Metro North Investment???

dunsandin

Does anybody share my view that the states decision today to plough ahead with metro North is just another bung to the developers who invested heavily in landbanks along the proposed route, as opposed to a rational use of scarce rescources? Surely the Dublin-Navan rail corridor would be a better investment? Smells of hard necked cronyism to me.Surprise surprise.

deise go deo

No bertie just wants a new way to get to the Dail:D

Sponge Bob

dunsandin wrote: »

Does anybody share my view that the states decision today to plough ahead with metro North is just another bung to the developers who invested heavily in landbanks along the proposed route, as opposed to a rational use of scarce rescources? Surely the Dublin-Navan rail corridor would be a better investment? .

No
No

and NOO!!!!

dunsandin

So what are you trying to say there then??:D:D It probably is a good investment, surely it wont run over budget, take twice as long and only service a narrow self-interested, Dublin centric clique. And, it probably is common sense, when up to your eyes in squander induced debt, to pee another few billion up the proverbial wall. But, sure it'll keep the developers and construction companies happy, and like the luas, it will create loads of local jobs. Oh no, hang on, most of the best paid luas contracts went to foreign companies who brought in their own workers.

astrofool

It's the second most essential thing that needs to happen after the Dart Interconnector (DI), it will change the way people move around the city.

There are lots of transport initiatives that should go ahead, but when we're short of money, prioritising the DI and MN has to be the priority.

It will also likely make a profit in the long term.

The WRC would have been the bung for developers.

kilburn

Metro north is a joke it should be scrapped, the cash should be pumped into better train and road connections around the country

dunsandin

astrofool wrote: »

It's the second most essential thing that needs to happen after the Dart Interconnector (DI), it will change the way people move around the city.

There are lots of transport initiatives that should go ahead, but when we're short of money, prioritising the DI and MN has to be the priority.

It will also likely make a profit in the long term.

The WRC would have been the bung for developers.

It and Nama....

daithicarr

I was unable to find much information on the metro porject on the transport 21 website, but a few articles mention a price of 4.58 billion at 2004 prices to 6 billion at 2010 prices

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/dublins-planned-metro-north-line-to-cost-more-than-5bn-1053110.html

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/dublin-metro/

Thats 190 mil to 250 mil per km with given no cost overruns, wikipedia gives a price of 89 million per km for the san fransico metro which is built in a area prone to earhtquakes unlike dublin. I have seen other articles and it seems 60 million to 100 million seems to be the average price for a metro, so why are we looking at at least twice that if not a lot more?

tunney

kilburn wrote: »

Metro north is a joke it should be scrapped, the cash should be pumped into better train and road connections around the country

Given 50% of the tax revenue that the exchequer recevies is generated in Dublin should the investment not be greater there?

cson

I can't believe people are arguing against a project that not only is badly needed but will last for decades. Dublin Airport is possibly the only major European International Airport without a metro or rail link to the city.

Liam Byrne

cson wrote: »

I can't believe people are arguing against a project that not only is badly needed but will last for decades. Dublin Airport is possibly the only major European International Airport without a metro or rail link to the city.

Shannon ?

astrofool

dunsandin wrote: »

It and Nama....

I fail to see the link between the bank bailouts and a piece of infrastructure that can last 100+ years. (unless you're saying we'll still be paying off NAMA in 2110).

daithicarr wrote: »

I was unable to find much information on the metro porject on the transport 21 website, but a few articles mention a price of 4.58 billion at 2004 prices to 6 billion at 2010 prices

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/dublins-planned-metro-north-line-to-cost-more-than-5bn-1053110.html

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/dublin-metro/

Thats 190 mil to 250 mil per km with given no cost overruns, wikipedia gives a price of 89 million per km for the san fransico metro which is built in a area prone to earhtquakes unlike dublin. I have seen other articles and it seems 60 million to 100 million seems to be the average price for a metro, so why are we looking at at least twice that if not a lot more?

Higher minimum wages in Ireland, higher union rates per worker. Earthquake zones will also be easier to dig in than rock that hasn't moved for millions of years, and the digging is the highest cost.

Also, Dublin city is older than San francisco, with it's layout (non grid) making it harder to find room to build infrastructure.

cson

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Shannon ?

Shannon isn't major I'm afraid Liam.

As an aside; with the construction of the interurbans Shannon could have been a major hub for the West if the DAA hadn't decided to run it into the ground.

daithicarr

how does the minimum wage being higer inpact on this project? no one working on it will be on minimum wage as far as i know, and the technical staff will be on comparative wages would they not?

higher union rates per worker? are they only hiring unionised workers and how does that impact the project? surely they can hire cheaper workers?

and id imagine a earthquake zone would be much harder to build in, the system would have to be able to withstand minor trembles etc and not collapse completely in the case of a major event and thus be more costly?

mikemac

Union staff will be hired.
For any major project having union staff working with non union staff who are paid less then the going rate will cause issues.

You are correct, nobody there will be on minimum wage and most of the workers will have trades and skills so will be paid the proper rate.

A quick look at Construction Industry Federation shows €14.88 per hour for unskilled labouring.
Tradesmen have their own rates

Pete_Cavan

dunsandin wrote: »

Does anybody share my view that the states decision today to plough ahead with metro North is just another bung to the developers who invested heavily in landbanks along the proposed route, as opposed to a rational use of scarce rescources?

Nobody shares that view, well nobody with any sense anyway. You are aware that the majority of the line runs under ground so developers with landbanks are not going to benefit. Even when the line comes above ground it is beyond the airport in north County Dublin where most of the land is for agricultural purposes and so any CPOs will be relatively inexpensive.

dunsandin wrote: »

Surely the Dublin-Navan rail corridor would be a better investment? Smells of hard necked cronyism to me.Surprise surprise.

How would the Dublin-Navan rail corridor be a better investment? Navan has a population of about 40,000 and has just got a brand new road to Dublin built on its doorstep (the most expensive single contract road project ever undertaken in Ireland coming in at approximately €650 million), they do not need a half a billion euro rail line as well. Anyway Park and Ride facilities comprising 1200 spaces will are provided at Pace.

After the Interconnector, Metro North will be the most important piece of infrastructure in Dublin. It provides a link from the airport (which gets around 20million passengers a year) to the city centre with a travel time of less than 30 minutes. It also has stops at important destinations such as the Mater hospital and future site of the new childrens hospital as well as DCU. It also links large communities like Swords (which has a similar population to Navan) and the redeveloped Ballymun to the city centre. MN will allow passengers to interchange with both Luas lines and both Dart lines once the Interconnector is completed so Dublin will finally have an integrated public transport network.

dunsandin wrote: »

So what are you trying to say there then??:D:D It probably is a good investment, surely it wont run over budget, take twice as long and only service a narrow self-interested, Dublin centric clique.

MN serves one of our most important pieces of national infrastructure, Dublin airport, therefore it does not "only service a narrow self-interested, Dublin centric clique". But Dublin does produce more than its fair share of tax revenue which has paid for many white elephant rail lines around the country like the WRC so Dublin deserves a potentially profitable piece of infrastructure like this.

dunsandin wrote: »

And, it probably is common sense, when up to your eyes in squander induced debt, to pee another few billion up the proverbial wall. But, sure it'll keep the developers and construction companies happy, and like the luas, it will create loads of local jobs.

MN is expected to create at least 4,000 direct construction jobs, many of these workers would otherwise be unemployed and thousands more indirect jobs. So this pumps more money into the economy and gets people off the dole reducing social welfare payments. Pace-Navan rail line would employ a lot less people and for a shorter period of time.

dunsandin wrote: »

Oh no, hang on, most of the best paid luas contracts went to foreign companies who brought in their own workers.

If Irish companies were more competitive they would win contracts like this. The Luas is currently the only rail line in the country operating at a profit, perhaps you would prefer to see us losing money on it as well.

daithicarr wrote: »

I was unable to find much information on the metro porject on the transport 21 website, but a few articles mention a price of 4.58 billion at 2004 prices to 6 billion at 2010 prices

Sources estimate that the capital cost of the line will be about €2.8bn. Under the PPP model, this would be the initial cost which is paid for by the winning consortium. The total cost to the government over the life of the PPP contract, which I think is 25 years, would be €5 - 6bn. This is including interest and the winning consortium would also be operating and maintaining the service.

A good article (http://www.businessandfinance.ie/ind...6&n=372&a=1447) says the the cost to the State between now and the day it opens will be about €100. It will then cost about €150m to €170m a year each year for 25 years afterwards. The article also makes a good point about the project employing 5,000 to 6,000 people, most of whom would otherwise be unemployed, reducing social welfare payments as well as generating a lot of tax revenue.

As with most PPP projects I think the real value to the state will be when the current contract expires, by which time most of the costs will (hopefully) be covered by the social and economic benefits arising from the project, and future contracts for operating the service will be profitable for the government, who ever that may be.

RichardAnd

I'd be in favour of the MN though I expect it to be held up by greedy residents wanting a slice of pie. But that's Ireland.

Laminations

I'd imagine the price will be less than that per kilometre in the end but the reason it's higher would be because of higher spec in the project, have you seen the station design? And there is a difference about being against budget overruns and cost versus fundamentally against the metro. I have a hard time taking anyone in the latter category seriously while I myself would be in the former

astrofool

daithicarr wrote: »

how does the minimum wage being higer inpact on this project? no one working on it will be on minimum wage as far as i know, and the technical staff will be on comparative wages would they not?

higher union rates per worker? are they only hiring unionised workers and how does that impact the project? surely they can hire cheaper workers?

and id imagine a earthquake zone would be much harder to build in, the system would have to be able to withstand minor trembles etc and not collapse completely in the case of a major event and thus be more costly?

Higher minimum wage pushes all wages up, we pay the bottom level the most, so all wages are higher as a result.

As said above, all workers will likely be union, with their associated cost per hour, travel time, stand around a hole looking time etc.

The highest cost in building a tunnel is digging it out, not making it secure afterwards. Ireland happens to sit on a lot of rock, making tunnelling very expensive.

dunsandin

This thread shows me why we are where we are. A nation led by deluded wasters who think they deserve the best and damn the cost. I seriously think that some of the responses here are borderline mental. Lets borrow another 40 billion, sure whats the harm. Its a long term investment. Madness. Like paying 32 million for that wasteland to build a new prison on. We are a country that can afford a 96 fiesta, but think we deserve better, so are in hock for our 3 series 10 reg BMW. Nuts. Is there no better target for this sum? Health service anybody????Jenuine job creation??Pete Cavan, you are very full of your own self with your assurance that nobody disagrees with you. You must be a very wise and successful man altogether. Good luck.

oppenheimer1

dunsandin wrote: »

This thread shows me why we are where we are. A nation led by deluded wasters who think they deserve the best and damn the cost. I seriously think that some of the responses here are borderline mental. Lets borrow another 40 billion, sure whats the harm. Its a long term investment. Madness. Like paying 32 million for that wasteland to build a new prison on. We are a country that can afford a 96 fiesta, but think we deserve better, so are in hock for our 3 series 10 reg BMW. Nuts. Is there no better target for this sum? Health service anybody????Jenuine job creation??Pete Cavan, you are very full of your own self with your assurance that nobody disagrees with you. You must be a very wise and successful man altogether. Good luck.

Indeed this thread does show why we are where we are. Metro North should have been built decades ago when european money was flowing in. However the fact that it wasn't doesn't mean it shouldn't be built. The Interconnector and MN are the two single most important transport projects that need to be undertaken. No doubt people will compare the cost of MN to similar size projects like the Jubilee line extension in London Metros in Madrid and Barcelona. This is of course forgetting that the ground in Dublin is very very hard and much more difficult to tunnel in. (For those that would like to learn more about the ground in Dublin read http://igsl.ie/wp-content/uploads/Geotechnique%20DBC.pdf )

There is no problem in borrowing another €40bn for capital projects assuming of course we can meet the interest payments. Borrowing for current spending is far more objectionable, or indeed for investing in the banking sector (that doesn't mean its not important or necessary).

This old chestnut of healthcare is always brought up when discussing government spending. If some people here had their way there wouldn't be a single thing in the country built only hospitals. FFS the government has other priorities too. MN will be of great social and economic benefit to the country as a whole.

As I said before, it should have been built years ago.

astrofool

dunsandin wrote: »

This thread shows me why we are where we are. A nation led by deluded wasters who think they deserve the best and damn the cost. I seriously think that some of the responses here are borderline mental. Lets borrow another 40 billion, sure whats the harm. Its a long term investment. Madness. Like paying 32 million for that wasteland to build a new prison on. We are a country that can afford a 96 fiesta, but think we deserve better, so are in hock for our 3 series 10 reg BMW. Nuts. Is there no better target for this sum? Health service anybody????Jenuine job creation??Pete Cavan, you are very full of your own self with your assurance that nobody disagrees with you. You must be a very wise and successful man altogether. Good luck.

Long term infrastructure projects that will pay for themselves are exactly what we should be spending money on right now.

A) funding is available, and investors will invest
throwing it into the money pit of the hse is probably about the worst value we can get for money at the moment
C) if we ever do want a world class economy, we need to have the infrastructure to support it. MN and DI will create thousands of jobs in construction, but also afterwards rough increased tourism and being able to attract and keep companies to/in ireland.

meditraitor

Is it possible that a lot of the land bank needed for the metro north already belongs to the taxpayer or will be a whole lot cheaper than already envisaged?

Labour and contruction costs should also be a lot cheaper.

Nama

daithicarr

astrofool wrote: »

Higher minimum wage pushes all wages up, we pay the bottom level the most, so all wages are higher as a result.

As said above, all workers will likely be union, with their associated cost per hour, travel time, stand around a hole looking time etc.

I have not seen anything that indicates that because those on minimum wage are paid more than many other countrys all sectors are naturaly paid more? out of curiosity is there anywhere i could see international wage comparisons with irelands?
And how does a slightly higher minimum wage translate in to a much higher construction cost?
Also i thought this was going to be built by private companys on tender, so would that not greatly reduce the amount of union involvement.

Im for this project, id just like to see it done with as little waste as possible and as far as im aware building in sound rock would be much easier than in rock distrubed by seismic activity.

Laminations

dunsandin wrote: »

This thread shows me why we are where we are. A nation led by deluded wasters who think they deserve the best and damn the cost. I seriously think that some of the responses here are borderline mental. Lets borrow another 40 billion, sure whats the harm. Its a long term investment. Madness. Like paying 32 million for that wasteland to build a new prison on. We are a country that can afford a 96 fiesta, but think we deserve better, so are in hock for our 3 series 10 reg BMW. Nuts. Is there no better target for this sum? Health service anybody????Jenuine job creation??Pete Cavan, you are very full of your own self with your assurance that nobody disagrees with you. You must be a very wise and successful man altogether. Good luck.

Ha ha, you call people mental for suggesting that a solid rail infrastructure is a good long term investment and instead you think we should pump more money into health? Like lack of money is the problem there and not mismanagement. The prison is also necessary and the money spent (wasted) on it so far just highlights FFs inability to plan projects.

Comordha

Melbourne airport caters for a population of 4 million people and is probably closer to the city centre than Dublin airport and it has no metro. Frequent mid-sized buses service the route.

beeno67

I am trying to keep an open mind on Metro North. Many of you seem very much in favour of it saying it is a good investment. How is it a good investment? At a cost of 6 Billion as someone said earlier how will the country benefit by more than this. Please no one say it will increase passenger numbers to Dublin Airport. We know it won't do that to any great extent.

Tefral

Just so everyone knows this project WONT run over budget as long as the Design team dont change anything after the Tender has been completed. All new forms of government contracts place the burden of risk soley on the contractor.

I think its a good investment being honest...

Tim Robbins

dunsandin wrote: »

This thread shows me why we are where we are. A nation led by deluded wasters who think they deserve the best and damn the cost. I seriously think that some of the responses here are borderline mental. Lets borrow another 40 billion, sure whats the harm. Its a long term investment. Madness. Like paying 32 million for that wasteland to build a new prison on. We are a country that can afford a 96 fiesta, but think we deserve better, so are in hock for our 3 series 10 reg BMW. Nuts. Is there no better target for this sum? Health service anybody????Jenuine job creation??Pete Cavan, you are very full of your own self with your assurance that nobody disagrees with you. You must be a very wise and successful man altogether. Good luck.

It would be harder to think of a better example of a black hole than our failed health service. We have thrown a huge amount of money at it and still have a very poor service.

Head The Wall

Agreed on that, people are already making their way to dublin airport without this. As are people geting to work etc

Very hard to justify for around 6 Billion, that'd build a lot of schools and probably create even more jobs. Whatever about hospitals we are short of schools in this country

Pete_Cavan

dunsandin wrote: »

This thread shows me why we are where we are. A nation led by deluded wasters who think they deserve the best and damn the cost. I seriously think that some of the responses here are borderline mental. Lets borrow another 40 billion, sure whats the harm. Its a long term investment. Madness. Like paying 32 million for that wasteland to build a new prison on. We are a country that can afford a 96 fiesta, but think we deserve better, so are in hock for our 3 series 10 reg BMW. Nuts. Is there no better target for this sum? Health service anybody????Jenuine job creation??

If you think scrapping MN and pouring more money into the health service is the best way forward for this country then you are the "deluded waster who think they deserve the best and damn the cost", as you put it. We are currently borrowing €20bn a year to keep the country going with a lot of that going on current expenditure. At least borrowing for capital expenditure stimulates economic activity and creates jobs which is genuine job creation. Jenuine job creation - is that what you call borrowing money to pay for unnecessary admin/mgmt in the health service instead of sacking them and saving the country a fortune?

dunsandin wrote: »

Pete Cavan, you are very full of your own self with your assurance that nobody disagrees with you. You must be a very wise and successful man altogether. Good luck.

I did not say that nobody disagrees with me. I said nobody with any sense agrees with you. At least I took a series of quotes from other posters and gave my opinions which I backed up. If you can adequately explain to me how scrapping all capital investment and pumping money into a grossly inefficient health service that, per capita is one of the best funded in the world yet provides a very poor service, is going to return economic prosperity to this country I will gladly agree with you. Until then you can keep your sarcastic comments to yourself because you are losing credibility like the health service in losing money.

The athlete

When you hear of things like this and see that fat bollix on the news with his massive jowls swaying it's enough to make you head to the airport. I honestly believe that Irish people are just too bent to govern ourselves, what we need to do is either become the 51st member of the united states or ask the brits to take us back. A change will just bring in different people but the same cronyism. How is jowls supposed to tackle the developers or bankers when he's teeing off with them the next day in portmarnock ?

beeno67

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I did not say that nobody disagrees with me. I said nobody with any sense agrees with you. At least I took a series of quotes from other posters and gave my opinions which I backed up. If you can adequately explain to me how scrapping all capital investment and pumping money into a grossly inefficient health service that, per capita is one of the best funded in the world yet provides a very poor service, is going to return economic prosperity to this country I will gladly agree with you. Until then you can keep your sarcastic comments to yourself because you are losing credibility like the health service in losing money.

But can you explain why it is a good investment?

Pete_Cavan

beeno67 wrote: »

But can you explain why it is a good investment?

First of all, the €6 billion quoted includes capital costs, interest payments, construction, maintenance and operation of the line for the next 25 - 30 years. That is actually pretty good value, highlighted by the fact that the EIB agreeing to provide €500 million in funding (http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189). The EU would not pump half a billion euro into a project if they did not think it was viable. MN should get enough passengers to cover its cost for the life of the PPP contract, after which time the next contract for operating the route will generate huge income for the government.

MN will also create 4,000 construction jobs, many of these workers would otherwise be unemployed, therefore reducing social welfare payments. This will also create indirect employment with the people employed on MN project directly spending money in the wider economy. This increases government revenue. Now is the best time to build it because construction tender price have come down almost 30% so we get more for our money now. This country has also built up a lot of experience within the construction sector and we now have the ability (with the help of large foreign contractors as part of the winning consortium) and the capacity to build such a huge infrastructural project.

The route itself incorporates new areas into the Dublin rail system and serves a number of popular destinations; St Stephens Green (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future), O'Connell Street (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future), Mater Hospital and National Childrens Hospital (with station already built as part of Mater redevelopment), DCU (with over 10,000 students and staff), regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development) the airport (with capacity for 35m passengers p.a.) and park and ride facilities further north for 2,600 cars.

Some may argue that this only benefits Dublin so why should be focus the bulk of our transport budget for the next four years in one area? Well Dublin is the driving force of our economy (Dublin pays 50% of the countries tax) and without transfer payments from Dublin to other regions there would be very little money to pay for other projects down the country. Therefore an investment in Dublin is an investment in this country. In a time of limited funds we must focus limited resources to where they will have the most benefit. Improvements in public transport will make Dublin a more attractive city for MNCs who want to locate close to a highly skilled workforce and public transport brings the workforce to them. Dublin is an international city and is in competition with Birmingham, Brussels and Delhi for such jobs, its not in competition with Nenagh. Making the investment in Dublin will have far greater benefits to the country than spreading it out over lots of small, rather insignificant projects.

Dublin is currently choked by cars and we need to move away from personal transport in the city to public transport. MN will allow passengers to interchange with both Luas lines and both Dart lines once the Interconnector is completed so Dublin will finally have an integrated public transport network. MN will also increase passenger numbers on the other lines (Luas & Dart) by introducing new areas to the rail network and will increase the viability of other lines. Taking cars off the city streets will make Dublin a more attractive city both for its inhabitants and for tourists who may wish to come here. Dublin city centre could become a vibrant place for socialising, shopping and working and we should stop the recent trend of the M50 becoming the capitals main street with all the retail parks/offices along it.

MN will do so much for the city and this country and we should be happy that our little country is showing some signs of catching up with our cosmopolitan continental neighbours. This is something that will increase commercial activity in Dublin and this will be sustainable this time. The boom made us think we were richer and better then we really were but we must not let a setback like a global (yes it has happened in most of the developed world) recession send us back to the self loathing mentality of old. I know there are people on this forum who hate to see anybody with a positive outlook. If you can counter any of the points I have made, fair enough, but dont just drag in NAMA/bankers/spending cuts into this for the sake of a bit of negativity.

beeno67

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

First of all, the €6 billion quoted includes capital costs, interest payments, construction, maintenance and operation of the line for the next 25 - 30 years. That is actually pretty good value, highlighted by the fact that the EIB agreeing to provide €500 million in funding (http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189). The EU would not pump half a billion euro into a project if they did not think it was viable. MN should get enough passengers to cover its cost for the life of the PPP contract, after which time the next contract for operating the route will generate huge income for the government.

MN will also create 4,000 construction jobs, many of these workers would otherwise be unemployed, therefore reducing social welfare payments. This will also create indirect employment with the people employed on MN project directly spending money in the wider economy. This increases government revenue. Now is the best time to build it because construction tender price have come down almost 30% so we get more for our money now. This country has also built up a lot of experience within the construction sector and we now have the ability (with the help of large foreign contractors as part of the winning consortium) and the capacity to build such a huge infrastructural project.

The route itself incorporates new areas into the Dublin rail system and serves a number of popular destinations; St Stephens Green (with enabling work done to allow delivery of interconnector in the future), O'Connell Street (with enabling work done to allow delivery of BXD in the near future), Mater Hospital and National Childrens Hospital (with station already built as part of Mater redevelopment), DCU (with over 10,000 students and staff), regenerated Ballymun with projected population of 40,000 (stop integrated into Theasury Holdings Ballymun Town Centre development) the airport (with capacity for 35m passengers p.a.) and park and ride facilities further north for 2,600 cars.

Some may argue that this only benefits Dublin so why should be focus the bulk of our transport budget for the next four years in one area? Well Dublin is the driving force of our economy (Dublin pays 50% of the countries tax) and without transfer payments from Dublin to other regions there would be very little money to pay for other projects down the country. Therefore an investment in Dublin is an investment in this country. In a time of limited funds we must focus limited resources to where they will have the most benefit. Improvements in public transport will make Dublin a more attractive city for MNCs who want to locate close to a highly skilled workforce and public transport brings the workforce to them. Dublin is an international city and is in competition with Birmingham, Brussels and Delhi for such jobs, its not in competition with Nenagh. Making the investment in Dublin will have far greater benefits to the country than spreading it out over lots of small, rather insignificant projects.

Dublin is currently choked by cars and we need to move away from personal transport in the city to public transport. MN will allow passengers to interchange with both Luas lines and both Dart lines once the Interconnector is completed so Dublin will finally have an integrated public transport network. MN will also increase passenger numbers on the other lines (Luas & Dart) by introducing new areas to the rail network and will increase the viability of other lines. Taking cars off the city streets will make Dublin a more attractive city both for its inhabitants and for tourists who may wish to come here. Dublin city centre could become a vibrant place for socialising, shopping and working and we should stop the recent trend of the M50 becoming the capitals main street with all the retail parks/offices along it.

MN will do so much for the city and this country and we should be happy that our little country is showing some signs of catching up with our cosmopolitan continental neighbours. This is something that will increase commercial activity in Dublin and this will be sustainable this time. The boom made us think we were richer and better then we really were but we must not let a setback like a global (yes it has happened in most of the developed world) recession send us back to the self loathing mentality of old. I know there are people on this forum who hate to see anybody with a positive outlook. If you can counter any of the points I have made, fair enough, but dont just drag in NAMA/bankers/spending cuts into this for the sake of a bit of negativity.

So in summary,

1. it will create 4,000 temporary jobs.
2. It may reduce car numbers on roads. Luas didn't make a noticable difference. Have you any figures for the amount of cars it will take off the roads? I think it is more likely to reduce bus numbers than car numbers (as the LUAS did).
3. It will help with additional public transport in the future.
4. It will somehow increase comercial activity in Dublin. Sounds very vague. Care to quantify this?

Doesn't sound that great an investment.

Pete_Cavan

beeno67 wrote: »

So in summary,

1. it will create 4,000 temporary jobs.

We have a highly skilled construction workforced built up during the boom. Many of these workers are now unemployed and have little hope of being employed in construction again in this country. The skills these people have are not easily transferable to other sectors (whats a block layer going to do in an office?). Therefore it makes sense to retain some of these people in construction instead of retraining them all. We will need construction workers in the future (although less than before) but while we have the skills lets utilise them. The jobs an MN may be temporary (but a job for the next two years in these times is not bad) but they can then be used on other infrastructure projects after MN. MN will do a lot to provide us with the funds for future infrastructure projects as well.

beeno67 wrote: »

1. It may reduce car numbers on roads. Luas didn't make a noticable difference. Have you any figures for the amount of cars it will take off the roads? I think it is more likely to reduce bus numbers than car numbers (as the LUAS did).

The Luas carries on average 70,000 people a day with over 25 million passengers in 2009 (http://www.luas.ie/faqs.php). Do you really think all these people came from buses, walked or just never left the house before the Luas was built? The Luas takes thousands of cars off the road every day. MN will carry 34 million passengers a year and a lot these currently use their car as their main mode of transport. In a lot of cases the bus is not faster than the car because they share the same route and cars can take shortcuts. MN will be under ground in the city centre completely separated from traffic and has nothing to disrupt its journey. And so what if it reduces the number of buses. Dublin Bus is lossing money and we are all paying for it, at least the Luas is profitable (and afaik it is currently the only profitable rail line in the country). We should be moving away from buses to a more efficient rail system that will save us money in the long run.

beeno67 wrote: »

1. It will help with additional public transport in the future.

When do you suggest we build a proper public transport system? When city are packed with private cars and we are crippled by the costs of providing an efficient public transport system that was even outdated when it was built in the 1980's! I see you are from the old Irish school of thought of Let the problem develop and then try to solve it.

beeno67 wrote: »

1. It will somehow increase comercial activity in Dublin. Sounds very vague. Care to quantify this?

Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC)
The Development of an Internationally Sustainable Airport City Region
Volume 1 – Summary of Main Findings and Recommendations Page 39
http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/fingal_coco_mnec_v1.pdf

The Development Strategy should facilitate commercial and other development in the Corridor that would
support a total of 37,000 additional jobs in the corridor to a total of 66,700 representing a more-than-doubling of
the existing level of economic activity and employment in the area.

Maybe next time you would care to quantity your negative attitude towards this project?

beeno67 wrote: »

Doesn't sound that great an investment.

No but I bet your the kind of who thinks nothing sounds good. I did ask for a reasoned agrument if were going to disagree with me, not just negativity for negativities sake.

beeno67

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I did ask for a reasoned agrument if were going to disagree with me, not just negativity for negativities sake.

I wasn't giving an argument at all. I was simply removing the waffle from your post to sumarize it. Based on that summary it does not sound like good value.

beeno67

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[/LIST]We have a highly skilled construction workforced built up during the boom. Many of these workers are now unemployed and have little hope of being employed in construction again in this country. The skills these people have are not easily transferable to other sectors (whats a block layer going to do in an office?). Therefore it makes sense to retain some of these people in construction instead of retraining them all. We will need construction workers in the future (although less than before) but while we have the skills lets utilise them. The jobs an MN may be temporary (but a job for the next two years in these times is not bad) but they can then be used on other infrastructure projects after MN. MN will do a lot to provide us with the funds for future infrastructure projects as well.

Again going through the waffle it creates 4,000 temporary jobs.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[/
[/LIST]The Luas carries on average 70,000 people a day with over 25 million passengers in 2009 (http://www.luas.ie/faqs.php). Do you really think all these people came from buses, walked or just never left the house before the Luas was built? The Luas takes thousands of cars off the road every day.

I didn't say all these came from the buses but a huge proportion do. Dublin Bus estimates it has lost 41,000 passengers a day to the Luas.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[/
[/LIST]Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC)
The Development of an Internationally Sustainable Airport City Region
Volume 1 – Summary of Main Findings and Recommendations Page 39
http://www.indecon.ie/download/pdf/fingal_coco_mnec_v1.pdf

Obviously these jobs do not come from the metro north itself (and include building a new hospital and University which aint going to happen, and a doubling in areas population)

oppenheimer1

beeno67 wrote: »

I wasn't giving an argument at all. I was simply removing the waffle from your post to sumarize it. Based on that summary it does not sound like good value.

Care to explain why it doesn't sound like good value, rather than dismissing it out of hand?

Pete_Cavan

beeno67 wrote: »

Again going through the waffle it creates 4,000 temporary jobs.

So you are in favour of keeping these 4,000 people on the dole and maintaining our cripplingly high social welfare expenditure then are you? Like I said, we have the skilled construction workforce now so lets do it now. When would you have us do it? In ten years time when we would have to import a Chinese work force to do it for us and tender prices are higher?

beeno67 wrote: »

I didn't say all these came from the buses but a huge proportion do. Dublin Bus estimates it has lost 41,000 passengers a day to the Luas.

So in this case you are in favour of maintaining a loss making bus system instead of improving an efficient and profitable rail network! You are obviously a low paid worker who contributes very little in the way of taxes seeing as you do not seem to care how tax money is spent.

beeno67 wrote: »

Obviously these jobs do not come from the metro north itself.

That report is Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC) and is focused on job creation in this area. Without MN there is no MNEC and so these jobs are not created. And even if there is large scale job creation in this area without MN (perhaps you will emply 37,000 people selling magic beans for you), it will not be sustainable without adequate public transport. This is the same kind of thinking that gave us a two lane M50 and then allowed shopping centres, business parks, industrial estates to spring up along it and then having to spend a fortune widening the road because it could not cope with all the traffic! Lets, for once in this countries history, do something right from the start.

beeno67

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Care to explain why it doesn't sound like good value, rather than dismissing it out of hand?

I said in my first post that I have an open mind about it and I do. I asked for reasons from people who support it as to why it is a good investment. My comment was based on what Pete Cavan said. Based on that it did not seem a good investment. I am still open to reasons supporting it.

daithicarr

from the above posts i have seen good reasons why it is a vialble and valueble project, very few reasons apart from personal feeling as to why it would be a bad project.

Maybe a Bus rapid transit system would be a viable alternative? im just curious if we are getting the most value for money for this project, and if a similar ublic transport system could be constructed for less?

I know a metro is a more prestigeous service than s bus rapid transit system, would that be a factor in their decision making?

beeno67

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

So you are in favour of keeping these 4,000 people on the dole and maintaining our cripplingly high social welfare expenditure then are you? Like I said, we have the skilled construction workforce now so lets do it now. When would you have us do it? In ten years time when we would have to import a Chinese work force to do it for us and tender prices are higher?

Totally stupid comment.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

So in this case you are in favour of maintaining a loss making bus system instead of improving an efficient and profitable rail network! You are obviously a low paid worker who contributes very little in the way of taxes seeing as you do not seem to care how tax money is spent.

There are more options than Dublin bus or metro north. Indeed there are far better, cheaper ways to reduce congestion in Dublin.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That report is Economic Development Strategy for the Metro North Economic Corridor (MNEC) and is focused on job creation in this area. Without MN there is no MNEC and so these jobs are not created. And even if there is large scale job creation in this area without MN (perhaps you will emply 37,000 people selling magic beans for you), it will not be sustainable without adequate public transport. This is the same kind of thinking that gave us a two lane M50 and then allowed shopping centres, business parks, industrial estates to spring up along it and then having to spend a fortune widening the road because it could not cope with all the traffic! Lets, for once in this countries history, do something right from the start.

More totally stupid comments. Pete Cavan I do not know if metro north is a good idea or not. Clearly neither do you. Perhaps someone who has some idea about it could comment.

I should add about the comment that "Without MN there is no MNEC and so these jobs are not created". Is ridiculous. The area still exists but would not be called MNEC. The 4 main sources of the extra jobs are
1. Hospital: This will not happen if MN is built or not
2. University: This will not happen if MN is built or not
3 Dublin Airport more than doubling its passenger numbers. Metro North will not affect this to any great degree
4. Population of area doubles. I cannot see metro north causing the population to double.

Pete_Cavan

beeno67 wrote: »

Totally stupid comment.

So what if used a bit of hyperbole at the end there. Are you actually going to tell me why we should not used our skilled construction work force to build a very complicated piece of infrastructure at a time when tender prices are at their lowest or are you going to ignore my main point?

beeno67 wrote: »

There are more options than Dublin bus or metro north. Indeed there are far better, cheaper ways to reduce congestion in Dublin.

Such as? A Bus Rapid Transport sytem as suggested by someone elso above is an alternative but I'll get into that with them. Until you have some realistic suggestions dont just make broad unspecific comments like that.

beeno67 wrote: »

More totally stupid comments. Pete Cavan I do not know if metro north is a good idea or not. Clearly neither do you. Perhaps someone who has some idea about it could comment.

Again you focus on a bit of exaggeration and use that as an excuse to ignore the real point. I quoted a report by an independent company to back up what I said, you just avoid the issue. Do you only consider people who agree with you as "someone who has some idea about it"?

beeno67 wrote: »

I said in my first post that I have an open mind about it and I do. I asked for reasons from people who support it as to why it is a good investment. My comment was based on what Pete Cavan said. Based on that it did not seem a good investment. I am still open to reasons supporting it.

You dont seem very open minded to me because based on what I said it seems a fantastic investment. I am open to reasons against it but only if they are well made and backed up.

noodler

I am going to ignore the obvious economic, tourism and infrastructural benefits from having Swords and the Aiport covered for a moment.

As a North-Eastern Dubliner the Dart is an absolutely essential way of live for so many.

The north west / central badly need this.

syklops

daithicarr wrote: »

from the above posts i have seen good reasons why it is a vialble and valueble project, very few reasons apart from personal feeling as to why it would be a bad project.

Maybe a Bus rapid transit system would be a viable alternative? im just curious if we are getting the most value for money for this project, and if a similar ublic transport system could be constructed for less?

I know a metro is a more prestigeous service than s bus rapid transit system, would that be a factor in their decision making?

I think the main argument against a Bus Rapid Transit system is that the streets of Dublin are already congested with cars.

If a Rapid Transit system was set up, with dedicated lanes, it would remove lanes of traffic for cars, thereby increasing congestion.

Also, in our climate, a sub-surface transport system is highly attractive as there is little to no waiting of passengers in the wind and the rain, which, lets face it, we get for 9 months of the year. People dont mind a train/bus being a few minutes late if they are warm and dry.

Having dedicated stations which commuters use to board trains, makes the system easier to police, and lessens opportunities for anti-social behaviour - another problem that we have with buses in the Capital. How many junkies would there be on Dublin buses if there was a Guard at every bus stop?

As for your comment that a metro is a more prestigious service than a bus, and was it a factor in the decision making, I would say yes to an extent. Dublin is by all intents and purposes a modern European city. However, most major European cities have good transport in some shape or form, in most cases it takes the form of an underground system, and perhaps it is felt that to join the big leagues, we should have an underground too.

Beeno67 wrote:

Again going through the waffle it creates 4,000 temporary jobs.

I don't know how long it will take to build, but I would imagine 3-5 years minimum. If even half the workforce were taken off the dole for this project, it would be a saving to the Social Welfare of 392,000 euro per Week. which does not sound like very much, but over a year the Social Welfare bill would be 20 million euros less.

Pete_Cavan

syklops wrote: »

I think the main argument against a Bus Rapid Transit system is that the streets of Dublin are already congested with cars.

If a Rapid Transit system was set up, with dedicated lanes, it would remove lanes of traffic for cars, thereby increasing congestion.

Also a city like Dublin was not designed for BRT and trying to install it now would be extremely expensive. Many of the streets and roads in and leading into the city centre are narrow and would not be able to accommodate the type of dedicated bus lanes needed for BRT. It works well in American cities where the roads are wide and the whole city is laid out in a regular grid pattern. In Dublin it is not that simple, for example, the route going from city centre to the airport (MN route) for BRT the bus lane has to merge with the general traffic lane in front of the Cat & Cage in Drumcondra where there is only one lane in either direction. There is no space for extra lanes, so why spend money on BRT when it will still hit the same bottlenecks the current bus system hits and will not be much faster.

Also the metro trams will have much higher capacity then a bus, rail often attracts more riders, particularly discretionary riders (travellers, also called choice riders, who could drive rather than use transit) and so is particularly effective at reducing traffic and parking problems, the metro will have much lower operating and maintenance costs then buses and the stations often serve as a catalyst for more accessible development patterns with increased density.

murphaph

beeno67 wrote: »

I wasn't giving an argument at all. I was simply removing the waffle from your post to sumarize it. Based on that summary it does not sound like good value.

must be why no other cities in Europe of comparable size haven't built underground systems either....oh wait.

We have to bite the bullet someday and start putting Dublin's transport links underground. The initial line was always going to be the 'big hitter' but once MN and the IC are in place, we can gradually expand the network year on year, just like here in Berlin they are STILL expanding the network, despite it being really comprehensive.

beeno67

murphaph wrote: »

must be why no other cities in Europe of comparable size haven't built underground systems either....oh wait.

We have to bite the bullet someday and start putting Dublin's transport links underground. The initial line was always going to be the 'big hitter' but once MN and the IC are in place, we can gradually expand the network year on year, just like here in Berlin they are STILL expanding the network, despite it being really comprehensive.

But the question is not whether it would be nice to have an underground or not. The question is "here is 4 billion to invest in Irelands infrastructure. What is the best way to invest that money?" I know people will say it is a public private partnership but it still comes down to a 4 billion cost.

On a separate question, the major problem leading to possible cost over runs will be going under Liffey & quays. What happens if there are major cost over runs?

Head The Wall

I would imagine the Govt have learnt their lesson from previous mistakes. For example they signed a design and build project for the M7 project, the contractor is responsible for the "Bog of Doom" and all extra costs associated with it and not the govt.

This is what should be done here also if the project gets off the ground

dan_d

Given that prices in the construction market have dropped HUGELY, the Gov should be able to get better value.

However equally if they're waving huge amounts of money around, every contractor in the company is going to take them for a ride because they're throwing the money at them. This project should be a major profit maker for contractors because prices are so low.

Obviously the Gov are too friggin stupid to cop this if they're still willing to pay 2007/2008 prices.