Dart Underground Online Petition, Sign Now!

bluesteel wrote: »

before I sign can you give a precise costing of the scheme and the actual return on investment?
as opposed to vague waffle about being an essential piece of infrastructure.

thanks

http://nationaltransport.ie/downloads/dart_underground_business_case.pdf

I think someone should post this to reddit.com/r/Ireland

There was a thread there yesterday about DU and the majority of up-voted comments were in favour of the underground.

As the later poster said, we need to spell out the benefits, it's not the infrastructure forum posters were appealing to anymore, its the public who have no background in infrastructure and have only had the uninformed drivel of newspaper opinion pieces to go by.
A concise list of costs, benefits and what experts in their fields have supported it etc.

aliveandkicking wrote: »

http://nationaltransport.ie/downloads/dart_underground_business_case.pdf

all I'm seeing is [text deleted]

Major rail schemes are expensive. The costs of implementing the DART Underground programme are
[text deleted] in current prices, or [text deleted] as a Present Value (PV). The capital costs cover:
 The stations;
 The tunnel; and
 The signalling, power, rolling stock and other equipment needed to run trains.
In addition there will be the operating, maintenance and renewal costs associated with running the
services and maintaining the infrastructure. Those equate to a PV of [text deleted] over a 60 year
appraisal period, in 2009 prices. The costs are summarised in Table S 1. It is intended that the central
tunnel element of DART Underground is procured through a PPP arrangement.

bluesteel wrote: »

all I'm seeing is [text deleted]

Go to page 4. Read it from top to bottom. Even without the commercially sensitive figures the cost benefit ratio is there for all to see.

hardy_buck wrote: »

As for your second point, this bullsh1t inferiority complex is half the reason why nothing gets done properly. We have the ability to commit to a sensible project that can change the face the face of irish transport and then we have some people who want to do this decades equivalent of not joining up the luas lines.

Inferiority complex?

I don't think you know what that means. It's called picking the low hanging fruit. Putting in a Bus Rapid Transit would show the public and the politicians they elect the benefits of proper public transport.

I wouldn't trust Iarnrod Eireann to run a sweetshop. Sorting out the Bus Lanes on the quays should be simple. if you lads showed the same enthusiasm for sorting it out as you did for spending billions of taxpayer money it would be sorted.

As for the Luas to the Airport. This weird "Dublin is the only city without an Airport rail link " is keeping up with the Jones - i.e. actual inferiority complex.

Getting out to the Airport from Dublin CC by bus takes far less time than most Airport metros/rail links I've used and I'e used plenty. Go to most Airports and measure the percentage of passengers that use the rail link and you'll be disappointed.

Being sceptical of an expensive grandiose project when cheaper alternatives have not been exhausted is not having inferiority complex. it's common sense. Not the kind of voodoo economics that sank this country

Carawaystick wrote: »

Did you miss the benefit/cost ratio of 2.4 rising to 4.0 if the wider economic benefits are included?

I tend not to give much credence when they are picked out of an Iarnrod Eireann consultant's "David Drumm"

Give me the passenger figures and the switcher figures (on which the benefit figures are presumably predicated). That's not asking too much is it?

murphaph wrote: »

He doesn't care about all those inconvenient details.

DU alone will have a massive benefit, but DU enables so much more. You don't even need vision to see it as Munich built its DU 40 years ago and the benefits are plain to see. It has become the trunk route through the city that everything connects to.

By the way, DU is not about a rail link to the airport, though it would greatly facilitate one.

Inconvenient details?
like [text deleted]. or maybe [text deleted]?
How about this detail: The number of passengers needed to use it.

You are trusting a figure derived from [text deleted].

This report was prepared by IE - not a neutral party.


By the Way. I know that. I was responding to another point about the airport.

bluesteel wrote: »

Inferiority complex?

I don't think you know what that means. It's called picking the low hanging fruit. Putting in a Bus Rapid Transit would show the public and the politicians they elect the benefits of proper public transport.

I wouldn't trust Iarnrod Eireann to run a sweetshop. Sorting out the Bus Lanes on the quays should be simple. if you lads showed the same enthusiasm for sorting it out as you did for spending billions of taxpayer money it would be sorted.

As for the Luas to the Airport. This weird "Dublin is the only city without an Airport rail link " is keeping up with the Jones - i.e. actual inferiority complex.

Getting out to the Airport from Dublin CC by bus takes far less time than most Airport metros/rail links I've used and I'e used plenty. Go to most Airports and measure the percentage of passengers that use the rail link and you'll be disappointed.

Being sceptical of an expensive grandiose project when cheaper alternatives have not been exhausted is not having inferiority complex. it's common sense. Not the kind of voodoo economics that sank this country

BRT... you think that's a long term solution that will make Dublin the one of the premier cities in Europe? :rolleyes:

A quote comes to mind:
"If I asked the people what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse" - Henry Ford

I'm in work, so not much time to crunch numbers, but can't let this one slide.

bluesteel wrote: »

Dublin is a Low density City

Wikipedia says 4,588/km2 for the Dublin City Council Area, 527,612 living in 114.99 km2. Compared with 4,500/km2 for Munich, (1,407,836 people in 310km2), 4,908/km2 in Amsterdam (1,317,663 in 219.32 km2) and 4,800/km2 in Oslo (628,719 in 130.51 km2). So not really low density, more like medium density. Oslo, Amsterdam and Munich should be the cities we benchmark ourselves against.

It's not keeping up with the Jones when you see something working well in peer cities and want to replicate it at home. Especially when demographics and existing modal splits point to future capacity issues.

I don't have time right now to do any more number crunching, maybe tonight. But from what I read before, DART Underground stacks up on appraisal, especially considering that we use 30 years for appraisal in Ireland, not like the 60 years they use in the UK to make their projects look good.

hardy_buck wrote: »

Here you go http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Dart+underound+cost. If you spent even 2 minutes looking into this you will find that its 4 Billion, 2 billion of which will provided by PPP, the remaining 2 Billion could be sourced by low rates we are enjoying at the moment on the bond markets and/or EU funding which we're likely to have access to considering we've been the good boy of europe.

really - random media articles with vague costings? Are we using De Hedald as a source for billion Euro decisions now? A shame that IE couldn't provide detailed costings before looking of taxpayer money

4 Billion, 2 billion of which will provided by PPP

you realise that 2 billion if provided by PPP would have first dibs on the income stream... You make it sound like it's magic money that the taxpayer won't have to payback

EU funding which we're likely to have access to considering we've been the good boy of europe.

:rolleyes:

Likely? Maybe? Possibly? ah sure, build it and they will pay for it.
Do you mean EU Structural Funds? or Or maybe you mean the European Investment bank (EIB) will invest. i.e. demand a proper return

Have a look at the EIB's criteria for rail projects. IE's Business Case document would be laughed out of it

http://www.eib.org/attachments/pj/railpag_en.pdf

Have you any commercial PPP player lined up for this project? No.

It's a low density city and yet every second article in the news decries the high cost of property and land in this city, clearly pushing us towards a situation where we need to build up with high density and have decent transport for these developments.

every second article? Meejia articles are one thing - DCC's latest plans for brownfield sites show no sign of high density housing. Quite the opposite in fact.


http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/high-rise-housing-1.1806912

seeing as maths isn't your strong point here's the density:

(“An Bord Pleanála approves fast-track planning for Dublin docklands”, Home News, May 23rd). While 2,600 may sound like a large number of homes, over 55 acres the density works out at only 47 units per acre.

Not to mention that DU would go right under existing low density areas, which let's face it won't be redeveloped

If you pay in peanuts you get monkeys. This project is more expensive for a reason, it's the best solution, not for the next 5 years, for the next 50 which is something this country should really start doing.
The phrase is False Economy, I'm afraid I will have to leave it to you to look that one up.

how many more trite aphorisms are you going to trot out? You're talking about spending billions and that's the best you can come up with? i guess when you can't quantify a return on investment it's the next best thing :pac:


Just do us all a favour and quantify likely passenger numbers and cost per passenger - or else admit you don't care about the cost.

abitofacomedian wrote: »

VERRRRYYYYY high level costings here.

Reasonable cost for entire DART Underground scheme based on international benchmarking: €4billion.

Number of DART and Dublin suburban users in 2014, approx 26million.

DART Underground would quadruple the capacity of the DART, will connect areas of Dublin that currently need two changes on pt, shall provide an efficient way of moving around the city, will allow increased frequency. 50 million pax a year sound reasonable?

In Ireland projects are typically appraised over a 30 year span.

4 billion / (50million X 30) = €2.65 per pax.

VERRRY High level I know. Doesn't take operating costs into account but all capital costs are covered (tunnel, track, trains, stations etc.)

Interestingly, in 2013 Irish Rail carried approx 36 million passengers as a whole, so 26million in Dublin, 10 million on the rest of the network. They made an operating loss as a whole, I can't find DART stripped out but you'd imagine it would be more efficient. So having many more passengers on a smaller area of the network could actually lead to Irish Rail making a profit.

Hang on, you're calculating your passenger numbers based on the current Dart line? :eek:

What's the logic behind that?

Double the capacity? this implies that Dart numbers are constrained by Capacity rather than demand

Why not look at the Demand? the numbers who travel into Heuston Station or more appropriately those who drive instead of taking commuter trains and then look at those who live along the proposed route?



You haven't accounted for the interest on loans in your calculation

if you take a 5% required return on investment
it works out at
4,000,000,000*0.05/50000000 = €4 - that's just for capital costs - with passenger numbers you've plucked out of your David Drumm...


The EIB - European INvestment Bank has the following criterea

Moderate Performance
• The ERR of the project is marginal but acceptable (about 10%).
• The economic activity conducted by the project or the promoter is in
accordance with accepted national and EU standards in terms of
development impact or for mitigating minor potential environmental or social
harm stemming from the activity.
• The handling of environmental, social and institutional issues, although
acceptable, could eventually improve.
• Development implications could be higher and optimisation of economic
activity benefits could be achieved.

Low Performance
• The ERR of the project is too low (lower than 10%).
• The project may be in accordance with accepted national standards but is
below accepted EU standards in terms of potential environmental, social and
institutional impact stemming from the activity (Low performance may lead to a rejection of a project

The fact that Irish Rail lose money despite not having to pay for capital investment (worth talking about) should give you pause for thought

Why is there an assumption that the capital cost of DART u must be recovered from ticket sales? That's just barking, the DART system only needs to cover it's operating costs, and in practice, subsidize parts of the intercity routes.

There is no need to recover capital costs on DARTu, the benefits are economic, not financial.

I've heard Barry Kenny from Irisih Rail comment many times that Dart just about breaks even if that adds anything to the argument.

I actually don't agree that public transport needs to reduce car use to be a success. It's primarily about improving people's quality of life, offering an alternative to the crappy commute.