The case against Metro North - is there one?

noelfirl

It was Myarse who first came up with €15 billion, Carroll's posters followed a few days afterwards.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-the-metro-is-an-insane-idea-and-a-disaster-for-dublin-2310177.html

Therefore, allowing (modestly) that the Metro will probably cost 300pc of the original estimate, the final bill will be about €15bn. But this is not even like squandering money on a greenfield site in north county Dublin. No, the project requires a series of major assaults on the streetscape of Dublin and on the already-bleeding commercial centre around Grafton Street.

weehamster

Ahh so Myers (Myarse )is also a gimp.

I feel we should draw up a list of these OTT nay sayers and if (and I do say IF) the Metro North gets built and is up and running that these people on that list should either be banned from the line or if that is too much and they should be allowed to use it, then they should have to pay a 1000% 'pain in the butt' tax on top of their fare.

L1011

DWCommuter wrote: »

With respect there is absolutely no difference. An "opinion" is an "opinion".

But this isn't an opinion; this is being wrong. There is a MASSIVE difference.

DWCommuter

MYOB wrote: »

But this isn't an opinion; this is being wrong. There is a MASSIVE difference.

His figure of 5 billion is not necessarily wrong and the cost escalation to 15 billion isn't necessarily wrong either as nobody can say it won't reach that cost. (unlikely, but not impossible) Realistically the letter and the opinion therein cannot be refuted by anyone bar the Government and the RPA with verifiable facts and figures. (Which are lacking)

This poor souls letter in the Times is the least of your worries. Irritating it may be, but the real devil is in Dail Eireann. I applaud the effort here to correct others opinions and you may be right, but I once again remind you of the bigger picture that exists outside of boards.ie transport/infrastructure forums.

lods

DWCommuter wrote: »

His figure of 5 billion is not necessarily wrong and the cost escalation to 15 billion isn't necessarily wrong either as nobody can say it won't reach that cost. (unlikely, but not impossible) Realistically the letter and the opinion therein cannot be refuted by anyone bar the Government and the RPA with verifiable facts and figures. (Which are lacking)

This poor souls letter in the Times is the least of your worries. Irritating it may be, but the real devil is in Dail Eireann. I applaud the effort here to correct others opinions and you may be right, but I once again remind you of the bigger picture that exists outside of boards.ie transport/infrastructure forums.

I think there’s been huge misinformation from both sides. Dr O’Reillys 5000 construction jobs straight of the dole & 37,000 jobs at the end is as bad as the 15billion cost. The Luas extension to Cherrywood has proven the infrastructure alone will not create jobs.

L1011

DWCommuter wrote: »

His figure of 5 billion is not necessarily wrong and the cost escalation to 15 billion isn't necessarily wrong either as nobody can say it won't reach that cost. (unlikely, but not impossible)

Its a fixed price contract. Any inflation over the contracted price is impossible.

And if you think 5Bn isn't wrong, you've had your head stuck in the sand for the past two years, construction, manufacturing and land price-wise.

LeinsterDub

Judgement Day wrote: »

Wow, you managed two words in this post! If I really have to spell out to you all the things that money could be better spent on there is no point. Sorry, I have better things to do with my time.

No need to use many words when a few will do. If you can't be bothered pointing out what you think this money is better spent on , it's no skin off my nose but it makes your argument look weak

jd

Primetime tonight has a report on Metro North by Donogh Diamond, followed by Eamonn Ryan and Sean Barrett in the studio.

dowlingm

MYOB wrote: »

Its a fixed price contract. Any inflation over the contracted price is impossible.

FPCs can be evaded in two ways:
1. Customer requested changes to the contract due to issues unforeseen requirements or changes forced by issues like unexpected geological differences from borehole data - contractor can charge a premium because the customer is committed anyway.
2. Contractor threatening to walk away without renegotiation.

DWCommuter

lods wrote: »

I think there’s been huge misinformation from both sides. Dr O’Reillys 5000 construction jobs straight of the dole & 37,000 jobs at the end is as bad as the 15billion cost. The Luas extension to Cherrywood has proven the infrastructure alone will not create jobs.

True.

DWCommuter

MYOB wrote: »

Its a fixed price contract. Any inflation over the contracted price is impossible.

And if you think 5Bn isn't wrong, you've had your head stuck in the sand for the past two years, construction, manufacturing and land price-wise.

Im the last person around here that could be accused of having their head stuck in the sand for the last two years.

Don't forget about risk and insurance costs, cost escalation components and financial and legal costs. The DIRECT construction cost is not the final bill.

Has it ever ocurred to you that the RPAs myths and facts exercise is just another example of state quango spin? "Technically" MN will cost 2.5 billion if one is only looking at the direct construction cost figure. (the build and operate deal) There are a multitude of other costs directly associated with it. There's a tradition in Ireland that if the media start questioning figures the Government spin doctors open up the spa and treat us all to a hot stone massage of the costs.

In 2002 it was 4.8 billion inclusive of costs I outlined above and elsewhere on the forum. It has not halved since the collapse of the economy nearly 3 years ago. Even more bizarre are the comments from former transport minister, Martin Cullen in 2006, claiming that he didn't know where people were getting the figure of 5 billion, eventhough Frank Allen was on public record with a figure of 4.8 billion. (and that was when the route was only going as far as the airport.)

If they get it all for 2.5 billion, then fair play. But I really really doubt it. Personally I don't care. But I dislike criticism of the 5 billion figure, when its verifiable and there's this assumption that recession has halved the cost, just because the RPA have said so and without any breakdown like the one originally presented.

Brian CivilEng

I think it's time to accept that Metro North is not going to go ahead. Much as I'd like to see it go ahead and believe that even if it costs €5 billion it will benefit in the long term, in the current climate I can't see it being popular. We can at the stroke of a pen find another €8 billion for Anglo though.

Interconnector is more important anyway, how long before that is cancelled.

BluntGuy

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Interconnector is more important anyway, how long before that is cancelled.

The only two things MN really has going for it over Interconnector are the political capital and a slightly more efficient agency running things.

So if MN gets the can, it's so long to the Interconnector.

DWCommuter

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Interconnector is more important anyway, how long before that is cancelled.

The fact that its not being debated on Primetime (like Metro North) by gob****es, means its already buried deeper underground than originally intended.

Remember this. Metro North (or just a metro) was the glamour public transport project for the last few Governments. The interconnector is actually only on the table due to intense lobbying. The DOT never saw it as a "vanity project"*. It wasn't sexy, despite it being more important than MN.

* Vanity project = A project that the Government thought would make them look cool and all European.

senordingdong

Cost is hardly an issue to object to the Metro.

No matter what it costs, it will generate all this money back sooner or later.
Unlike all the public sector salaries.

D.L.R.

Why not split this into two or more phases, initially building the Stephens Green-Airport section, and deferring the Swords extension. Building the core line would virtually guarantee a future Swords extension anyway.

This would almost halve the line's length to about 10km, and assuage some of the concerns over the projects sheer scale. Airport-Swords is of secondary importance when viewed alongside the City-Airport section, while Swords-Belinstown is less important still.

Dedicated shuttlebus Airport-Swords in the meantime.

This phasing would strip MN down to its core function - a major artery of Dublin's rail network, which links the airport.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

lods

D.L.R. wrote: »

Why not split this into two or more phases, initially building the Stephens Green-Airport section, and deferring the Swords extension. Building the core line would virtually guarantee a future Swords extension anyway.

This would almost halve the line's length to about 10km, and assuage some of the concerns over the projects sheer scale. Airport-Swords is of secondary importance when viewed alongside the City-Airport section, while Swords-Belinstown is less important still.

Dedicated shuttlebus Airport-Swords in the meantime.

This phasing would strip MN down to its core function - a major artery of Dublin's rail network, which links the airport.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

There is huge shortage of housing in North county Dublin. Were you not listening. Construction is the only way forward. Construction will get us out of the recession. Look at the amount of building & jobs the Luas extension to cherrywood has created. Its madness to suggest that Swords with all its homeless doesn't need the Metro.

Jervis

Whatever the capital cost may or may not end up being, what about the operating and maintenance costs? Luas may have covered operating costs to date and not required state subsidy, but the position following the new extensions into NAMA-land will be different. Metro, with its underground staffed stations, signalling systems, ventilation systems, tunnel maintenance, ticket gates etc will costs significantly more than Luas to operate, yet fares (which will be regulated by the NTA) are unlikely to be significantly higher per km. Despite having an airport, universities and hospitals en-route the current residential catchment is not radically different from the Green Line, so is there the risk that not only will the tax-payer for the next 30+ years be paying back the investment (plus interest), they will also be paying to subsidise operating and maintenance costs, as well as possibly more subsidy to the CIÉ companies who will have lost passengers to Metro?

The business case, like that of the Cherrywood extension, is presumably based on huge high density future population and employment in the green fields north of Swords (future population 100,000+) and lots of nice levies and developer contributions but can we be sure this will actually materialise?

Telchak

Jervis wrote: »

as well as possibly more subsidy to the CIÉ companies who will have lost passengers to Metro?

While in reality this may happen, it really shouldn't. The expansion of the rail network should lead to a downsizing and redesigning of the bus network around each line, with bus routes changed to feeder lines.

runway16

I cant honestly believe what I hear people say about this project. We were all pretty much agreed as a country and a city that:

1) Our chornic traffic was killing the city
2) Public transport was dreadful and needed massive investment
3) Rail was the way forward, as it has been in nearly every other city

Now, swept up in the cuastic negativity that has gripped this country, everyone is suddenly indulged in a bout of criticising EVERYTHING planned during the Celtic Tiger, whether it makes sense or not.

For people banging on about densities and such, let us consider this. Where is the worst place you could develop a rail line in any city?

Think about it: a place where your target passengers only live on one side of the line, where there is NOTHING on the other side of the line, and even where there is potential passengers, the area has some of the lowest densities in the city.

Thats exactly what most of the DART line is. Mostly a coastal line, with potential punters only on one side of the tracks.

None of us would doubt DART has been a success.

But we doubt a system running right through the Northern areas of the city, serving high profile, heavily trafficked sites such as Universities, Hospitals, Airports etc will be a success?

OK, I get it, you are angry about what has happened this country. Angry with our government, angry with our planners, angry with our banks, angry with Everything. Fine. We all are, and I get that. But lets not cut off our nose to spite our face by blocking a project which can genuinly contribute to this city just because we are unable to seperate our anger from our common sense.

Metro North makes sense. Even in a low density, Medium sized City like this.

It is probably the most sensible of any of the newly built / planned light rail lines.

You dont have to be London or Paris to support rail transit - go to Amsterdam, Zurich, Frankfurt, Oslo or any of those cities, which are actually smaller than Dublin, and go see for yourself.

weehamster

If similar cities in size, population and age like Porto in Portugal and Seville in Spain can have light rail metro's ...why cant we. Really, what make us so fecking special that we should still continue to be light years behind the rest of Europe regarding rail?

BrianD

runway16 wrote: »

I cant honestly believe what I hear people say about this project. We were all pretty much agreed as a country and a city that:

1) Our chornic traffic was killing the city
2) Public transport was dreadful and needed massive investment
3) Rail was the way forward, as it has been in nearly every other city

Now, swept up in the cuastic negativity that has gripped this country, everyone is suddenly indulged in a bout of criticising EVERYTHING planned during the Celtic Tiger, whether it makes sense or not.

For people banging on about densities and such, let us consider this. Where is the worst place you could develop a rail line in any city?

Think about it: a place where your target passengers only live on one side of the line, where there is NOTHING on the other side of the line, and even where there is potential passengers, the area has some of the lowest densities in the city.

Thats exactly what most of the DART line is. Mostly a coastal line, with potential punters only on one side of the tracks.

None of us would doubt DART has been a success.

But we doubt a system running right through the Northern areas of the city, serving high profile, heavily trafficked sites such as Universities, Hospitals, Airports etc will be a success?

OK, I get it, you are angry about what has happened this country. Angry with our government, angry with our planners, angry with our banks, angry with Everything. Fine. We all are, and I get that. But lets not cut off our nose to spite our face by blocking a project which can genuinly contribute to this city just because we are unable to seperate our anger from our common sense.

Metro North makes sense. Even in a low density, Medium sized City like this.

It is probably the most sensible of any of the newly built / planned light rail lines.

You dont have to be London or Paris to support rail transit - go to Amsterdam, Zurich, Frankfurt, Oslo or any of those cities, which are actually smaller than Dublin, and go see for yourself.

There will always be exceptions and if those Governments want to spend their tax dollars on such projects for long term gain then thats their business. By and large they have greater population densities and have development plans in place. I'm guessing that they even know how much it will cost them. I would go even further that they have some sort of integrated transport plan for the future that their cititzens have bought into.

What have we here? The two dogs that are Metro North and Metro West. None born out of any strategic planning or any long term goals.

There's a substantial amount of money about to poured into these two project without even the slightest analysis of whether other forms of transport are more beneficial. Or would we be better in spending the money on other rail projects within the city?

As for the DART, this was simply the upgrading of a historic line and it shouldn't have ended in '84. It should have immediately moved to similar upgrading of the MAynooth line and other existing rail lines. Had it happened, it probably would have dramatically changed how Dublin developed.

Metro North is different as it's a new line and we have options on how it should or should not progress.

As regards to everything planned and built during the boom. There was no planning, there was no future proofing and one would have thought that after such as sustained boom that we would have a few landmark buildings in the city than what we are left with.

BrianD

weehamster wrote: »

If similar cities in size, population and age like Porto in Portugal and Seville in Spain can have light rail metro's ...why cant we. Really, what make us so fecking special that we should still continue to be light years behind the rest of Europe regarding rail?

Seville still has a greater density than Dublin. It also had a major expo in the 90s that the Spanish government were happy to spend on infrastructure.

There are plenty of people in Spain who wonder about why the first AVE high speed line was built from Madrid. Then again the fact that some key members of the government were from Seville might explain that (ref: The Ghosts of Spain). We seem to share some similarities with Spain! Oporto also has a greater density.

BrianD

senordingdong wrote: »

Cost is hardly an issue to object to the Metro.

No matter what it costs, it will generate all this money back sooner or later.
Unlike all the public sector salaries.

I would have thought cost was everything. If you have the money you can build metrolines where ever you like. Even in good times every government has limited resources and there has to be a proper cost benefit analysis conducted. Running a line through higher density population areas provides both utility and also means that the service will generate more revenue meaning the service starts paying money back sooner rather than later.

senordingdong

BrianD wrote: »

I would have thought cost was everything. If you have the money you can build metrolines where ever you like. Even in good times every government has limited resources and there has to be a proper cost benefit analysis conducted. Running a line through higher density population areas provides both utility and also means that the service will generate more revenue meaning the service starts paying money back sooner rather than later.

You're not wrong but my point is that whether it takes 10 years or 100 years, it will eventually pay itself back.

What bothers me is all this time and money wasted on 'planning' and 'consulting'.

runway16

BrianD wrote: »

There will always be exceptions and if those Governments want to spend their tax dollars on such projects for long term gain then thats their business. By and large they have greater population densities and have development plans in place. I'm guessing that they even know how much it will cost them. I would go even further that they have some sort of integrated transport plan for the future that their cititzens have bought into.

What have we here? The two dogs that are Metro North and Metro West. None born out of any strategic planning or any long term goals.

There's a substantial amount of money about to poured into these two project without even the slightest analysis of whether other forms of transport are more beneficial. Or would we be better in spending the money on other rail projects within the city?


As for the DART, this was simply the upgrading of a historic line and it shouldn't have ended in '84. It should have immediately moved to similar upgrading of the MAynooth line and other existing rail lines. Had it happened, it probably would have dramatically changed how Dublin developed.

Metro North is different as it's a new line and we have options on how it should or should not progress.

As regards to everything planned and built during the boom. There was no planning, there was no future proofing and one would have thought that after such as sustained boom that we would have a few landmark buildings in the city than what we are left with.

Why do people state there has been "no planning or analysis"??

These plans date from years ago - they have been studied and analysed ad infinitum! We have been talking, analysing, planning and generally bitching and whinging about them for years now - time to just get on with it and build them.

Anyone can state there has been no planning or analysis - but that just isnt true. How many agencies have been doing just that for years now? All these plans were borne out of a "platform for change" document that was published years ago after extensive Planning and analysis. How much more of it do we need to do exactly?

BluntGuy

senordingdong wrote: »

Cost is hardly an issue to object to the Metro.

No matter what it costs, it will generate all this money back sooner or later.
Unlike all the public sector salaries.

While I know public sector bashing is in fashion at the moment, I don't see how this point is relevant (not that it's correct either).

The fact is, most vaguely sensible proposals will probably pay their economic and social dividend at some point or another, but this doesn't mean you don't analyse them and see what the best deal is.

People have every right to be anxious when they're not being given any clue of the costings, interest repayments etc. and when it's being delivered under the same government that frequently goes overbudget and pretends otherwise (Luas, Port Tunnel) and lies about being ahead of schedule (all the motorways opening 4 years late). If RPA and government want support for this project they need to (a) provide an up-to-date CBA and (b) commit to it.

Metro North for a reasonable cost is not a bad idea. But I have not been assured of that key part yet.

BrianD

runway16 wrote: »

Why do people state there has been "no planning or analysis"??

These plans date from years ago - they have been studied and analysed ad infinitum! We have been talking, analysing, planning and generally bitching and whinging about them for years now - time to just get on with it and build them.

Anyone can state there has been no planning or analysis - but that just isnt true. How many agencies have been doing just that for years now? All these plans were borne out of a "platform for change" document that was published years ago after extensive Planning and analysis. How much more of it do we need to do exactly?[/QUOTE]

Well funny you should mention it. the platform for change document 2001 mainly refers to historical directives. No mention of Metro North. In fact it states under rail "Construction of a heavy-rail link to the airport, subject to further review".

It makes lofty references to proper land use and how it should relate to transport usage (either public transport or road). As we know, sustainable land use and the national spatial plan went out the window with the boom. We saw nothing but low rise sprawl in nth. Dublin/Meath/Kildare and relative low density developments within Dublin proper. No development that would lend it's support to rail transport.

Come transport 21 in 2005 and hey presto Metro North and West arrive. Bing!

As for the long term. The NTA says "Work is well underway on preparing a new transport strategy for the Greater Dublin Area (Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow) for the period up to 2030 (“2030 Vision”). The Strategy will be inextricably linked to sustainable land use planning and will be directed by the economic, social, cultural and environmental needs of the people of the Greater Dublin Area." This is good news but the planning and analysis is still in the pipeline.

So what little planning that has been done seems to have been ignored (with the notable exception of the roads).

Pete_Cavan

BluntGuy wrote: »

People have every right to be anxious when they're not being given any clue of the costings, interest repayments etc. and when it's being delivered under the same government that frequently goes overbudget and pretends otherwise (Luas, Port Tunnel) and lies about being ahead of schedule (all the motorways opening 4 years late).

The fact that it is the same government means nothing, those issues were determined by the conditions of the contracts used, not the government. The original Luas lines and the Port Tunnel were built before the GCCC contracts were introduced so you cannot assume (not that I'm saying you in particular but people in general) that MN will go over budget like these did. The GCCC contracts are fixed price lump sum contracts and certain risks can be passed onto the contractor so it is very unlikely they will go over budget. Since the introduction of the GCCCs a lot of the projects have come in ahead of schedule and/or under budget (M3, M6 Athlone to Ballinasloe, M8 Portlaoise and Cullahill). The GCCCs were introduced to eliminate budget/time overruns and give value for money and they seem to be doing that.

The GCCCs also allow for contractors to use their practical knowledge submit cheaper alternative solutions, known as value engineering. Were the RPA to publish their estimates for the cost of the project, contractors would tender towards that price. The RPA wants them to go in blind in the hope that they will use value engineering to come up with the lowest possible price. RPA estimates mean nothing anyway, the highly competitive nature of the tendering process means contractors will be looking to redesign everything to make their price as low as possible (where the contractor introduces a VE solution they also take on the design risk so VE does not mean cutting corners).

senordingdong

BluntGuy wrote: »

While I know public sector bashing is in fashion at the moment, I don't see how this point is relevant (not that it's correct either).

Because public money being spent on infrastructure etc... will still benefit people. Even if it is late or goes wildly over its budget.
And in reference to something like a metro, it will inevitably pay its cost back to the excheqer.

Unlike, the countless and needless civil service salaries that cost the public millions every year.