Jim Meade On the case of the western rail corridor, at the request of, and subject to the terms of reference within the Department of Transport, we did commission a report that was undertaken by EY. It is a financial and economical appraisal on proposals to extend the western rail corridor, as outlined before, ultimately to Claremorris in two phases from Athenry to Tuam and then Tuam to Claremorris. The terms of reference specified in that appraisal were that we must ensure that any extension of the WRC meets all of the relevant appraisal procedures and value-for-money tests required under the public spending code. The report was submitted to the Department in July 2020. It was subject to an independent review, commissioned by the Department, with the Joint Assistance to Support Projects in the European Regions, JASPERS. Neither report supported the extension of the WRC based on the terms of reference set out in it.
Dara CalleryMy second question is on the EY report, which has been referred to a lot today. Who commissioned it? Was it Irish Rail or the Department of Transport? What was the final cost of the report? As he knows, it will be discussed again and there are many concerns about that particular report, about how it arrived at its conclusions and about the data used, but that is for another day. I want to know who commissioned it and who paid for it, and what level of engagement there was between Irish Rail management and EY in the preparation of the report.What is Irish Rail’s policy on greenways? Does it give up disused lines to them relatively easily or does it have a plan for lines that may not currently be used? To use the phrase Mr. Meade has just used, if a heavy user or an anchor tenant was to come looking for them, would they be available? What if someone comes looking for a greenway to be put on that line before the anchor tenant? Has Irish Rail not just given up an asset without giving it much consideration?
Jim Meade [b[As regards the western rail corridor[/b], subject to the terms of reference detailed with the Department of Transport, we commissioned EY to undertake that study of the western rail corridor. EY then went about its business and it referred back to us if it needed detail. However, it was commissioned to do an independent report and it was allowed to do an independent report. That report was subsequently reviewed by Jasper Consulting and, as we know, neither the review nor the report supported the extension of the western rail corridor based on the terms of reference that were set out at the time. We always support greenways, although there is a caveat on any greenway licence we currently have out there. I remind the Deputy we do not set the requirements for public transport. That is the remit of the Department. We operate the existing rail service and while we support greenways and come up with some of the ideas, and we also have the expertise in the industry, it is ultimately a decision for the Government and Department if they want to extend, expand or put in new rail services. The greenway is a win-win for both because it keeps the asset in State ownership and utilised, and if there is a decision at some point in the future that the asset needs to go back into a public transport mode, the licensing arrangement is such that it can do so.
Alan Dillon On the western rail corridor EY report, what type of analysis or peer review was undertaken by Iarnród Éireann which commissioned this report? Following critical analysis, some major flaws and errors were identified in the report. I would like to get an understanding of what peer review was undertaken.
Jim Meade We are part of the steering group for the all-Ireland rail review. The scope and terms of reference have not been fully defined and this is still a work in progress with the Department. We will have an input and one of my team will sit on the steering group. The western rail corridor will have its place as part of the terms of reference and will be looked at again. On the peer review, as with any report there were several iterations back and forth in the Department. We had a link person working on it so it was reviewed in house. I am aware there are a few deep data errors in the report that were not picked up in the final draft but I do not think they made any substantive difference to the outcome of the report.
westtip wrote: » The report is exactly the same apart from the front cover one says June 2020 the earlier one say November 2019.
westtip wrote: » I wonder do some TDs have a plan to shoot themselves in the foot, well done Dara love this onehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3NRRrjgO2HXhRkiamevJsB4N4NoV-ldUJgIHZNDmpBz8EbESnof7SImHk&v=YOX9RnpVyKQ&feature=youtu.be
eastwest wrote: » Where has he been for the last decade, golfing? I would have thought that only people of impaired hearing or with reading difficulties were unaware at this stage that greenways protect public assets, and that licensing arrangements give priority to rail. Or does that message still have to be got through to councilors in places like Mayo? Surely not?
westtip wrote: » At least Dara has given them the information they needed.
The Dublin Metro North project would carry more passengers in an hour than this proposed railway could in a year
The Western Rail Corridor doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever do so.
Greaney wrote: » I had a back & forth on twitter with that dude, John Mulligan who claimed the subvention per journey on the WRC was €80 per journey. According to the EY report Pg 1 it was less than €3. Dunno if I'd trust his information...
ezstreet5 wrote: » Wha? Even the pessimistically flawed EY report forecasted 525k passengers per annum. Does this guy actually believe that over 10% of the entire population of the Republic will use Metrolink in one hour? But what can you expect from someone who denies the existence of the Western Rail Corridor altogether? Yah, right.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The EY report wasn't pessimistically flawed when it came to passenger numbers, the opposite in fact. It was actually incredibly optimistic and factored in passengers from all over the place with nothing to do with reopening north of Athenry, as I pointed out before. Amazing how people dismiss all aspects of the report apart from the ridiculous passenger numbers which they take as gospel!
serfboard wrote: » But sure according to you, the EY figures can’t be trusted ...
ezstreet5 wrote: » What's amazing is that some guy wrote to a local newspaper claiming that Metrolink North will carry over 500k passengers per hour, and the publication did not give one second of thought to parroting that fib in a call-out box. Having read the EY report, the passenger and revenue forecasts are pessimistic, based on 2012 conditions, flat-line growth rates, artificially low rail travel times, deflated fares, and arbitrary penalties...I could go on. Obviously, a lot of effort was expended by EY and others finagling with the Executive Summary to yield the decisively negative outcome that was desired. But when it came time to work backwards to support that conclusion, the analysis descended into gobbledygook. Those who espouse the report's conclusions must also embrace its mountain of errors.
eastwest wrote: » The EY report factored in the population of Athenry when analysing the potential route traffic for Claremorris-Athenry, despite Athenry being already served by the Dublin to Galway and Limerick to Galway services. Critics of the report are quick to point out other lesser errors in the figures, but they ignore this glaring anomaly. It's all a moot point anyway, the rail lobby lost all credibility when they over egged the Ennis-Athenry pudding and persuaded the last of the wild-spending governments to pay for it. That can never happen again.
Isambard wrote: » they couldn't ignore the population of Athenry, some of whom might want to travel to Tuam or Claremorris and further north. A very small number no doubt, but the report would be criticised for not including this possible usage. In other words, there are more destinations than just Galway City.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Again I'll refer you to Table 33: Scenario B (Phase 2) daily Rail demand, base year 2012 on page 109/110 It has 202 passengers Athenry - Galway, 96 of which abstracted from car which for some reason wont use existing rail services but would when the train comes from Tuam. It then has 106 abstracted from PT which presumably is from existing Athenry - Galway services. The table even shows no newly generated rail demand for Athenry - Galway. Just like WRC Phase 1, they are counting in people already using the train, these people are already paying for their tickets so that shouldn't be counted again here. For Athenry - Tuam, it has total rail daily demand of 145 passengers. I very much doubt that the demand for Athenry - Tuam is almost half of the north bound boardings recorded for Athenry - Galway in the 2019 heavy rail census. For every two people commuting Athenry - Galway by train, there is almost another person who would take the train daily Athenry - Tuam? I doubt it given the huge difference in employment, educational and leisure opportunities in Galway city v Tuam.
L1011 wrote: » Not everyone travelling will be paying a fare.
L1011 wrote: » The actual current Athenry fare is 5.89. 4.28 would suggest some minor compensation for return ticket holders if anything, not an equivalisation procedure for all passengers Revenue figures will not be passengers * fares when you are not accounting for student, period pass and free pass passengers. You are trying to rubbish a figure by using rubbish calculations.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Actually, I'm only trying replicate a calculation of passengers * fare = revenue. And one cannot even do that based on EY's report, which is a fatal flaw.
L1011 wrote: » Except it's blatantly obvious that you are trying to replicate a calculation with most of the elements missing; and assuming your inherently wrong result has some validity - in your case to try claim the other figure is wrong. This is nonsensical. Just like the reliance on typesetting errors to claim the report is fatally flawed
L1011 wrote: » You are still under the wild misapprehension that every passenger will be paying the fare figure given, or that it's the only revenue (DSP income would be proportioned) It clearly is massively complicated, but to you I give up. You have determined in your head that the report is faulty and will do anything you can to insist so. It doesn't convince anyone.
Greaney wrote: » Have you just contradicted yourself AND decided to reinterpret what the person your discussing has said ala Cathy Newman? If EZstreet is using the EY figures, then, as you say, they're the figures given that have factored in the passengers that don't pay (full) fare. The point I gather is..... ... they still don't add up!!
L1011 wrote: » Erm, no and no The EY figure is clearly and blatantly not an equivalent figure taking in to account all discounts and DSP. And the sum that ezstreet is trying to do is clearly and blatantly not the one that would generate the revenue figure either. This is a mad garden path that's been gone up here. You cannot make the revenue figure by multiplying these two figures no matter how hard to try to insist it should work
Greaney wrote: » You're not making sense.
L1011 wrote: » How more simply can I put it Multiplying what seems to be half a return fare by the number of passengers is never going to give you the revenue for a line How on earth can people not understand that?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
