Bye bye metro north

Slideshowbob

Looks like it's a non runner now:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/costly-metro-north-finally-hits-buffers-2829945.html

NuMarvel

"Clearly there is no hope of this thing going ahead. Just watch this space, the review will come out and Metro North will be gone. We simply can't afford it and we don't need it. They will find another way to link the airport by rail, either by Luas or by Dart," said a senior government source.

If this quote is accurate, then someone needs to look at the route map for MN, because it serves as alot more than just a link to the airport. If that's all we wanted, then we could save loads of money and leave it to the existing bus services.

rorymcgrory

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Looks like it's a non runner now:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/costly-metro-north-finally-hits-buffers-2829945.html

That's good to hear. Too expensive for something we do not need

Pete_Cavan

The Indo had another article a few weeks ago about this Dart airport spur and banging on about how cheap it would be to construct. The cost of the airport spur is totally irrelevant because;

1. it completely ignores the fact that there is simply no capacity on the northern line for any extra services without quadtracking the line as far as Howth Junction which would probably cost more than building MN
2. Metro North serves 13 other stops (including our busiest shopping street, a large hospital and future site of National Childrens Hospital, our largest national stadium, interconnects with Irish Rail services and Luas, a university, a massive park and ride and a town of more then 34,000).
3. it ignores the fact that taking a train via such a route would actually take much longer then using frequent bus service currently available from the airport

Dont build Metro North if we cant afford it, thats fair enough, but dont waste €200m on some poorly thought out alternative which only achieves one of MNs objectives (a rail link from city centre to the airport) but will not provide a frequent service (because it will use an already over-crowded line) and will be slower than the existing bus service (through the Port Tunnel). It just goes to show how retarded Indo jounalists are that they think this is a viable alternative.

The airport dart spur is not an option now lets never speak of this again.

nice_guy80

anyone I've ever spoken to hasn't had a problem getting from Dublin airport

the biggest issue is that they have to fumble for change to get the bus into town...

more buses are the way to go

Steve Allen

"The lower cost and rapid delivery of a high-speed rail link from the airport to the city means the project is more likely to be approved by the Government."

Since when is any of the DART considered a high-speed rail link? Usual idiot journalism from that rag.

later12

Rapid delivery? They're making a major capital investment partially based on the fact that it is a bit quicker to build? Whatever happened to long term strategic planning?

Sierra Oscar

nice_guy80 wrote: »

anyone I've ever spoken to hasn't had a problem getting from Dublin airport

the biggest issue is that they have to fumble for change to get the bus into town...

more buses are the way to go

How? Bus routes are at full capacity. There is also limited space to expand bus routes in and around the city.

This is a stupid decision. Every decade Metro North has been put on the table, and every decade millions is spent on a cost-benefit analysis. The cost benefit analysis always tells us to build yet we always seem to bin the project . . . after millions has been spent already.

In 2020 Metro North will be back on the table, and just like we now say that it was a huge mistake not to build it in the 80's and 90's, we will be looking back and telling ourselves that we should have went ahead and built it now. But that doesnt matter, this is Ireland. Just because some Ministers constituency does not benefit from the project, he decides to go ahead and bin it.

Dob74

How about a spur from the Belfast line to the Airport, surely this would be alot cheaper.
Hasnt Ballymun been dug for the last ten years, now there planning to dig it up again! insane

Sierra Oscar

Dob74 wrote: »

How about a spur from the Belfast line to the Airport, surely this would be alot cheaper.

You would have a roundabout way of going to the airport, but again - the capacity does not exist on the DART lines as it is.

AlekSmart

nice_guy80 wrote: »

anyone I've ever spoken to hasn't had a problem getting from Dublin airport

the biggest issue is that they have to fumble for change to get the bus into town...

more buses are the way to go

I feel that the current level of Bus Service is probably on or about correct given the level of passenger traffic through the Airport.

However,what is conspicuously absent from the scenario is any form of co-ordinated approach to the management of how the various services are delivered at the point of purchase.

For example the Public Transport "facilities" made available by the DAA folowing the spending of vast amounts of Public Funding is of the most basic imaginable.

It needs to be recognized that the various Public Transport providers provide only the vehicles,staff and schedule whilst having little or no say over the situation on the ground at the Airport itself.

The lack of cover,for example is a prime example of the DAA's reluctance to plan for a comfortable transition in a country which has a highly changeable,largely cloudy and damp climate.

Similarly,the absence of centralized integrated booths or information desks AT THE POINT OF PURCHASE is something which I find unacceptable.

Dublin Airport's development has been hi-jacked (!) by the Terminal 2 performance to the detriment of the bigger picture and the realization that a large pre-existing sector have continued to be disregarded when planning the development.

Direct,Rapid throughput of Buses in and out of the Airport Campus should be the prime element in catering for the commuter market..anything obstructing that needs to be adressed,including deficiencies of the Operators but ALSO to include items such as convoluted internal routings between Terminals and external access points to the city roads network.

I'd suggest that €10 (yes,TEN) Million spent on a full reassessment and improvement of existing Bus/Coach facilities at Collinstown would be a very cost effective method of addressing the issue.....oh,and I nearly forgot,some education of DAA planners as to the differences between a Limited Stop Express Bus/COACH service and a regular stage-carriage Bus service......sorry to nit-pick :eek:

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

This is ridiculous. Not building this means we're creating no new jobs and putting nothing back into the country to get us out of this economic hole.

Backwards thinking by backwards idiots.

southsiderosie

nice_guy80 wrote: »

anyone I've ever spoken to hasn't had a problem getting from Dublin airport

the biggest issue is that they have to fumble for change to get the bus into town...

more buses are the way to go

It's fine if you are going into the O'Connell Street area. If you live on the south side of the city, it's a pain in the ass. For example, to get to Ranelagh on the LUAS, you would take the bus into the city center, haul your crap to St Stephens Green, and then pick up the train again.

It would also be much easier if there was something like the Octopus Card system in Hong Kong where you could use the same card to pay into multiple rail systems. So instead of fumbling for change, you just buy a day/week pass or a 10/20/50 euro card and go on about your way.

I have to say, the LUAS is probably the most retarded urban rail 'system' I have ever seen. Who builds a 'system' where the trains don't even connect? If they had built a 'Yellow Line' which roughly followed the route of the 16 (i.e. airport to Terenure, therefore connecting through both the red and the green lines), it would have been perfect.

Ireland is a country of 4 million people; I do not understand why having a well-integrated transport network is so unnecessarily complicated.

Captain Chaos

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

You would have a roundabout way of going to the airport, but again - the capacity does not exist on the DART lines as it is.

How is it round about. Just spur of at Clongriffen station. The capactiy is there, the signal upgrade on the Northern line is almost finished. It will allow up to 20 trains per hour to use the line instead of the 12 currently.

Inverse to the power of one!

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is ridiculous. Not building this means we're creating no new jobs and putting nothing back into the country to get us out of this economic hole.

Backwards thinking by backwards idiots.

Hmmmm, you've just given me an idea, how about we rip up the luas lines and sell the steel and carriages. Then when the next bubble rolls round, we won't be left wanting for an overpriced solution to our under-invested infrastructure!

later12

southsiderosie wrote: »

It's fine if you are going into the O'Connell Street area. If you live on the south side of the city, it's a pain in the ass. For example, to get to Ranelagh on the LUAS, you would take the bus into the city center, haul your crap to St Stephens Green, and then pick up the train again.

When I lived in Ranelagh and was coming from the airport, I used to get off at O'Connell street and take the 11/B (or the 46A because I lived on that side of the village). It isn't unusual to have to switch services or routes when crossing a city, and I would much rather link up the two Luas services than go an build a metro, if crossing the city is a problem.

Do we actually know for sure that we do need a metro?

rumour

later10 wrote: »

Do we actually know for sure that we do need a metro?

Arguably that can be said of any large scale project. I can recall the questioning of the m50 and the port tunnel.
Close any of those two now and your question will be answered.

This will also be true of metro, the business case is good for a 20yr window and evidence suggests (can anybody name an underground system that has been closed?) it will serve the city for generations.

That said if we cannot afford it so be it, but please let us not go build something stupid just because its cheaper, the M50 being a classic example.

However it does appear strange that we can spend €20bn more than we earn every year in our current account but cannot afford €3-4bn over a 20-25 year period for a piece of kit that will last generations. We might actually pass something of merit on to our kids rather than a heap of debt.

later12

rumour wrote: »

Arguably that can be said of any large scale project. I can recall the questioning of the m50 and the port tunnel.
Close any of those two now and your question will be answered.

Yeah but that just resembles an appeal to hypocrisy - it doesn't answer the question of whether we actually need this one.

Whether you build this or the interconnector or whatever, the project will be used, my question is what the merits of a metro would be specifically.

However it does appear strange that we can spend €20bn more than we earn every year in our current account but cannot afford €3-4bn over a 20-25 year period for a piece of kit that will last generations.

Your figures are wrong, and the capital budget deficit will soon be larger than the current budget deficit.

rumour

later10 wrote: »

Yeah but that just resembles an appeal to hypocrisy - it doesn't answer the question of whether we actually need this one.

You are right, however pursuing this line of reasoning will invariably result in the do nothing conclusion. It is equally arguable that we do not need sewage systems and running water. While we're at it we don't really need cars. Alternatively, for starters we could consider that mass transit in Dublin based entirely on petrol or diesel is perhaps a little unstrategic in its conception?

later10 wrote: »

Whether you build this or the interconnector or whatever, the project will be used, my question is what the merits of a metro would be specifically.

Apologies i don't have the link to the business case but most of the merits are contained there.

later10 wrote: »

Your figures are wrong, and the capital budget deficit will soon be larger than the current budget deficit.

What figures are wrong?

JustAddWater

rorymcgrory wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Looks like it's a non runner now:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/costly-metro-north-finally-hits-buffers-2829945.html

That's good to hear. Too expensive for something we do not need

Sorry but that's a lot of crap!! We do need it and we could afford it if we stopped the wastage and got the private sector in on it too to help fund it

Your backwards thinking of planning for today and yesterday are what has this country running backwards sometimes.

If we built it it would forever boost areas serving the lines as well as improve the lives of countless daily commuters and would give companies like DB a good kick in the hole and make them provide a better services

We DO need it and have done for a long time and right this very minute we can cope but guaranteed another 10 years from now we'll be screaming for it and we could have had it by then...

later12

rumour wrote: »

You are right, however pursuing this line of reasoning will invariably result in the do nothing conclusion. It is equally arguable that we do not need sewage systems and running water.

What sort of reasoning is that? There is a limited amount of money available for number capital projects - so we can only pick one. My question is 'why this one?'

What figures are wrong?

The suggestion that we are spending €20bn more than we earn every year - that's not the case, the exchequer deficit is being shortened and the current deficit will soon be thinner than the capital (2014).

later12

JustAddWater wrote: »

as well as improve the lives of countless daily commuters

I'm afraid that is the problem - countless.

oppenheimer1

While the article may be true it would only be by pure chance as this piece seems to be the usual rubbish printed in this rag. No sources given as per usual, "just senoir government sources" reporting - at best rumour, if not just made up news, as news.

How does this newspaper have the largest circulation in the country? It hasn't broken a noteworthy story in years.

rumour

later10 wrote: »

What sort of reasoning is that? There is a limited amount of money available for number capital projects - so we can only pick one.

Agreed there is a limited amount of money available, but i find this hard to correlate with Ireland procuring billions overnight for the sake of banks. How much debt have we racked up in the last three years on current account spending and what have we got to show for it? Additionally there appears very little limit either.
Had we started the metro three years ago as planned we'd be nearly finished it and would the cost be of any significance when ammassed against all the other costs of the state. My point being that the limited money available is arbitrary to start with.
Then you refer to the choice being limited to one which is presumably qualified by a certain value. If you know this value which having limited choices to one presumably you do, can you share it please.

later10 wrote: »

My question is 'why this one?

Ok i've taken the trouble of getting the link for you. Well the latest addendum, I think your more than capable of finding the rest yourself.:rolleyes: MN Business case.

later10 wrote: »

'The suggestion that we are spending €20bn more than we earn every year - that's not the case,

Really, is it 19,18,17, or 16?

later10 wrote: »

the exchequer deficit is being shortened and the current deficit will soon be thinner than the capital (2014).

That will take a bit of time :rolleyes: also, is that not because all the money ploughed into the banks has been classified under capital. Exclude that and what is the figure? This to me is just a clever accounting trick. Essentially capital expenditure in its traditional sense is virtually zero. Talk to any civil engineering contractor(exclude builders) SISK BAM SIAC..... or the consulting engineers ARUP Atkins AECOM..... they'll all tell you no business. This runs onto another thread of loosing our technical ability to deliver these projects as we do not maintain a steady programme of capital investment and business moves on, then someday in the future when we feel good about ourselves again we will pay a massive premium to foreigners to deliver infrastructure. We may already be at this point. I think this is not very strategic.

FreudianSlippers

There's no reason we cannot ask the EU for the money to build MN... they were offering same to Greece a few weeks ago.

The EU is well aware that infrastructure projects such as MN which are pretty much ready to start are the best ways of lowering unemployment in counties and effectively kick-starting their economies.
It would increase our debt in the short term, but pay off in dividends in the short, medium and long term in relation to movement of capital and unemployment figures.

WalterMitty

Capital spending will be slashed by publicly employed TDs as they need the money to keep themmselves and fellow public servants amongst highest paid in world.

murphaph

Ireland shelves capital expenditure as soon as a bump in the road is met. Other (mature) countries do not. This is just one reason why Ireland will forever remain a parochial backwater rather than achieve its full potential.

Do people think Germany ceased all capital expenditure during its decade of economic doldrums? Did Japan stop building during its lost decade? Did they fcuk.

The poster above has it right-cease capital programmes that will benefit us and our children and their children (NOT an exaggeration!) for the short term benefit of overpaid politicians and public servants. Fcuking kip of a country.

Sierra Oscar

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's no reason we cannot ask the EU for the money to build MN... they were offering same to Greece a few weeks ago.

We might as well just draw down the additional money from the bailout fund to build it, we will be defaulting on it anyways . . .



On a more serious note - lets not forget that the cost of constructing Metro North has fallen by one third since the onset of the recession. The construction cost per kilometer is well within normal ranges when compared to construction costs of metro systems around the world.

View

murphaph wrote: »

Ireland shelves capital expenditure as soon as a bump in the road is met.

You might want to check the budget figures on capital expenditure.

FreudianSlippers

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

We might as well just draw down the additional money from the bailout fund to build it, we will be defaulting on it anyways . . .



On a more serious note - lets not forget that the cost of constructing Metro North has fallen by one third since the onset of the recession. The construction cost per kilometer is well within normal ranges when compared to construction costs of metro systems around the world.

... plus don't we still have the 500m loan from the ECB that has been set aside for MN construction?

Laminations

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's no reason we cannot ask the EU for the money to build MN... they were offering same to Greece a few weeks ago.

http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=1189

The EIB furthers the objectives of the European Union by making long-term finance available for sound investment.

They seemed to think it was a good idea

ardmacha

Do people think Germany ceased all capital expenditure during its decade of economic doldrums?

What else did it do during these economic doldrums? How much did it cut public service pay, for example? Did it borrow money from Ireland at at 3% markup?

Capital expenditure is very desireable, as the borrowed money is paid back by people who at least have the use of the facility, although personally I think the DART interconnector is more important. But not long ago people reckoned that it didn't matter how much you borrowed as long as it was for a house. Just because it is bricks and mortar doesn't mean that you can ignore whether you can afford it or not. With no long term confidence that money can continue to be borrowed taking on extra projects is unwise.

But if the EIB can come through with solid long term funding then reconsideration is in order.

FreudianSlippers

ardmacha wrote: »

What else did it do during these economic doldrums? How much did it cut public service pay, for example? Did it borrow money from Ireland at at 3% markup?

Capital expenditure is very desireable, as the borrowed money is paid back by people who at least have the use of the facility, although personally I think the DART interconnector is more important. But not long ago people reckoned that it didn't matter how much you borrowed as long as it was for a house. Just because it is bricks and mortar doesn't mean that you can ignore whether you can afford it or not. With no long term confidence that money can continue to be borrowed taking on extra projects is unwise.

But if the EIB can come through with solid long term funding then reconsideration is in order.

Infrastructure is totally different than housing.

DWCommuter

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

In 2020 Metro North will be back on the table, and just like we now say that it was a huge mistake not to build it in the 80's and 90's, we will be looking back and telling ourselves that we should have went ahead and built it now.

In 2020 MN will be back on the table alright, but it will be called something else, will no doubt have a different route and be knee deep in more political interference. Then the whole charade will start all over again. That's how we do things in Ireland.