Cost of building Luas system

quad_red

Hi all,

I'm trying to find somewhere a total breakdown of how much it cost to build the red and green luas lines (excluding extensions).

Can't seem to find the figures. Any assistance most appreciated.

Regards
Q

Sponge Bob

quad_red wrote: »

Hi all,
Can't seem to find the figures. Any assistance most appreciated.

Docklands extension cost €60m a KM.

tricky D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luas

The cost of building the Red and Green Lines was €770m.[26] This was three times original predictions that the system would cost €254m.

Friend who is a senior engineer reckoned it cost more than that. There was some crazy stuff going on like an italian company insisting on sourcing certain materials from Italy at 5/6 times the cost from here or UK.

dynamick

quad_red wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm trying to find somewhere a total breakdown of how much it cost to build the red and green luas lines (excluding extensions).

Can't seem to find the figures. Any assistance most appreciated.

Regards
Q

Red line: 16km
Green line: 9km
Total length: 25km
Total Cost: €775 million
€31m/km

Assuming 5% and 30 years payback, the state will pay €50m a year until 2034 to pay back the luas build cost.

Luas operating surplus
2005: €.2m
2006: €5.6m
2007: €6.9m
2008: €6.2m
2009: €3.8m


As Luas carries about 25m passengers per year then that's a subsidy of about €2 per journey with about 20c recouped from the operating surplus.

The Cherrywood extension (Line B1) is due to open this autumn. It cost about 300m for 7.5km or €40m/km About half of this was recouped from developers.

The Docklands and Citywest extensions were also part-financed by developers.

All the above costs include the cost of vehicles.

Cookie_Monster

how the **** does a Km of rails, concrete, steel and wiring cost €30m+

does that include land buying costs?

dynamick

seems like a lot alright but it is put out to tender

I guess the main expenditures are:
design
land purchase
services diversion
construction including track, overhead catenary, power supplies, bridges etc
rolling stock
stations and ticket machines and passenger info displays cost a few quid
testing

I think motorway is about €10m/km for comparison

Cookie_Monster

dynamick wrote: »

I think motorway is about €10m/km for comparison

motorway takes up much much more space (wider) and will generally have much much more groundwork, how is it still so much cheaper

Madrid built its Subway for $40m a km, roughly €32m. slightly better value for money I think

dynamick

Motorway goes through open countryside where land is up to 1000 times cheaper.

There are fewer services to locate and divert.

RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:

• 24 hour tunnelling permitted
• faster planning approval
• lower wages
• no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
• experience of building metros : 250km built already
• lower fire safety standards
• high tolerance for traffic disruption
• monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland

Cookie_Monster

dynamick wrote: »

RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:

• 24 hour tunnelling permitted
• faster planning approval
• lower wages
• no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
• experience of building metros : 250km built already
• lower fire safety standards
• high tolerance for traffic disruption
• monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland

so we really should have just got the Spanish firm in then to build us a metro. all of that is achievable in Ireland with a little political will, except maybe the fire standards.

dynamick

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so we really should have just got the Spanish firm in then to build us a metro.

Both of the shortlisted bidders included Spanish construction companies.

all of that is achievable in Ireland with a little political will, except maybe the fire standards.

To be fair, many of the items listed have been achieved:

• Ground below 10m now belongs to the state since this provision in the 2006 Stategic Infrastructure Act
• 24 hour tunnelling has been applied for in the Railway Order
• the planning approval process took longer than expected but it was the first time and nobody wants to screw it up
• negotiations with bidders took place during planning approval so this may reduce the time to agree a contract after approval is granted
• wages have of course fallen
• land for stations is cheaper
• a developer contribution scheme is in place

the safety standards aren't going to change

GerardKeating

dynamick wrote: »

Motorway goes through open countryside where land is up to 1000 times cheaper.

There are fewer services to locate and divert.

RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:

• 24 hour tunnelling permitted
• faster planning approval
• lower wages
• no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
• experience of building metros : 250km built already
• lower fire safety standards
• high tolerance for traffic disruption
• monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland

when did "monotube construction" become illegal in Ireland..

foggy_lad

GerardKeating wrote: »

when did "monotube construction" become illegal in Ireland..

it is safer to have travel in one directiion only or to not have trains side by side in tunnels if there was a derailment or small accident.

GerardKeating

foggy_lad wrote: »

it is safer to have travel in one directiion only or to not have trains side by side in tunnels if there was a derailment or small accident.

Yes, but according to the other poster the RPA actually claim it is illegal.

Chris_5339762

dynamick wrote: »

Motorway goes through open countryside where land is up to 1000 times cheaper.

There are fewer services to locate and divert.

RPA was asked by the dail transport committee to see why the Spanish metro was so cheap. They came up with:

• 24 hour tunnelling permitted
• faster planning approval
• lower wages
• no land acquisition costs as all ground beneath 10m belongs to the state
• experience of building metros : 250km built already
• lower fire safety standards
• high tolerance for traffic disruption
• monotube construction which is now illegal in Ireland

Add "less pandering to incessant whinging from shopowners about disruption and traffic loss even though cars cant park outside their shops ANYWAY"

Run_to_da_hills

foggy_lad wrote: »

it is safer to have travel in one directiion only or to not have trains side by side in tunnels if there was a derailment or small accident.

Seems ridiculous, how often have we heard of the London Circle line having a mishap?

Most of the Barcelona Metro is "two way" and "cut and cover" I would guess most of Dublin would be the same.

To make a monotube railway would involve a poured concrete wall down the middle of the rail line. This would also pose more hassle for shut down maintenance.

dynamick

GerardKeating wrote: »

when did "monotube construction" become illegal in Ireland..

I got that wrong. Monotube construction is not illegal and the RPA didn't say it was. The RSC recommends twin tunnels in its guidelines but says monotube is acceptable with a dividing wall.

antoinolachtnai

Broadly, my conclusion from looking at this is that rail skills and products tend to be expensive because they are very specialised, compared to road materials and road vehicles. There are relatively few vendors which makes things more difficult.

As a result, stuff like signalling equipment ends up working out very expensive when you consider that the signalling systems are very simple and really offer very little functionality over what was available twenty or thirty years ago.

The same thing goes for the maintenance. There are a lot of people who can do road maintenance and do it well, but for rail, you are dealing with a limited pool because of the specialised skills and equipment required.

What makes it worse is that because working on a railway usually entails shutting the line down completely, most of the work needs to be done at night, usually at weekends in order to have a long enough time gap between services to actually get a reasonable amount of work done.

Maintenance of a tunnel is a separate thing. Tunnel maintenance is always going to be difficult and expensive. It certainly isn't just a matter of building it and forgetting about it. Constant inspections and checks are needed, and any maintenance has to be carried out in a relatively confined, dark space. Replacing rail in a tunnel, especially a monotunnel must be something like closing all the windows and curtains in your living room and doing a bit of welding. Not easy and certainly not cheap.

Rail systems are fantastic in terms of customer experience, and the volumes they can potentially carry, but you need a lot of volume to make the expense worthwhile.

Victor

dynamick wrote: »

I think motorway is about €10m/km for comparison

Buying the land alone for the South Eastern Motorway (Dundrum to Shankill) was €500m for 7-9km.

Of course, tailways come with their own rolling stock - you don't have to bring your own.

mmacaogain

Edinburgh's tram service started running today.
£776m (€954m), 14km.
€68m / km

BuffyBot

4 yr old thread. Don't resurrect ancient threads from the dead.