favour of Metro North is that: "It will require great political courage, Minister."

For what politician can ever refuse a project that will make him seem brave? But this is the courage of the foolhardy general sending his division to their doom, not the greater courage of the wiser sergeant who ignores an insane order.

The clinching argument against Metro North is this: what real damage is done if it is cancelled? And what irreversible ruin might result if it is given the go-ahead? This project is both mad and immoral and our new Government must have the courage to stop it. NOW!

- Kevin Myers

Jack Noble

lods wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-metro-north-is-mad-and-immoral-our-new-government-must-have-the-courage-to-stop-it-2573524.html

The RPA must love it when Myers comes out with this guff - they couldn't have chosen their opponents' cheerleader better. The only thing worse than having Myers on your side is Eoghan Harris joining your campaign too.

Lods, how do you feel about the new Minister for Transport? You know, the guy who actually uses public transport, understands the importance of an efficient, integrated PT system and who represents a constituency that will benefit from Metro North & West and Dart Underground?

Zebra3

Does anyone know if Myers actually uses public transport in Dublin on a regular basis at rush hour?

Jack Noble

Zebra3 wrote: »

Does anyone know if Myers actually uses public transport in Dublin on a regular basis at rush hour?

He lives in the middle of nowhere near Ballymore Eustace in Co Kildare. Made a big deal a few years ago of leaving Dublin for the countryside. Used to live in Ranelagh, a few hundred metres from Ranelagh Luas stop, I believe, but left before the first trams wizzed by.

Zebra3

Jack Noble wrote: »

He lives in the middle of nowhere near Ballymore Eustace in Co Kildare. Made a big deal a few years ago of leaving Dublin for the countryside. Used to live in Ranelagh, a few hundred metres from Ranelagh Luas stop, I believe, but left before the first trams wizzed by.

So can someone living in the heart of Dublin credibly write in a national newspaper about local boat services for island's off the coast of Kerry then?

Jack Noble

Zebra3 wrote: »

So can someone living in the heart of Dublin credibly write in a national newspaper about local boat services for island's off the coast of Kerry then?

Myers doesn't do credibily - except possibly when dealing with his two other favourite topics, HM Armed Forces and Provo/Shinner-bashing.

Seriously, the only credible facts he has had in the now six rants against Metro North is the name of the project and the agency developing it.

BrianD

Jack Noble wrote: »

Myers doesn't do credibily - except possibly when dealing with his two other favourite topics, HM Armed Forces and Provo/Shinner-bashing.

Seriously, the only credible facts he has had in the now six rants against Metro North is the name of the project and the agency developing it.

What part doesn't make sense? Seriously, what bit?

He's spot on apart from complaining about the actual construction and the resulting inconveniences. I wouldn't agree with those who oppose MN just because of the digging - I oppose it because it doesn't make sense. It is is not an efficient use of the transport budget and it is an expensive railway that will serve relatively few.

monument

BrianD wrote: »

What part doesn't make sense? Seriously, what bit?

He's spot on apart from complaining about the actual construction and the resulting inconveniences. I wouldn't agree with those who oppose MN just because of the digging - I oppose it because it doesn't make sense. It is is not an efficient use of the transport budget and it is an expensive railway that will serve relatively few.

This feels somewhat like history repeating its self...

You have already wrongly claimed that Metro North does not serve any other population centres other than Swords and you tried to claim there is no density inside the M50 when the greatest density is inside the M50. My reply on the Dart Underground thread is here, just in case you missed it???

To add to that argument Metro North allows Metro West to serve more of north Finglas, and areas like Blanchardstown.

murphaph

Metro north is a pretty straight metro line starting (ideally) right beside a northern approach motorway (P&R!), taking in a large county town, an international airport, the RoI's only IKEA, a massive housing development that was robbed of decent public transport from day one (Ballymun-never had a chance), reltively dense middle class areas with lots of infill development of the apartment type (see monument's excellent post on the matter), a large university, 2 major hospitals (Mater and Rotunda), an 80,000 seater sports stadium, the core north and south inner city business districts and along the way the plan is to integrate with DART at 2 locations and with the tram at even more. It does not take some meandering path to achive all this connectivity and I GUARANTEE all the nay-sayers that if metro north is EVER built (even without DU, which would be a crying shame) it will not only be highly patronised but will actually make an operating profit, just like Luas.

If this was any other major European city this link would have been built years ago and would have already been extended to meet the DART on the northern line!

lods

murphaph wrote: »

I GUARANTEE all the nay-sayers that if metro north is EVER built (even without DU, which would be a crying shame) it will not only be highly patronised but will actually make an operating profit, just like Luas.

RPA not directed by state to recover Luas costs
25 June 2006 By Richard Curran

The €238,000 surplus for the Luas reported by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) last week did not include a €24 million depreciation charge for the fall in the value of the network or €35 million in exchequer funding towards the cost of building it.

When depreciation is included as an operating cost, as it is in most businesses, the state’s subvention helped to bring about a modest operating surplus. However, the government has not directed the RPA to recover from Luas’s operations any of the €775 million it cost to build it.

Frank Allen, the RPA chief executive, said it was instructed to ensure the Luas broke even and did not require an operating subvention from the state in the future.

This enabled the agency to report that LUAS made a €238,000 surplus last year, which excluded the depreciation or the state’s capital grants towards the cost of construction. Neither did the surplus figure trumpeted by the RPA include any administration expenses incurred by the agency in relation to Luas.

If depreciation is included, as it would for most typical businesses, Luas made a loss of €24 million before exchequer funding. Based on these figures the state’s total subvention was equal to €1.09 for every passenger journey.

Allen acknowledged that the €238,000 described as a surplus by the RPA last week was equivalent to Luas’s earnings before interest, depreciation and tax (EBIT).

However, he rejected the suggestion that describing it as a surplus was in any way misleading because of the specific nature of the business. Typically businesses include their depreciation charges as part of their operating costs.

The RPA did this, but highlighted the more positive figure at its press conference last week on the basis that it doesn’t have to try and recoup those building costs. He said infrastructure firms are different.

‘‘No toll road in the world for example has recovered its capital costs. We do not recover capital costs,” he said. Allen said the goal set by the Department of Finance was to ensure that an operating subvention was not needed, and that means ensuring a break even. He said the Luas had achieved this ahead of schedule.

‘‘Our accounting approach is approved by our auditors and we are not doing anything unusual,” he said. He cited several international toll road companies that tried to recover their capital costs and they went bust. ‘‘Toll bridges recover capital costs, toll roads don’t,” he said.

The annual report shows the LUAS with an operating surplus of €957,000 when depreciation is included, but that also includes €34 million in grants and administrative expenses for the RPA.

Allen said the RPA head office operations were doing less and less work on Luas and there was nothing wrong in not attributing any of its €9.4 million administration costs in reporting a €238,000 surplus.

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/s...268-qqqx=1.asp

it all depends how you manipulate the figures.

dynamick

On an infrastructure project there is a a once-off build cost (the capital cost) and a running cost every year thereafter. The income from Luas covers its running costs.

The subvention covers repayment of the capital cost which is about €2 per trip on Luas. Subvention per trip on Metro North will be around €4.75 (assuming build cost of 2.5bn, 34m pax, 5%, 30yr term and ignoring income from the MN Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme.)

dubhthach

As a matter of interest does anyone know what the subvention per passenger Journey is on: IÉ, Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus?

murphaph

lods wrote: »

it all depends how you manipulate the figures.

No it doesn't. Read your article again. It says that even allowing for depreciation, the Luas made an operating profit and the depreciation was massive (due to our recession no doubt).

This is EXACTLY what I said and I specifically said operating profit to exclude the construction costs which will fade into memory within a generation and this piece of infrastructure will still be ferrying workers about in 100 years. Nobody asks how much it cost to build the Picadilly line anymore, and rightly so.