Luas Operating Costs

doherta5

I was wondering if anyone here happened to know the operating costs of the Luas, or where they might be found? RPA, Luas and Veolia websites give no indications. Construction costs are easy enough to come by but operating costs seem more difficult...

AlekSmart

An interesting query,and one which may run for a bit.

I surmise that you may well get the "Commercial Confidentiality" pahlavah which has assumed dominance in this particular Administrations dealings with it`s electorate.

However a bit of burrowing into the Dept of Finance Departmental Budgetary allocations might be a good starting point ??

Cool Mo D

You will almost definitely find its confidential. If it wasn't, the RPA would claim that it would hurt their tendering process for a company to run the Luas, as everyone would know how much they were already paying.

This is probably the most information you will get.

Cookie_Monster

from that article they seem to be raking it in anyway. 2.3m on a turnover of 39 is pretty high, 6% for basically no risk, no capital investment and a very simple timetable arrangement. Nice if you can get it.

doherta5

Commercial sensitivities are, I suspect the reasons for their not being widely advertised. I was under the impression though that the Luas covered its own operating costs and as a result did not receive a subvention from the State. Looking at their most recent returns, it seems to me (though I was always utterly useless with interpreting financial information) that they had a turnover of €39.7 million, with a net profit of just over €2m.

Would this mean that their operating costs were the difference between those, i.e. €37m?

Cookie_Monster

doherta5 wrote: »

Would this mean that their operating costs were the difference between those, i.e. €37m?

no.

it means their total costs were the difference.

operating cost would be lower, marketing, interest payments, and all osrts of other stuff wouldn't be classed as operating (any non front line staff and departments, finance, legal, marketing, hr, canteen etc)

AlekSmart

Would this mean that their operating costs were the difference between those, i.e. €37m?

As I said Doherta5,you may well be picking at a scab here which many would prefer left alone.....;)

Carawaystick

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no.

it means their total costs were the difference.

operating cost would be lower, marketing, interest payments, and all osrts of other stuff wouldn't be classed as operating (any non front line staff and departments, finance, legal, marketing, hr, canteen etc)

What interest costs?
do Vieola do the marketing for the trams or do the rpa do it?


Surely if vieola know the contract price and other bidders don't, then vieola have a competitive edge?

L1011

Carawaystick wrote: »

Surely if vieola know the contract price and other bidders don't, then vieola have a competitive edge?

Conversely if everyone knew what the price was, nobody would bid far below it; whereas when its sealed you can get people willing to come in a lot less.

Look at the 1p difference in bids for the Channel Five licence in the UK to see why letting people know doesn't work.

AlekSmart

Surely then a very simple clause in the tender document not commiting the RPA to the acceptance of the cheapest tender would take care of that business ?

L1011

AlekSmart wrote: »

Surely then a very simple clause in the tender document not commiting the RPA to the acceptance of the cheapest tender would take care of that business ?

no... because the point is that you end up with ALL the tenders coming in higher.

antoinolachtnai

Why don't you ring the FOI officer at the RPA and ask what information they have immediately available, then formulate an FOI request if needed.

The RPA accounts will tell you what the surplus (farebox - costs) was. You can have a good guess at the revenues from the number of passengers carried.

I think you are mixing up a few things here. What you want to know (I think) is:

- The amount that came in as fares
- The amount that was spent in relation to the Luas. (This includes the amount paid to Veolia. It is also going to include marketing costs, or at least I would expect it to, because these costs have not been capitalized and relate directly to the project.)

The RPA/Veolia contract is a 'gross price contract'. What this means is that the amount they get paid does not depend on how commercially successful the Luas is (see http://www.veolia-transport.com/en/solutions/key-locations/dublin.htm) although there could be other bonuses or incentives.

They can't really keep details of the cashflows under these contracts confidential, whatever about anything else.

Victor

Its not a cost reimbursement contract, so after contract award, it shouldn't be commercially sensative. However, the exact make-up of the total price may be. For example one operator may charge more than another for drivers, but less for engineering staff. How a tenderer structures the price is their business. That said, the contracting authority (RPA in this case) may in certain cases reject the lowest tender if the are not the most economically advantageous tenderer, e.g. if the tendered knew that the tender documents materially understated driver hours required and the final cost to the contracting authority would be higher than that for the next lowest tender.

Any tenderer basing their tender on an existing contract whose prices were agreed 5-10 years previously would be mad - systems evolve over time, inflation happens, etc.

However, in tender situations, I understand that incumbent operators of such tendered contracts (awarded by state bodies and certain utility operators) are obliged to detail what resources they have used in the contract, i.e. for a given level of service X hours of driver time, Y for cleaning staff, Z for engineering staff, etc.

Propellerhead

AlekSmart wrote: »

As I said Doherta5,you may well be picking at a scab here which many would prefer left alone.....;)

Why? Is someone wanting to embarrass the tram operators and the RPA for devious reasons or something?

CIE

doherta5 wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone here happened to know the operating costs of the Luas, or where they might be found? RPA, Luas and Veolia websites give no indications. Construction costs are easy enough to come by but operating costs seem more difficult...

Lots of people would like to be a fly on the RPA's wall when those figures show up on the computer screens.

Proof-of-payment systems are inherently loss-making, that is without aggressive fare enforcement; and I've heard some anecdotes that indicate that such aggression borders on authoritarian on some systems, making one not want to ride. Even OPO buses have a higher farebox recovery ratio. I've seen figures as low as 17 percent fare recovery for POP where fare enforcement is not as authoritarian, and somehow I suspect that with Line A, they go lower than that.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps building underground DART instead of either Luas or Metro would have made this discussion unnecessary...? (and I don't mean the "interconnector".)

AlekSmart

Propellerhead asked....

Why? Is someone wanting to embarrass the tram operators and the RPA for devious reasons or something?

CIE touched ever so gently on one salient,perhaps embarassing?. point....

I've seen figures as low as 17 percent fare recovery for POP where fare enforcement is not as authoritarian, and somehow I suspect that with Line A, they go lower than that.

But,as we have little in the way of figgers,it`ll have to remain guesswork

Victor

CIE wrote: »

Proof-of-payment systems are inherently loss-making ...

Define "loss". If you mean less than 100% fare recovery, well, even airlines don't achieve that because of free upgades. Fancy airline type security at your bus/tram/train stop?

I've seen figures as low as 17 percent fare recovery for POP where fare enforcement is not as authoritarian, and somehow I suspect that with Line A, they go lower than that.

Are you suggesting that Line A has less than 1 in 6 people paying? I find that rather unbelieveable.

With one of my other hats on, during the week, I met someone in the RPA who would know such things. It seems that Veolia meet their targets regarding fare evasion and that target would appear to be framed as follows:

http://www.veolia-transport.com/en/solutions/key-locations/dublin.htm

Objectives

Veolia Transport has full operational responsibility with the goal of providing service excellence:

* manage and measure improvements in availability, reliability (on-time performance), passenger satisfaction and fare evasion. A 100% system availability is required as part of a performance bonus. For any fare evasion over 8%, we pay 50% of the total revenue lost to RPA;

Vic_08

Victor wrote: »

Define "loss". If you mean less than 100% fare recovery, well, even airlines don't achieve that because of free upgades. Fancy airline type security at your bus/tram/train stop?

Are you suggesting that Line A has less than 1 in 6 people paying? I find that rather unbelieveable.

With one of my other hats on, during hte week, I met someone in the RPA who would know such things. It seems that Veolia meet their targets regarding fare evasion and that target would appear to be framed as follows:

http://www.veolia-transport.com/en/solutions/key-locations/dublin.htm

I find it equally unbelievable that less than 1 in 10 are evading. The real question is how whatever figure they give is calculated. Considering only a small % of journeys are checked it is only ever going to be a rough estimate. I would expect that they only count those fined for evasion in their figure so discounting the endless troupe of scummers who are seemingly dealt with by at most tufing them off if not ignored completely. And I would bet that it does not include DSP Pass fraud which alone is likely to be a significant figure.

Cookie_Monster

Carawaystick wrote: »

What interest costs?
do Vieola do the marketing for the trams or do the rpa do it?

interest costs on bank borrowings or loans from parent company, they may not even have any, I was just giving examples of non-operating based costs a company might have

Victor

Vic_08 wrote: »

I find it equally unbelievable that less than 1 in 10 are evading. The real question is how whatever figure they give is calculated. Considering only a small % of journeys are checked it is only ever going to be a rough estimate. I would expect that they only count those fined for evasion in their figure so discounting the endless troupe of scummers who are seemingly dealt with by at most tufing them off if not ignored completely. And I would bet that it does not include DSP Pass fraud which alone is likely to be a significant figure.

The RPA have their own team that checks things without Veolia.

If they check 30,000 people over a year (100 per day), they have the figure plus or minus about 1%.

CIE

Victor wrote: »

Define "loss". If you mean less than 100% fare recovery, well, even airlines don't achieve that because of free upgades

That's too much to expect. (Unless you're a libertarian perhaps.)

Fancy airline type security at your bus/tram/train stop?

I've heard of worse than that on some proof-of-payment systems.

Are you suggesting that Line A has less than 1 in 6 people paying? I find that rather unbelieveable

So 17 percent would be in the "believable" or "acceptable" range? I cited less than that as my personal suspicion, hence opinion.

With one of my other hats on, during hte week, I met someone in the RPA who would know such things. It seems that Veolia meet their targets regarding fare evasion and that target would appear to be framed as follows:

http://www.veolia-transport.com/en/solutions/key-locations/dublin.htm

So they get to audit themselves in essence. Any external auditors who would have access to the pertinent info? I don't want to see the question of "who watches the watchers" raised.

And this story seems to support what I was trying to say. It's not all the way towards the anecdotes I've heard of in the past (one speaking of walls of muscle engaged in en-masse ticket checking), but why should a Garda presence be necessary at all through fear of "antisocial behaviour" that ought not exist in the first place?

goingnowhere

Luas fare evasion is audited by plain clothes RPA survey teams. You often hear of people saying I was checked but not fined, thats the reason. If that number is higher than a threshold Veoila have to pay up. This audit team also count the number of DSFA passes and submits that to the DSFA for payment, so the DSFA are paying for the fake passes.

Veoila handle the day to day fine issuing and are without mercy in most cases.

Veoila's payment from the RPA is not a function of the revenue achieved, but a function of the scale of loss as pointed out above.

CIE group have a block grant which is an arbitrary number to cover the DSFA pass use.

homerjay2005

i think this Q onwards will see them being to lose massive amounts of money with the new green extension costing them alot i am sure. its just not sustainable having trams running every 6 or 7 minutes, that are empty.

Karmaman

goingnowhere wrote: »

Luas fare evasion is audited by plain clothes RPA survey teams.

There is a passanger counting system on the new trams I am reliably informed on the green line. Next time you you stand under a double door look up, 3 sensors on the door arch. This should make fare evasion numbers alot more accurate.

foggy_lad

Karmaman wrote: »

There is a passanger counting system on the new trams I am reliably informed on the green line. Next time you you stand under a double door look up, 3 sensors on the door arch. This should make fare evasion numbers alot more accurate.

Are they not to sense when someone is standing in the doorway so as not to close the doors on them?

KD345

Karmaman wrote: »

There is a passanger counting system on the new trams I am reliably informed on the green line. Next time you you stand under a double door look up, 3 sensors on the door arch. This should make fare evasion numbers alot more accurate.

How does this work? For example, I have an annual bus and luas ticket. I don't scan it or swipe it, just carry it. How does this sensor differentiate between me and a customer not paying any fare at all.

Karmaman

foggy_lad wrote: »

Are they not to sense when someone is standing in the doorway so as not to close the doors on them?

Like I said, a passanger counting system, they are not on the old trams though. The doors will close if you stand under these or not.

Karmaman

KD345 wrote: »

How does this work? For example, I have an annual bus and luas ticket. I don't scan it or swipe it, just carry it. How does this sensor differentiate between me and a customer not paying any fare at all.

It works by counting passengers (not trying to be smart;)) , I persume they look at the numbers that travelled and compare the numbers of tickets purchased, then factor in the ticket inspectors, people with free passes etc and end up with a rough number of people that should have paid.

markpb

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i think this Q onwards will see them being to lose massive amounts of money with the new green extension costing them alot i am sure. its just not sustainable having trams running every 6 or 7 minutes, that are empty.

The more frequent the extension ever gets is 7 - 10 minutes for 2 hours in the morning. At all other times, it varies between 10 and 20 minutes. (link)

Victor

Vic_08 wrote: »

I find it equally unbelievable that less than 1 in 10 are evading.

But you can accept its not 83% evasion as the other user is claiming?

ellamcg

doherta5 wrote: »

Construction costs are easy enough to come by but operating costs seem more difficult...

where can i find this information about construction costs?

Victor

I don't think there is anything formal published, but Luas A, B, C and C(S) (the original as it opened) came to approximately €700m.

C1 was budgeted at €95m, but I don't knwo what the final figure was.

B1 was approximately €280m.

A1 isn't finished yet, but some figures have been mentioned in the media.

There have been minor works, e.g. alterations to stops, new lift at Dundrum and the Red Cow re-alignment that I've not seen figures on.

doherta5

This information was in a 2009 article about the Citywest extension in the Irish Times:

"A public-private partnership involving the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA), Harcourt Developments and the Mansfield Group, the 4.2km spur from Belgard is due to open in early 2011.
The RPA said that the total cost of the line was EUR 149 million, of which the private consortium was putting up in excess of 50 per cent in terms of civil works, land and a defined monetary contribution."
That works out at roughly €35.48m per km.

RTE news recently carried a story about the opening of the Cherrywood extension, in which it quoted €300m for 7.5km of track. That works out at roughly 40m/km.

Victor is fairly correct on the cost of the original build. Also, if you flick through the RPA annual reports you'll get some other figures that will help you with calculating construction costs.

Do you mind my asking why you're looking for it? Myself, it was for a college assignment.