The case against Metro North - is there one?

monument

mgmt wrote: »

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9J4M2C81.htm

The European Investment Bank has approved a loan of €500m for the Government, and its up the bidders to raise the bulk if the rest.

According to the Sunday Business Post, one of the bidders are concerned about the planning process and delays, but nothing mentioned about the ability to raise money.

In any case, The Irish Times reports today: "The spread on 10-year Irish bonds reached a euro-era high this morning, while yields again topped the 7 per cent mark."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1021/airport.html

It's not an airport metro, its metro with an airport stop. I'm guessing I don't have to tell you there are other stops.

Telchak

Just seen one of the panellists on TV3's Midday commenting that Metro North obviously isn't going to happen, and somebody needs to "tell the NRA as they've already spend €140million on it" :rolleyes: It's because of things like this that most people think this is some silly vanity project, and don't understand the business behind it :mad:

lods

Telchak wrote: »

Just seen one of the panellists on TV3's Midday commenting that Metro North obviously isn't going to happen, and somebody needs to "tell the NRA as they've already spend €140million on it" :rolleyes: It's because of things like this that most people think this is some silly vanity project, and don't understand the business behind it :mad:

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the business model. I imagine is more to do with funding that one group are looking at pulling out and are blaming ABP. if the depot was being built on a flood plain then ABP were right to refuse this element . The enabling works will have to be funded by the tax payer . If the NRA;) were more open then the void wouldn't be filled By others

BrianD

senordingdong wrote: »

From the city centre?

Really?
Jesus, I never would have thought it was that quick, I would have though it about double that.

Yeah, I would question that. I was looking trying to work out the possible operating speed of the metro units but couldn't find any info. While it's not a direct comparison, the green line is mainly segregated, similar length and has as many stops as the proposed Metro North line and it has long journey times.

Case of exaggeration here?

BrianD

Telchak wrote: »

Just seen one of the panellists on TV3's Midday commenting that Metro North obviously isn't going to happen, and somebody needs to "tell the NRA as they've already spend €140million on it" :rolleyes: It's because of things like this that most people think this is some silly vanity project, and don't understand the business behind it :mad:

Well the business model has never been explained. Perhaps you can tell us.

Anyway, they say that building a railway line will change the area around it for 100 years. And no doubt, Metro North will do this though I think we won't be reaping the real utility and real benefits of the line until the later half of that 100 years. In the interim, the few passengers (relative to its potential) that will use it will be subsidised heavily by the rest of us.

In any case, the money now has to be found for this and word has it if they don't make a decision soon, then the money goes elsewhere.

Pete_Cavan

lods wrote: »

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the business model. I imagine is more to do with funding that one group are looking at pulling out and are blaming ABP. if the depot was being built on a flood plain then ABP were right to refuse this element . The enabling works will have to be funded by the tax payer . If the NRA;) were more open then the void wouldn't be filled By others

I have spent quite a long time reading and rereading this post and I still dont understand it. From your opening line it appears you completely misunderstood Telchak's post but the in your final line seems to suggest you got it. Im very confused.

monument

Sinead Ryan from the Evening Herald said on Midday:

"...Like Metro North is not going to happen, but it's just nobody has told the NRA yet or the Railway Procurement Agency, and somebody needs to have a words there. Because they've spent €140m so-far."

"Guys -- It's not going to happen. It's just gone."

"... Yeah, I know, and here's [a] hole [lot of] people doing busy work on something that will never, never happen."

She also talked about abolishing the senate and cutting ministerial cars (currently given to ex-ministers etc) "would not save anything" and that it would be only "optics".

In fairness she did correct her self re NRA / RPA and anybody can make slips like that.

lods wrote: »

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the business model.

That could be true. But I'd find it very hard to believe that many people -- in general -- understand the business case for Metro North. In general, for the following reasons:

1. Few know about the business case which is online (even if part-redacted) and, on the other end, many say one has not been done, when there has been one done.
   
2. Very few people seem to know how the funding works for the project. Few know that the European Investment Bank have already approved a €500m for the tax payers end, or that the bidders have to come up with the bulk of the costs at the start. Mainly, few know that payments only start after around 5 years, when passengers are on board, and then is paid off over 25-30 years.
   
3. On the other end again, many think the metro is still due to cost €5 billion or even €8 billion or more because these are the figures repeated in some newspapers. Meanwhile a far more reasonable cost of around €2.5 billion (or even around €3 billion) is more likely.
   
4. Few know about how many jobs it will create and with only a small part of the payment upfront -- some politicians have said the wanted to push Metro North back but also said they wanted to prioritise the projects that would create the most jobs!
   
5. A huge amount of people against the metro keep talking about the airport, many not knowing much about the other areas it serves.
   
6. The people who talk about busways or Luas instead don't seem to know how much road space that'd take -- in the city and most of the way to Swords -- and still be a lot slower, OR they don't know or care how much opposition there would be to that kind of project. And none of that is realistic.

Telchak

lods wrote: »

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the business model. I imagine is more to do with funding that one group are looking at pulling out and are blaming ABP. if the depot was being built on a flood plain then ABP were right to refuse this element . The enabling works will have to be funded by the tax payer . If the NRA were more open then the void wouldn't be filled By others

Perhaps I worded my post wrong, but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I have nothing against people who don't agree with me, but I have a problem with offhand comments in the media from people who have little knowledge of the project but have an unfortunate amount of influence on the general population's opinion. Sadly we live in the kind of country where plenty of people might start complaining to their local Fianna Fáil backbencher who is afraid of losing his job ):

While I wouldn't agree with it, I could handle this project being cancelled if it was founded on good reasons. If it's cancelled because of sometimes ridiculous comments in the media, then I lose the little faith I have in this country

BrianD wrote: »

Well the business model has never been explained. Perhaps you can tell us.

Again, perhaps my post was not worded well, or maybe you just misunderstood. I was just referring to the fact that this project will not cost €6 billion over six years, which unfortunately I think some people still believe :mad:

Metrostar

monument wrote: »

business case which is online (even if part-redacted) and, on the other end, many say one has not been done, when there has been one done.

1. 
   
2. Very few people seem to know how the funding works for the project. Few know that the European Investment Bank have already approved a €500m for the tax payers end, or that the bidders have to come up with the bulk of the costs at the start. Mainly, few know that payments only start after around 5 years, when passengers are on board, and then is paid off over 25-30 years.
   
3. On the other end again, many think the metro is still due to cost €5 billion or even €8 billion or more because these are the figures repeated in some newspapers. Meanwhile a far more reasonable cost of around €2.5 billion (or even around €3 billion) is more likely.
   
4. Few know about how many jobs it will create and with only a small part of the payment upfront -- some politicians have said the wanted to push Metro North back but also said they wanted to prioritise the projects that would create the most jobs!
   
5. A huge amount of people against the metro keep talking about the airport, many not knowing much about the other areas it serves.
   
6. The people who talk about busways or Luas instead don't seem to know how much road space that'd take -- in the city and most of the way to Swords -- and still be a lot slower, OR they don't know or care how much opposition there would be to that kind of project. And none of that is realistic.

You're completely right. And of course the reason people don't know any of this is because our national paper of record, The Irish Times, does a dreadful job reporting on Metro North. The likes of the Evening Herald's Sinead Ryan take their cues from thought leaders like Frank McDonald, thereby perpetuating particular angles/errors. The media collectively drive the agenda, however heavy hitters like Irish Times have credibility and gravitas. When The Irish Times takes a strong line on something other media outlets tend to follow suit. Pack journalism at its worst.

Metrostar

monument wrote: »

She also talked about abolishing the senate and cutting ministerial cars (currently given to ex-ministers etc) "would not save anything" and that it would be only "optics".

And another thing. "Optics" is a word that annoys me in the context of the media. It's not the media's responsibility to tell people how something looks. It's the media's job to show people how things really are. "Optics" is a cop out word we hear a lot from Irish journalists. It's a cop out for a media that is increasingly abandoning it's integrity in a race to the bottom.

cavedave

LeinsterDub

cavedave "What probability do you think there is that autonomous vehicles will be regularly seen on Irish roads in 2020?"

0% more chance of Hydrogen cars

I'll take those odds. How much are you willing to bet?

History is full of examples of infrastructure projects being superceded by technology shortly after they were built and I am willing to bet that this is one

eminoz

Go ahead! just jump in for once (well, the work has been done), on the basis of "When you're on the Titanic you don't go steerage".

The northside has been totally neglected - all southsiders know about it is as a route to the airport. Idiots. So how about getting to the airport faster? Go on, you know you want to speed through asap?

I did think that the route was rubbish - it replicates existing bus corridors etc, BUT people just don't like getting wet. They Like arriving in an airport and going down to a train line. Don't know why getting dumped on by our weather, crossing roads and being landed in An Lar in the dark is a problem, but there you are - we're spoilt.
BTW, the swerve in the route to take in Drumcondra (hmmm, already on a train line) is dumb. The route could and should have been more western, a straight line taking in Sparkling, Phizzing Phibsborough - and linking happily with numerous bus routes and a very convenient existing disused train line (mightn't even have needed a separate line to grangegorman - why, oh why was this factor ignored and the swervy route chosen? (replies welcome, esp from anybody called B Ahern.)

jd

eminoz wrote: »

BTW, the swerve in the route to take in Drumcondra (hmmm, already on a train line) is dumb.

It means that passengers on then metro can change for the train- when the dart upgrade is completed it would mean one change for Bray/Greystones or Maynooth

eminoz

Right, but also possible at "old Broadstone line" interchange. Don't want to ignore Drumcondra, just spread transport around efficiently to as many deprived commuters as possible.

paulm17781

eminoz wrote: »

The northside has been totally neglected - all southsiders know about it is as a route to the airport. Idiots. So how about getting to the airport faster? Go on, you know you want to speed through asap?

I'm a southsider, I know far more than that. Let's not play the blame the neighbours game.

eminoz

Sorry, but good to know about exceptions to rule (and I say this as a south sider); Some of my best friends are ssiders too - and terrified when they come north of Liffey.
Some early objections were from people afraid their cars would be stolen on north side (though am considering it as possible new business opportunity - just to annoy them). Would love excellent hospital here but... the traffic?

Aard

eminoz wrote: »

BTW, the swerve in the route to take in Drumcondra (hmmm, already on a train line) is dumb.

You're right: it's already on a train line, making it a prime interchange point. That's how networks work. An overlap without an interchange is exactly the same as the two Luas lines that don't meet, which is always ridiculed. There is no other station in the north inner suburbs that could act as a substitute. Having this overlap is likely to add to passenger number more than routing the line through an area that isn't "already on a train line".

eminoz wrote: »

The route could and should have been more western, a straight line taking in Sparkling, Phizzing Phibsborough - and linking happily with numerous bus routes and a very convenient existing disused train line (mightn't even have needed a separate line to grangegorman - why, oh why was this factor ignored and the swervy route chosen? (replies welcome, esp from anybody called B Ahern.)

That Bertie Ahern is from Drumcondra and that the route takes in Drumcondra Station is a coincidence. Even the most anti-Bertie would agree that there is no better interchange point, and that an interchange is necessary. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

I agree with you, however, about the old Broadstone alignment. In another thread, I suggested that the metro be forked, with one end following Metro North, and the other following Broadstone into Finglas. The current idea of the Luas using the alignment doesn't take the maximum advantage of it, but that's for another thread.

eminoz

Take your point on station - if a metro. My issue has been (and I did go to trouble of making submissions at time to RPA, etc) that the routes and types chosen seemed so inefficient (I’m paraphrasing). But you don’t get a reasoned or any response to views, so few really know why a Metro was chosen over other options in the first place or why the other options, allowing efficient interlinking of existing routes were not considered. I concede, though. Am even boring myself.
So as I mentioned earlier, perhaps it’s time to just get on with the Metro – let’s have something to anticipate? (Other than an iceberg).
(BTW, in post yesterday, sorry for confusing with reference to Mater –another though not unrelated topic.)

monument

eminoz wrote: »

BTW, the swerve in the route to take in Drumcondra (hmmm, already on a train line) is dumb. The route could and should have been more western, a straight line taking in Sparkling, Phizzing Phibsborough - and linking happily with numerous bus routes and a very convenient existing disused train line (mightn't even have needed a separate line to grangegorman - why, oh why was this factor ignored and the swervy route chosen? (replies welcome, esp from anybody called B Ahern.)

Most of Phibsborough is covered by the Matter site.

It's about a 5/6mins walk from Phibsborough Shopping Centre to the Matter -- from most of the rest of Phibsborough, it's about 10mins.

The shopping centre area and Mountjoy are the most likely areas to see redevelopment in the future and most of that is about 5mins or closer to the Matter stop.

The Grangegorman (BXD) Luas also serves areas such as Cabbra and ends just south of Finglas with a view to extending it at some stage.

waxon-waxoff

I have used Dublin airport twice this year, taking the Aircoach both times. Two of these bus journeys were at peak times but there was no major delay. Dublin Bus airport service uses the port tunnel so that should run smoothly also. Dublin airport is much more convenient to the city than many other cities and takes about 30 minutes to reach O' Connell St. My point; there is no problem getting into the city centre using existing methods so there is no need for a metro.

With falling passenger numbers the trains will run half empty and so the taxpayer will have to subsidise it. This project is based on out of date statistics just like terminal two. Planners were wrong about demand for housing and they are wrong about this also. The Government seem to ignore common sense and trust every word from their bought-in advisers who are eager to secure more state contracts.

Aard

THE METRO IS NOT JUST A SHUTTLE BETWEEN THE AIRPORT AND CITY CENTRE!


Sorry about the caps, but it needs to be said. There is also north Dublin city, and Swords. The airport is just a part of the whole.

saeglopur

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

I have used Dublin airport twice this year, taking the Aircoach both times. Two of these bus journeys were at peak times but there was no major delay. Dublin Bus airport service uses the port tunnel so that should run smoothly also. Dublin airport is much more convenient to the city than many other cities and takes about 30 minutes to reach O' Connell St. My point; there is no problem getting into the city centre using existing methods so there is no need for a metro.

With falling passenger numbers the trains will run half empty and so the taxpayer will have to subsidise it. This project is based on out of date statistics just like terminal two. Planners were wrong about demand for housing and they are wrong about this also. The Government seem to ignore common sense and trust every word from their bought-in advisers who are eager to secure more state contracts.

Only premium shuttle services use the port tunnel. The 2 Dublin bus public transport routes that service the airport (16a and 41) take considerably longer than 30 minutes from the city centre and do not use the port tunnel.

I dont think that 2 journeys on the aircoach this year allows you to dismiss the whole project and all the benefits it would bring to areas along the entire route.

Pete_Cavan

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

I have used Dublin airport twice this year, taking the Aircoach both times. Two of these bus journeys were at peak times but there was no major delay. Dublin Bus airport service uses the port tunnel so that should run smoothly also. Dublin airport is much more convenient to the city than many other cities and takes about 30 minutes to reach O' Connell St. My point; there is no problem getting into the city centre using existing methods so there is no need for a metro.

With falling passenger numbers the trains will run half empty and so the taxpayer will have to subsidise it. This project is based on out of date statistics just like terminal two. Planners were wrong about demand for housing and they are wrong about this also. The Government seem to ignore common sense and trust every word from their bought-in advisers who are eager to secure more state contracts.

You are forgetting that the airport and city centre are not the only stops on the metro route. There are also hospitals, universities, shopping destinations, residential communities, potential development areas, interchanges with other rail lines, as well as the airport and city centre.

donvito99

I for one cannot wait until its operational.

I'd say alot of opponents to the project at the moment will be somewhat pleased when this is built and our economy is back on its feet.

Lets use Metro North and DU as a motivation. I'm sick and tired of moaning and groaning and little being done. I'm not going to sit on my laurels anymore.

It's time we do something that won't be decided on whether we can afford it now but on its benefits 100 years in the future.

zootroid

donvito99 wrote: »

I for one cannot wait until its operational.

I'd say alot of opponents to the project at the moment will be somewhat pleased when this is built and our economy is back on its feet.

Lets use Metro North and DU as a motivation. I'm sick and tired of moaning and groaning and little being done. I'm not going to sit on my laurels anymore.

It's time we do something that won't be decided on whether we can afford it now but on its benefits 100 years in the future.

+1

I live in Ranelagh, so won't be using either, but can see both would be of huge benefit to Dublin.

Dublin is a nightmare to get around, the more public transport infrastructure we have the better.

runway16

donvito99 wrote: »

I for one cannot wait until its operational.

I'd say alot of opponents to the project at the moment will be somewhat pleased when this is built and our economy is back on its feet.

Lets use Metro North and DU as a motivation. I'm sick and tired of moaning and groaning and little being done. I'm not going to sit on my laurels anymore.

It's time we do something that won't be decided on whether we can afford it now but on its benefits 100 years in the future.

Wellk said buddy. Sadly though, I think we can now kiss goodbye to the project. Although planning permission has been granted, govt are now longfingering the project til end 2011 for a decision. Why? Because they know they wont be there, and are leaving it to someone else to kill the project.

Sometimes I hate this ****ing country and its population of (many) idiots, which is governed by cretins. Sorry for the rant.....

Brian CivilEng

zootroid wrote: »

+1

I live in Ranelagh, so won't be using either, but can see both would be of huge benefit to Dublin.

Dublin is a nightmare to get around, the more public transport infrastructure we have the better.

Why wont you be using either by living in Ranelagh? If you need to go to the airport, a quick jaunt on the Luas the Stephen's Green then you have the Metro to the rest of the way. Want to go to Cork, Luas to the Green, DART to Heuston and off you go. This is the point of a network, you don't have to live on the new line being constructed to benefit.

Personally I think that the DART Underground will be the most useful as I live in Raheny an it would mean one train would bring me the whole way to the Bull and Castle pub.

senordingdong

abitofacomedian wrote: »

Why wont you be using either by living in Ranelagh? If you need to go to the airport, a quick jaunt on the Luas the Stephen's Green then you have the Metro to the rest of the way. Want to go to Cork, Luas to the Green, DART to Heuston and off you go. This is the point of a network, you don't have to live on the new line being constructed to benefit.

Personally I think that the DART Underground will be the most useful as I live in Raheny an it would mean one train would bring me the whole way to the Bull and Castle pub.

In fairness though, how long would that take you?

strathspey

The Scots are building a tram from Edinburgh Airport to the city centre. Why Can't the Luas be extended out to the airport instead. It would save a fortune.

Telchak

strathspey wrote: »

The Scots are building a tram from Edinburgh Airport to the city centre. Why Can't the Luas be extended out to the airport instead. It would save a fortune.

The general argument against that is that any on street route through the north city would be too slow and winding to attract passengers.