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

Zebra3

OisinT wrote: »

and I'm sure you have a degree in Economics that enables you to understand the intricacies of macroeconomics and lending models. :rolleyes:

There is no degree needed to understand throwing vast sums of moeny at the Anglo Irish is a waste of time.

The govt would have been better off dumping a fraction of the sum into Ireland's poorest areas.

ilovegermany

The current government - with a few add ons - were democratically elected in 1997, 2002 and 2007. In 2007, the dogs on the street knew what was coming economically, but people chose to ignore it.

I personally was at a press conference where our dear leader set out his vision for ELIMINATING the national debt by 2014......yet he's still in charge. There is something fundamentally wrong in this country.

The fact is that if Ireland was a business, the liquidators would be called in.

Will metro north happen? Only if the political will is there to make it happen. As is usual, the economics will then be slanted to justify whatever political decision is made. Good example being the "Business Case" for the Western Rail Corridor (Phase 1)

I am a working economist.

maninasia

OisinT wrote: »

Change the record. This isn't a thread about Anglo! Unfortunately we were about to turn into Greece and something had to be done. It was done. End of story.

Back to discussing MN

While it's a bit off topic 'something had to be done'...12.9 billion into a broken bank. That puts the whole future of this project in jeopardy.
And you can use a flippant remark without any thought? That's why Ireland got into the trouble it has.

maninasia

OisinT wrote: »

That's not entirely correct. I'm not saying THIS NAMA was a great idea, but any economist worth their salt has come out and said a NAMA needed to happen. In typical fashion this government was too slow to react and they had to get something together quickly and haphazardly.
A NAMA needed to happen and it could have been better, but this is the one we have and there is no point in sitting around bitching and moaning about it.

Furthermore I'm bloody sick of people with no education whatsoever in economics talking out their arses about how they know what is best for the country economically. Certainly the bunch of idiots in power have no clue what they're doing, but lets not have everyone voice their opinions on something that is moot.
Jaysus, it's like the same bloody thread everywhere I go now. Is this thread about Metro North or about complain about NAMA - I believe that thread exits elsewhere.

Yes, the money we have spent on NAMA could have built everything and bought us all a new car... but it didn't. End of story. Move on.

There were 46 economists who came out against NAMA at the time, perhaps you need to get your facts straight, you might not like it but NAMA has a lot to do with the future of MN!
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/08/26/irish-times-nama-piece-signed-by-46-economists/

FreudianSlippers

BluntGuy wrote: »

Are you an economist btw, sir?

Amongst other degrees, I have one in Economics. I do not work in economics though, thankfully - I am in law.

maninasia wrote: »

While it's a bit off topic 'something had to be done'...12.9 billion into a broken bank. That puts the whole future of this project in jeopardy.
And you can use a flippant remark without any thought? That's why Ireland got into the trouble it has.

I agree. But what can be done now? Other than not do it again?
If Anglo can be saved and restructured than I believe that the investment will prove to work. The fact of the matter is that we are not giving banks money, we are investing in their future success. This means that we need to ****ing hope and pray that Anglo works as a new commercial bank. We are too late to take that money back now. That's what I'm saying, it's not flippant - it's just stupid to keep on about something we cannot change.

FreudianSlippers

ilovegermany wrote: »

The current government - with a few add ons - were democratically elected in 1997, 2002 and 2007. In 2007, the dogs on the street knew what was coming economically, but people chose to ignore it.

I personally was at a press conference where our dear leader set out his vision for ELIMINATING the national debt by 2014......yet he's still in charge. There is something fundamentally wrong in this country.

The fact is that if Ireland was a business, the liquidators would be called in.

Will metro north happen? Only if the political will is there to make it happen. As is usual, the economics will then be slanted to justify whatever political decision is made. Good example being the "Business Case" for the Western Rail Corridor (Phase 1)

I am a working economist.

Then, as a working economist, you must understand that there are factors in play and information that the general public doesn't have that is driving the decision-making process here. There is a reason that Anglo couldn't be allowed to fail and while the general public doesn't know it, it is doubtful that the government just decided for the craic to invest €12.9bn in a failing bank.

BluntGuy

murphaph wrote: »

The once off 12bn poured into Anglo (also agree it should have been let fail, only BoI and AIB are genuinely of systemic importance-they should have been basically nationalised very early on as Northern Rock in the UK was, and everything else let fail, BUT as Oisin points out: what's done is, sadly, done) pales into insignificance compared to the 20bn ANNUAL defecit we are currently running.

We can take the hit on Anglo etc. but we cannot keep spending 20bn a year more than we have. That is something a 5 year old understands. Until spending comes into line with tax revenues we are headed for bankruptcy. The measures taken to reduce PS pay do not go anywhere near far enough to address the defecit. We cannot borrow to pay doctors, guards, nurses, teachers, politicians and admin staff's wages. If we have to do without some of these, then we have to do without. We were never as wealthy as the spending spree of the last few years indicated. We have overshot our actual supposed standard of living and must return to reality.

If we can get spending under control, through efficiency derived redundancies and further paycuts, AS WELL as a reduction in social welfare payments to saner levels (196 EURO a week dole compared to 73 EURO in the UK simply doesn't compute!!! 204 Euro a week state pension! Madness.) then we can afford to BORROW for INFRASTRUCTURE. Our kids won't mind a bit of national debt once they have something to show for it, they will never forgive us if we saddle them with a load of national debt, just so we can maintain our Public Sector and social welfare recipient's over inflated salaries though.

The problem is it has to be a mix of spending decreases and tax cuts, business leaders want all spending decreases because they have little interest in social wellbeing and only profit, and union leaders seem to only want tax increases because they want to protect their bloated salaries.

There is deadwood in the public sector, that needs to be cut, and it needs decisive government and co-operative, resourceful unions for that to happen. After that though, the painful measures do have to begin. Unfortunately, we're getting it arseways. Cutting into services before tackling inefficiencies, thus making services even more inefficient, money being wasted left right and centre on pointless reports, quangoes and the HSE abomination.

However, if people want these services, and that includes Infrastructure, then they simply have to pay more tax. It's simple as. Lowering taxes != increased investment/tax intake automatically. There is a balance to be struck (those familiar with the laffer curve theory know this) and our government does not strike it. People seem to think you can have something for nothing. They want low taxes and top-quality infrastructure and services. Can't have it both ways.

However, I must just point out the key fundamental difference between the billions upon billions of bad debts that are going into NAMA, and the 20 billion euro deficit. A vast sum of the borrowed 20 billion goes into providing services and care for people. You are right, we unfortunately can't afford that level any more, there are some salaries that are too high, but there is a marked difference between that, and purchasing bad debts from insolvent banks that f**ked themselves up. At least the deficit borrowing has SOME kind of social return. Many economists agree NAMA is very likely to have little or none.

However if there is one positive that the recession has brought to light, it's that more people are starting to question whether an underground light rail/tram line is actually worth 6 billion euro. I'd much rather we just admit that we wasted however XX million euro on planning, than put XXXX million euro into a line that could be delivered cheaper through alternatives. The only downside is that we'd have to start from scratch, and of course considering the tender process is at an advanced stage, there would be negative repercussions for our reputation in that regard.

I am going to take it though that MN will go ahead, but at some undefined time in the future. We've heard no serious commitment to it (or IC).

OisinT wrote: »

Then, as a working economist, you must understand that there are factors in play and information that the general public doesn't have that is driving the decision-making process here.

This is exactly the problem.

People, even reasonably-educated people, don't get why Anglo is being bailed out, or invested in. Of course we aren't going to listen to Lennie's cries of "systemic importance" because he changed his tune on NAMA nearly every week.

I would love to believe the government was doing this for our greater good, but the fact is the government's decision process for every single area of policy (including the economy in the "good times") seems to be to benefit the FF party politically and to put greed and self-interest first. So it is only natural people would feel that this is the way they are handling the NAMA/Anglo situation. If you could highlight why the opposite is the case, that would be great.

The people want to know exactly why this is happening, people want to know EXACTLY why it would apparently be more costly to wind down the bank after the bank garuntee expires, than to let it remain open at a loss. We are not getting this. All we are getting poor-quality guff from the media which passes as "analysis".

Unfortunately, as you highlighted, the process is well-underway and now we will have to deal with consequences. Which is where MN comes into play.

So to swing this back to MN, do you believe that MN can have a 2011 start (or even 2012)? Where do you think the finance can be sourced? PPP finance seems to be hard to get at the moment.

Do you believe the Anglo/NAMA situation has much bearing on the provision of this project? As you're an economist, I'd be interested to hear your well-informed views.

FreudianSlippers

In my opinion as someone who does not work in economics, but understands economics (as much as one CAN understand economics) is that this will have to be a multi-step process.
We cannot save our way out of a recession: fact.

However, any money we could have borrowed from our big cousins to the East is being funnelled at an alarming rate into Greece.

The way I see it is that we need to take this in steps:

1) stabilise our own economy (as much as we can)
2) do... SOMETHING (what?! I have NFC!) about Greece
3) borrow from Germany/France (whoever will give us the money) for infrastructure and start immediately on NM and interconnector. If nothing else it will get people back in jobs and get money moving again in this country.

The above is an extreme oversimplification and is almost a plan in a bubble. The first step is really to hold a General Election and shake things up a bit. I also think we should seriously consider rethinking the way all government agencies operate and are managed (trim the fat and streamline operations - HSE is a prime example but ABP is shockingly corrupt and mismanaged as well).

The fact is: we need money. We were told, irresponsibly, by our government that "recession was coming - save your money!" when we should have been told the exact opposite! People stopped spending and it ground our economy to a halt. We need (now that we are shareholders of AIB and BoI) to get credit going again, get people into mortgages, etc.
We need to finish the transfer of NAMA properties and get buyers into the empty apartments and offices at cost or slightly above ASAP.

We need to borrow money and get workers back to working! Infrastructure is proven time and time again to be the best use of money during recession to get economies back into gear. Start from the bottom (no offence to labourers) because there are more of them and they will spend the money / be able to get off the dole.

It's really not that complicated IMO the whole idea of economics is circular flow of money (perhaps not the best model, but the one we have) from banks to businesses to workers to businesses to the government and banks etc.

Edit: Just as an aside to this, there are apartment going in the Docklands for €500,000 which would be half that (if even) in the UK (for example I've seen a few in Manchester that are around to 200k gbp mark that are bigger and way nicer). The same for offices. If we are now owners of these properties (or will be) I want to see them sold at or slightly above cost. No more holding out for huge profits, the government needs this money back asap to invest in other things - prude businessmen in government would realise that we will profit more from our shareholding of AIB & BoI than turning into "house-flippers" and real estate agents. Unfortunately, I believe the greed of the current lot will have them thinking "ah lets keep them empty until the property market goes back up and well for 2x profit" - what I fear they are not understanding (or choosing to ignore) is that by not offloading them at cost, they are keeping the property market at a skewed rate. They are essentially ****ing with the supply chain, driving prices up when the demand is there in some cases. To clarify, it doesn't matter if AIB and BoI start giving out 200 loans a day to buyers, if these properties are being held at unreasonable rates, demand will be higher than supply and will push our prices too high again.
Total sidetrack, but it is related.

Stonewolf

prude businessmen in government

While I have no basic objections to most of your post, unfortunately our system of government does not encourage the above persons to join up.

ilovegermany

OisinT wrote: »

Then, as a working economist, you must understand that there are factors in play and information that the general public doesn't have that is driving the decision-making process here. There is a reason that Anglo couldn't be allowed to fail and while the general public doesn't know it, it is doubtful that the government just decided for the craic to invest €12.9bn in a failing bank.

Sorry for diverting from Metro North!

I agree in theory, but not in relation to the specific issue with Anglo

Many economists - including myself - believe that Anglo and Irish Nationwide were guaranteed by the government simply because the government had NO PROPER ANALYSIS of exactly the kind of losses they were potentially guaranteeing. This points to wholesale regulatory and supervisory failings. But I think people are focusing on Anglo too much, its going to cost circa. 30 billion to either shut it or keep it. Sure, lets make anybody who is guilty pay in a court of law, but its equally important to understand why and how it happened. My concern is that the corporate structure of Ireland is so small - so many people are implicated in differing ways - that we will never get a proper examination of how it happened.

In reality - and people need to accept this. From 2012 (under a best case scenario) Ireland will be a high debt, relative high tax, globalised economy with a double digit unemployment rate.

I'm one of those Bertie told to commit suicide when we questioned how they had prepared for a housing crash!

I hope we get the METRO though! A lot cheaper to build now.

BluntGuy

ilovegermany wrote: »

A lot cheaper to build now.

People have been saying this.

But how much cheaper? What price? Where's the evidence? We won't know this until the planning permission is granted and a tenderer is chosen.

I've heard mutterings of 1.7 billion, but can a project that was costed at 5-6 billion 3 years ago really have decreased that much. I sincerely doubt it. I'd love to wrong of course, but even optimistically, my instinct says 3-4 billion at best.

crucamim

Regardless of who is to blame for the state of the economy, there is a shortage of public money - and that will probably continue to be the case for very many years. So let us get back to the Metro North fundamentals.

Is it likely to be built? If not, what are the alternatives?

Does Dublin need a rail link between its city centre and its airport? If "yes" how is Dublin managing at present?

Can buses, using the Dublin Port tunnel, not transport passengers quickly and safely between the city centre and the airport? Trains could probably do it a little bit better but would a "little bit better" justify the expenditure of ? millions building Metro North?

If a rail link between the city centre and the airport is really needed, could that not be provided by a spur from Portmarnock to the airport? Would that cost as much as Metro North?

If there is too much congestion on the Balbriggan - Connolly line to cope with the additional traffic which a link with the airport would generate, could the link from the northern line to the airport not be a shuttle? [Could the current congestion (if it is a problem) be eased by making the service between Howth Junction and Howth a shuttle?] Could rail congestion between Balbriggan and Dublin be furher eased by diverting freight trains from Navan to the proposed new port at Bremore?

If using part of the northern line (as part of a link to the airport) is being considered, could parts of the line from Portmarnock to Connolly be 4 tracked? And would making it all 4 track, including the removal of a lot of high quality housing, really cost more than what Metro North is likely to cost?

If the real problem is congestion at Connolly, why not use the under-used Docklands Station - especially as there is plenty of room for additional platforms at Docklands Station? Docklands Station could be easily connected to the northern line.

If the airport were to be linked to the city centre, via the northern line through Portmarnock, it is likely that all the trains from the airport would enter either Connolly or Docklands. Passengers could get their connecting trains there. If Docklands Station is too far from the City Centre to be a terminus for the airport (or for any other lines into Dublin), could it be linked to Connolly by an enclosed corridor either underground or elevated? [I am not thinking of the Maglev link between Birmingham airport and the nearby railway. Metro North would cost less.]

If there proves to be a market for a direct train connection between the airport and Hueston (or Maynooth) the northern line could be directly connected to the Drumcondra line somewhere between the Tolka river and Ballybough Road? I suspect that would cost more than it would be worth especially as there is no facing connection between the Phoenix Park line and the line into Hueston.

So, in the new economic climate, the merits of Metro North and the possible alternatives (if any) need to be debated purely in terms of value for money. It would be nice to have it but do we need it? I apologise for being a spoilsport.

So please, all you economists and engineers and lawyers, go to hell and leave the decision to the accountants.

ilovegermany

BluntGuy wrote: »

People have been saying this.

But how much cheaper? What price? Where's the evidence? We won't know this until the planning permission is granted and a tenderer is chosen.

I've heard mutterings of 1.7 billion, but can a project that was costed at 5-6 billion 3 years ago really have decreased that much. I sincerely doubt it. I'd love to wrong of course, but even optimistically, my instinct says 3-4 billion at best.

Overall, there has been considerable declines in the price of all the key elements making up Metro North since 2006:

1. Land and property values;
2. Running infrastructure (tracks/carraiges etc)
3. Construction Wages (even for specialists);
4. Less global demand for the big boring machines;
4. I know that many of the "Construction Indicies" are showing overall construction cost declines of anything from 20%-60%

I wouldnt like to hazard a guess because I dont know the detailed design specs. But I would be very surprised if it cost in excess of 2.5/3 billion...might even be lower (not sure if enabling costs etc are included in the figures that were previously noted)

markpb

ilovegermany wrote: »

Overall, there has been considerable declines in the price of all the key elements making up Metro North since 2006:

However the cost of borrowing money has gone up which will be a big factor in the cost of any PPP.

ilovegermany

If a rail link between the city centre and the airport is really needed, could that not be provided by a spur from Portmarnock to the airport? Would that cost as much as Metro North?


This would have a terrible impact on northern line services and neccesitate at least 4 tracking between Connolly and Portmarnock. In addition, you would be operating along existing public transport corridors and do nothing to increase public transport for north dublin.

ilovegermany

markpb wrote: »

However the cost of borrowing money has gone up which will be a big factor in the cost of any PPP.

However, with a €500 million pre-commitment from the EIB, i personally think you could still raise an extra 3 billion'ish at a decent margin. Hopefully, the markets will have settled a bit more in the meantime.

FreudianSlippers

On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the #1 and #2 biggest objectors to MN were Aircoach and Dublin Bus.

dowlingm

The fixation on the airport for Metro North misses the point. A different transport mode to the airport solves a minor amount of congestion from airport buses (and arguably introduces inflexibility into the system by forcing people down one corridor) but below ground transport generally has problems attracting riders many of whom let's not forget are dragging suitcases. Airport mode shares for transit are often woeful even when it is available and the biggest beneficiaries are workers not travellers.

The airport was simply a destination in a convenient direction from many underprovided but transit-dependent communities such as Ballymun and trip generators like the Mater and DCU. The airport was the hook, the glamour destination, and once you got to the airport it was then politicially troublesome to say it couldn't be extended to Swords. In reality, medium and high density gentrified development is how you get payback on metro lines - by way of property taxes and development charges - the airport brings the cherry on top.

spacetweek

OisinT wrote: »

On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the #1 and #2 biggest objectors to MN were Aircoach and Dublin Bus.

No, there'll always be a market for a direct non-stop(except for traffic lights) service that avoids the unwashed masses. Business travellers in particular are expensed anyway and will go for the luxury option every time.

BluntGuy wrote: »

I've heard mutterings of 1.7 billion, but can a project that was costed at 5-6 billion 3 years ago really have decreased that much. I sincerely doubt it. I'd love to wrong of course, but even optimistically, my instinct says 3-4 billion at best.

The 5-6 Bill figure included the interest payments. The project was never going to cost more than 3.5 billion and is now likely to be in the ballpark of 1.8-2.5.

spacetweek

crucamim wrote: »

Regardless of who is to blame for the state of the economy, there is a shortage of public money - and that will probably continue to be the case for very many years. So let us get back to the Metro North fundamentals.

<snip>

So, in the new economic climate, the merits of Metro North and the possible alternatives (if any) need to be debated purely in terms of value for money. It would be nice to have it but do we need it? I apologise for being a spoilsport.

Not a spoilsport, your points are good. They're correct... except for one thing. They assume, wrongly, that the only purpose of MN is to connect the city centre to the airport.

This is, in fact, merely one thing of about 10 that the line will achieve. They've been listed before in the thread many times, but I'll briefly list them off the top of my head:

- Connect airport to city centre
- Create crucial (and currently missing) north-south axis right through the city centre - very congested and poorly served corridor at present
- Supply Ballymun with transit - an area with low car ownership which was promised rail since the 1960s
- Supply Mater Hospital with transit - big trip generator
- Supply DCU with transit - students don't own cars and the college's development has been hampered by the lack of transit options over the years
- Create several new sites for new high and medium density development centred around future stations, e.g. Northwood north of Ballymun
- Connect Swords, a massive suburb almost a city in its own right, with high capacity, high speed access to Dublin
- Massive monster-sized Park&Ride north of Swords - will decongest the M1.

runway16

The biggest opposition to MN seems to be coming from some fairly predicatbale quarters.

One, is the right winger, "public transport is a subsidy to the poor" types. Obviously, they are just best ignored, because they fail to realise that improved access enhances business for their retail businesses, improves the values of their property portfolios etc etc.

The other seems to be from the Southside based commentator, because MN addresses a major public transport deficit on the Northside of Dublin, and this continues to make it more attractive for business.

Its probably no surprise that every new rail service built in Dublin thus far almost exclusively serves the southside (except for the short part of city centre luas red line).

I'd also suspect that much of the opposition is politically motivated: North Dublin is an FF strong hold, and if FF in government fail to deliver on MN, it surely wont help their prospects come election time.

BluntGuy

There is of course the third type of person who has realised that the coffers are running quite low, and that even if we could source 5-6 billion would construction of this light rail line be the best way of spending it?

I love Infrastructure, I love examining and discussing the technical details of this proposal, but there is a cold, financial reality at the end of the day.

Which brings us nicely to this minor news item, not specifically about Metro North, but its poorer cousin:

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/blow-as-metro-west-is-hit-by-more-delays-in-cash-squeeze-2215097.html

DUBLIN'S Metro West is in jeopardy after it emerged that it will not be operational until 2019 at the earliest.

Construction of the 25-km light rail line will not begin until 2015, one year after it was supposed to be up and running.

It has now emerged that the Government will make a final decision on whether to proceed with the multi-billion euro capital project next year.
The project aims to link Tallaght with Dublin Airport.

Details of the delay were given at a briefing of Tallaght-based councillors on the status of the capital project.

The Metro West project was unveiled as part of Transport 21 and had a completion date of 2014, but the economic downturn has led to a number of capital projects being "parked".

A spokesperson for the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) confirmed that Dublin's Metro North and Dart underground would be prioritised over the Metro West.

"Given the recent economic circumstances, the level of funding required for this project, along with the other large projects, is not available within the same time period and thus the completion date for Metro West has been delayed.

"Minister Dempsey has said that priority will be given to the Metro North and Dart underground and that the other projects should proceed through the planning and design processes."

Tallaght Mayor Mick Duff described the decision from the RPA and the Department of Transport as a "blow".

"Other capital programmes are being parked for the moment so it didn't come as a surprise to hear that we'll be waiting until 2019 for Metro West," he said.

The news comes just weeks after it was revealed that the Metro North will not be operational until 2016 and the Dart Underground in 2018. Both, if completed, will come on stream three years after they were originally due to start.

Metro West will provide a light rail system, similar to the existing Luas services, which will service Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan and Blanchardstown before it links up with the Metro North line at Dublin Airport.

Hardly a massive surprise, except that even 2019 is optimistic for this wasteful project.

Slideshowbob

What is the current status of the project?

Is it out to tender? in negotiations?

When is a bidder likely to be selected?

When might work commence?

Thanks

BluntGuy

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What is the current status of the project?

Is it out to tender? in negotiations?

When is a bidder likely to be selected?

When might work commence?

Thanks

Hi Slideshow,

1) Current Status is getting to the end of the planning stage. The RPA plan to obtain a railway order (effectively planning permission) for the project by 20th July (as far as I'm aware).

2) The main Metro North project has been put out to tender and two finalists have been shortlisted. An enabling works package has been put out to tender recently.

3) After the granting of the railway order.

4) This is the one for which there is no definitive answer. 2016 is the new official opening date, so far that to happen, heavy construction work would have to begin sometime next year. There is a lot of doubt about this happening given the state of the nation's finances and the difficulty in sourcing PPP finance. The EIB have pledged 500 million towards the project but with cost estimates ranging into multiple billions, it is honestly very difficult to give any kind of answer to this. We will have to wait to see what happens.

My personal prediction is that some enabling works will go ahead to give the illusion of progress, and then work will come to a halt. Others would be more optimistic, others would be even less optimistic.

Here is what the RPA say:

Based on RPA being granted a railway order for Metro North by An Bord Pleanála this phase of the project will see RPA contractors beginning work on the project.

Initially RPA will be awarding a number of enabling works contracts which are due to commence at the end of 2010 and early in 2011. This includes enabling works contracts for utility diversions; heritage works, including relocating a number of monuments either to the National Museum of Ireland or into storage for safekeeping; a temporary bridge over the river Liffey to accommodate traffic during construction of some of the Stops in the city centre; the construction of a part of the Stop box at the Mater campus; and other ancillary works to assist in ensuring the site is available for the contractor to carry out the main works.

Hope that helps,

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Slideshowbob

Thanks for the info.

If we think positively it might get going by end of year so effectively.

Would be interesting to see at what prices the 2 bidders came in at and if that can be reduced much with the construction climate at the moment.

Good time to buy something like that is now given the hunder among contractors.

Who are the final bidders? Which Irish contractors are involved?

It's a PPP projest isn't it so there is scope there for getting funding that might be otherwise harder to source.

I think the project in theory makes sense - like its a railway from Dublin airport to the capital's city centre isn't it? fairly fundamental stuff in terms of national infrastructure as long as you assume that air flight will still be viable in the coming decades as we pass peak oil. Given T2 is almost built; I gather relocating airport is not viable at this stage.

Although I always thought an airport in Wexford or the flatlands of Kildare would make an easily vaiable alternative to Dublin airport if a seemless rail route could be established.

BluntGuy

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Who are the final bidders? Which Irish contractors are involved?

Celtic Metro Group (Barclays Private Equity, Obrascon Huarte Lain, Mitsui, Soares da Costa, Iridium Concesionesde Infraestructuras S.A., CAF and MTR)
Metro Express (Macquarie Capital, Global Via Infrastructuras, Allied Irish Bank, Bombardier and Transdev RATP)

More info here:

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/metro_north/construction/Pages/June2009.aspx

These are all international contractors. It's likely Irish sub-contractors will be used during construction.

It should be noted that Barclays Private Equity exited the Celtic Metro Group consortium, which obviously doesn't send out positive signals regarding the state of PPP finance.

I think the project in theory makes sense - like its a railway from Dublin airport to the capital's city centre isn't it? fairly fundamental stuff in terms of national infrastructure as long as you assume that air flight will still be viable in the coming decades as we pass peak oil. Given T2 is almost built; I gather relocating airport is not viable at this stage.

An airport-city centre link is a big benefit of this project of course but doubts remain as to whether this was the best way to achieve an airport rail-link.

Pete_Cavan

Slideshowbob wrote: »

If we think positively it might get going by end of year so effectively.

Source: RPA | Category: METRO NORTH
Date Posted: 5/12/2010 11:01:17 AM

Construction of the enabling works for Metro North moved a step closer today with the release of the first major tender package for the diversion of utilities in the city centre at Saint Stephen’s Green.

These are both significant milestones for the project, speaking today, Frank Allen, RPA Chief Executive, said
“Major projects such as Metro North are all about meeting key milestones, RPA shortlisted two bidders last year, completed the oral hearing for the project in March this year and is now in detailed discussions with the two shortlisted bidders with a view to being able to conclude matters as quickly as possible when the Railway Order is granted. We expect this to be at the end of July as indicated by An Bord Pleanála. Commencing the enabling works procurement and the EIB decision to support the project provides RPA with the momentum needed to be ready to start construction in earnest early next year.”

http://swordslife.com/news-for-swords-dublin/swords-news.asp?id=668&title=Two Major Boosts for Metro North

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Would be interesting to see at what prices the 2 bidders came in at and if that can be reduced much with the construction climate at the moment.

But perhaps the biggest challenge ahead for the entire project will be securing the PPP finance to allow this structure of payment to operate. Sources estimate that the capital cost of the line will be about €2.8bn (with the total PPP cost likely to be about 50% more). This may seem a trifle when compared to what will be spent by Nama but there are still huge doubts as to whether the winning consortium could raise this type of funding in the current market conditions.

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index.jsp?p=366&n=372&a=1447

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Who are the final bidders? Which Irish contractors are involved?

The two tenderers are:
Celtic Metro Group (Barclays Private Equity, Obrascon Huarte Lain, Mitsui, Soares da Costa, Iridium Concesionesde Infraestructuras S.A., CAF and MTR) and

Metro Express (Macquarie Capital, Global Via Infrastructuras, Allied Irish Bank, Bombardier and Transdev/RATP).

http://www.akc.ie/index.php?pageID=363

dowlingm

The finance for Metro North could have been raised by Government on 30 year bonds for buttons during the boom. In one sense they were shackled because borrowing to invest seems to be treated the same as borrowing to pay entitlements (like all day free travel for pensioners) so they went the PPP route to get it off the national balance sheet and please Eurostat while being able to keep handing out the sweeties which could not be afforded over the long term.

strassenwo!f

Quote:
Source: RPA | Category: METRO NORTH
Date Posted: 5/12/2010 11:01:17 AM

Construction of the enabling works for Metro North moved a step closer today with the release of the first major tender package for the diversion of utilities in the city centre at Saint Stephen’s Green.

These are both significant milestones for the project, speaking today, Frank Allen, RPA Chief Executive, said
“Major projects such as Metro North are all about meeting key milestones, RPA shortlisted two bidders last year, completed the oral hearing for the project in March this year and is now in detailed discussions with the two shortlisted bidders with a view to being able to conclude matters as quickly as possible when the Railway Order is granted. We expect this to be at the end of July as indicated by An Bord Pleanála. Commencing the enabling works procurement and the EIB decision to support the project provides RPA with the momentum needed to be ready to start construction in earnest early next year.”
http://swordslife.com/news-for-swords-dublin/swords-news.asp?id=668&title=Two Major Boosts for Metro North

So Frank and the RPA are already releasing statements they will be making on the 5th of December?

These guys are clearly steaming ahead.:p

Aidan1

and that even if we could source 5-6 billion would construction of this light rail line be the best way of spending it?

Are you Frank McDonald?

Unless you have knowledge of the tender prices submitted, you can't know how much this is likely to cost. The cash prices floated previously were of the order of €2bn, though this was a while ago (pre recession).

Secondly, calling this a 'light rail' (which is technically is) underplays it's ability to move large numbers of people - far more that Luas after all - and to/from areas which can demonstrate clear demand.

I'm not a huge fan of MN, the interconnector is far more important IMVHO, but lets not get caught up in the fetid language of the harpies in the media ...